Talk:Work permit

Work permit for fiancee

is fincee visa holder can apply a work permit once she arrive in the u.s? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.213.126.139 (talk • contribs)

I'm not entirely sure, but I believe they can. Rackabello 21:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed information on UK work permits

I appreciate the addition of the information on the UK, but there's a page already covering this elsewhere in Wikipedia, and requirements can vary from one country to another. VivaBelgica2 09:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw that an earlier change I made was reverted. I think the link should be deleted as it's just an advertisement for the book; there is no usable information at the website. 67.168.65.207 22:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your information was clearly not relevant, and the information which you cite was not to be found on the US embassy website. Futhermore, the US information is only relevant to US citizens. The website in question served as the basis for the page for quite some time and is the source of the information, commercial or not. (VivaBelgicaBE 16:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Removed information and links on EU and country policies

Due to continued vandalism from CliffC and 67.168.65.207, information relating to other websites has been removed entirely. Should the two posters involved desire to actually contribute something to this page, instead of substituting links which have no information whatsoever about the topic on this page, then they are free to do so. (VivaBelgicaBE 01:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

After further discussion, the proper footnote will be put back in to show the original source of the information. (VivaBelgicaBE 02:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

VivaBelgicaBE, the changes you made are shown here. As pointed out when they were reverted, you substituted your commercial link for several links to United Nations and US Embassy sources. Please take a deep breath, read the policy links I and other editors have posted on your talk page, and stop spamming your site. Wikipedia is not a billboard. --CliffC 02:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my site. The footnotes which you and the other person put in have no relation whatsoever to the information posted on this page. In fact another link, was completely irrelevant. This is an issue of correct attribution and copyright, nothing else, and no one seems to be able to grasp that point. (VivaBelgicaBE 02:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'm looking at a report on Migration from the World Bank, at

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTECA/Resources/257896-1167856389505/Migration_Chapter1.pdf

and they're measuring the number of migrants by country. Germany came in third, which doesn't corroborate that link's assertion that Germany has relatively strict immigration laws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.65.207 (talk) 04:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added information on EU "Blue Card", country permit requirements

Hi, I'd just like to say that the US Embassy's information on the process of getting a work permit in Italy and Germany is clearly relevant to the page, as well as supporting the assertion that it's easier to get a work permit in Italy than in Germany. 67.168.65.207 02:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are irrelevant as they do not contain the information which 67.168.65.207 contends that they do. Substituting an original source, as one does not agree with the nature of it, for an irrelevant one which contains no info, is not what one would think as leading to good practice. (VivaBelgicaBE 18:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Refactored page

I have refactored this page to make it easier to follow:

put comments in chronological order
added section titles
added standard indentation.

If you don't like the title I gave a section you started, feel free to change it. --CliffC 04:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Violations

I will write to the copyright holder about 67.168.65.207's continued problem with copyright violations and ongoing spamming on unrelated links to the original content. (VivaBelgicaBE 11:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It's not spam to post links to governments' websites regarding their work permit system and process. What are the copyright issues? 67.168.65.207 16:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia takes copyright law very seriously. All editors should be familiar with WP:COPY, and particularly in this case the section WP:COPY#If you find a copyright infringement. --CliffC 17:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page violates Wikipedia’s stated copyright rules. I have tried to blank the text, but others have threatened to ban me for having done so.

The problem with the page stems from a poster, identified by IP number 67.168.65.207. He seems to have a grudge against the source of the original information, and has repeatedly substituted the correct footnote attribution with unrelated sites which do not contain information remotely related to the text found on the work permits page. (You can see from the history that the text on the work permit page that the copyright holder placed it there, and that it mirrors text found at http://www.diyexpat.com/visa%20guide/workpermits.html.)

67.168.65.207 has tried to state that there is no copyright or to “paraphrase” part of the text, without substantially adding anything. In fact, his additions are completely false and unattributed.

67.168.65.207 has said that he is against commercial links, however, he removed the link on the following page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Germany, (substituting a footnote of unrelated material for the same footnote as at the work permit page) but left two commercially-related links on the page. This indicates not only bias but harassment.

Suggest that both 67.168.65.207’s addition to the work permits and immigration to Germany pages be removed, and that he be banned from making further changes. (VivaBelgicaBE 22:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, I noticed we still have this text:

European countries may also have political or economic targets in controlling the number of work permits given out. For example, the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Germany, France and Belgium have relatively strict criteria. Italy and Spain, on the other hand, may show more flexibility in certain areas deemed important for the local economy. These work permits often go by different names, although they may carry work permission, as a work permit does

which is from the web page that VivaBelgicaBE links to. I suspect this is the problem s/he's talking about.

I'm comfortable deleting it or rephrasing it. I am concerned that the link doesn't support how Italy and Spain are more flexible than the other countries named in terms of work permits. Belgium's been a center of international business for a long time and my understanding is that it's much easier to get a work permit there than in Italy or Spain. Likewise, both the UK and the Netherlands have traditionally experienced high levels of skilled immigration. Italy has a more decentralized implementation of their immigration policy, leaving many decisions up to the different regions, but overall I'd say having a different process for each region makes it more difficult, not less.

Germany, however, is an excellent example of a country with difficult immigration laws, and there are other resources that more articulately present that arguement. For example from, Der Spiegel:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,502786,00.html

67.168.65.207 02:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]