Incorrectomundo. The FL SC got it wrong. Throughout legal precedent, when there have been two statutes, one saying you must do x the other saying you must finish by y, the time-limit has always been enforced. If you respect Ruth Bader-Ginsburg as principled, then how do you explain her being part of the unanimous decision?
I was unclear. It is an exchange visa, but it is frequently used as a 3-year work permit. It certainly was treated that way in the government. (Post-Docs got paid $24k a year.)
Oh yeah, I forgot. The J-1 visa is a three-year work permit that has the requirement that the subject return to their home country for a period of five years before applying for any sort of work permit here in the US. Despite what you may have heard, it is damn near impossible to transfer from J-1 to H-1. Even in the government the INS would tell us to shove off. Don't get on a J-1 except as a last, desperate resort.
I used to work administering foreign scientist visas for the government, the plurality of whom were here on F-1's (aka student visa) first.
Generally, an F-1 does allow a year's employment post-grad, and the easiest way to ensure success is to go to on-campus job fairs and try to secure a job based on the F-1, and negotiate a transition to H-1 when you have a chance. H-1b's had the unfortunate restriction that it was tied to a given job, and that if you lost the job, even through no fault of your own, you had to try to get another one from a new employer. If you were laid off or fired, then you have so little time you may as well just pack your bags. Lastly, if a green card was your final goal, the clock started over. This was the equivalent as indentured servitude.
It's my understanding that H1's are now transferrable between employers, but I have not substantiated that rumor.
There are so many variables involved that it is impossible to give sound, accurate advice without knowing the case history of a given person. In addition, the laws change almost as frequently as the seasons, so always check with a reputable immigration attourney.
Lastly, in the early '90's congress got tired of people marrying for green cards, so that is no longer good enough. DO NOT get married. It is NOT a ticket to permanent residancy anymore. Depending on the INS official, they will either say, "that's nice, what else have you got?" or "that's nice. Go home."
I think it's pretty close to universally accepted to geeks that making ISP's liable for content is a Bad Thing. While some cases are less clear than others (Napster is a less obvious dilineation than AOL:Germany being guilty of child porno because someone in alt.binaries.pictures.erotic.adults posted a pic of a nude kid), it is to the latter case I referred as a ruling being short-sighted.
We do not live in Slashdot, much as that may be an attractive notion. For example, I emailed Katz's column to eight non-geek friends and family members.
The problem is that the very accessibility of the 'net is working against it. To apply one of the concepts of the Matrix, people are so inured with the values and rules of realworld society that they are not prepared to plug-in, and some will never be able to accept the freedoms that we enjoy.
My greatest fear is that the Golden Age of the Internet has peaked and the decline started roughly with the Metallica/Napster fiasco and the various short-sited and ill-informed rulings making ISPs liable for content, undoubtedly knee-jerk reactions by judges who would be lucky to have a computer much less a net connection.
There will always be people of the bible-thumping variety who always seem to forget the more sublime messages therein who will be offended by the very concept of complete freedom. There will also be those who grow up learning a set of rules and have become so inflexible that the notion that something, "does not follow the rules," is enough to make their heads explode (society collects these people into neat groups and put into rooms with "human resources" signs on the doors.)
The question is how to either enlighten these people, or prevent them from damaging our freedoms.
I view Jon Katz's articles as eloquent ways of phrasing our collective points of view that is readily understandable by the technology luddites that are now flooding the internet. He is giving us powerful words to use with the non-geek so that they might understand. That's what he is doing.
Slashdot Mirror
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
How many times have you heard EITHER side say, "The constitution doesn't give you that right and so therefore it isn't a right"?
Incorrectomundo. The FL SC got it wrong. Throughout legal precedent, when there have been two statutes, one saying you must do x the other saying you must finish by y, the time-limit has always been enforced. If you respect Ruth Bader-Ginsburg as principled, then how do you explain her being part of the unanimous decision?
I was unclear. It is an exchange visa, but it is frequently used as a 3-year work permit. It certainly was treated that way in the government. (Post-Docs got paid $24k a year.)
Oh yeah, I forgot. The J-1 visa is a three-year work permit that has the requirement that the subject return to their home country for a period of five years before applying for any sort of work permit here in the US. Despite what you may have heard, it is damn near impossible to transfer from J-1 to H-1. Even in the government the INS would tell us to shove off. Don't get on a J-1 except as a last, desperate resort.
Generally, an F-1 does allow a year's employment post-grad, and the easiest way to ensure success is to go to on-campus job fairs and try to secure a job based on the F-1, and negotiate a transition to H-1 when you have a chance. H-1b's had the unfortunate restriction that it was tied to a given job, and that if you lost the job, even through no fault of your own, you had to try to get another one from a new employer. If you were laid off or fired, then you have so little time you may as well just pack your bags. Lastly, if a green card was your final goal, the clock started over. This was the equivalent as indentured servitude.
It's my understanding that H1's are now transferrable between employers, but I have not substantiated that rumor.
There are so many variables involved that it is impossible to give sound, accurate advice without knowing the case history of a given person. In addition, the laws change almost as frequently as the seasons, so always check with a reputable immigration attourney.
Lastly, in the early '90's congress got tired of people marrying for green cards, so that is no longer good enough. DO NOT get married. It is NOT a ticket to permanent residancy anymore. Depending on the INS official, they will either say, "that's nice, what else have you got?" or "that's nice. Go home."
I think it's pretty close to universally accepted to geeks that making ISP's liable for content is a Bad Thing. While some cases are less clear than others (Napster is a less obvious dilineation than AOL:Germany being guilty of child porno because someone in alt.binaries.pictures.erotic.adults posted a pic of a nude kid), it is to the latter case I referred as a ruling being short-sighted.
We do not live in Slashdot, much as that may be an attractive notion. For example, I emailed Katz's column to eight non-geek friends and family members.
My greatest fear is that the Golden Age of the Internet has peaked and the decline started roughly with the Metallica/Napster fiasco and the various short-sited and ill-informed rulings making ISPs liable for content, undoubtedly knee-jerk reactions by judges who would be lucky to have a computer much less a net connection.
There will always be people of the bible-thumping variety who always seem to forget the more sublime messages therein who will be offended by the very concept of complete freedom. There will also be those who grow up learning a set of rules and have become so inflexible that the notion that something, "does not follow the rules," is enough to make their heads explode (society collects these people into neat groups and put into rooms with "human resources" signs on the doors.)
The question is how to either enlighten these people, or prevent them from damaging our freedoms.
I view Jon Katz's articles as eloquent ways of phrasing our collective points of view that is readily understandable by the technology luddites that are now flooding the internet. He is giving us powerful words to use with the non-geek so that they might understand. That's what he is doing.