Response to a recent blog comment
My response to a recent blog comment is below:
———–
Granting the illegal aliens and undocumented workers papers to stay is rewarding them for breaking our immigration law. Keeping them for cheap labor is false economy because they caused an enormous economic burden to the tax payers. Once they have papers to work and stay, they will demand the minimum wage or higher, and demand for any form of welfare services they can get.
– Anonymous
———-
I don’t believe it is possible to find hard evidence that proves that undocumented workers cause ‘an enormous economic burden’ to the US tax payer. Due to the emotional nature of the issue, and because there exist many unknown variables (the exact number of undocumented people in the US for example), burden/benefit estimates necessarily incorporate subjective presumptions. For example, I believe that the work that these workers do is in itself an enormous contribution to the American economy. In fact, several large American industries would collapse without these workers.
It is obvious that undocumented workers do not or cannot avail themselves of the substantial majority of benefits available for Americans. Furthermore, the costs of services that they may happen to utilize (school services for their children – who may well be US Citizens, ER rooms for traumatic injuries, etc) are exponentially outweighed both in numbers and proportion by US Citizens on welfare or other form of public assistance. Undocumented workers pay for their own food, clothing, rent, vehicles, gas, routine medical checkups and other services without the benefits of public assistance. Said money directly and indirectly benefits a large number of individuals/companies, most particularly the provider of the goods or services and the US economy in general (for example, the provider of the goods or services pays taxes on the income, jobs are created and maintained).
Finally, it is apparent that undocumented workers would be happy to pay more than their fair share of taxes/fees; even social security (to which they will likely never have access), if they were able to do so without fear. I am of the belief that the vast majority of undocumented individuals are motivated by a burning desire to create a better life for themselves and their family through honest and hard work – therefore I do not believe that they would, as you mentioned “demand…any form of welfare services that they can get”. There is no reason why they should not excel in the US if given an opportunity, perhaps in the form of a guest-worker status. The US economy and tax base would also stand to gain in the tens of billions every year. This fund could be used to help implement proper immigration policy/border policing & supplement Medicare and social security.
– Ashwin
As The H-1B Visa Cap Filled In Record Time, Reform Is In The Air
By Marianne Kolbasuk McGee
InformationWeek
For both critics and supporters of the H-1B visa, two days last week
revealed everything you need to know about the foreign worker program,
one of the most controversial topics in business technology.
In the first two days that the U.S. government accepted
applications for H-1B work visas, 133,000 envelopes poured in with
applications seeking 65,000 openings. The crush was enough that U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services cut off new applications, certain
the envelopes it had–many with multiple applications–would fill the
slots. It’s the fastest the application period has ever closed. Last
year, the cap was met May 26, the year before that in August.
H-1B visa supporters see the overflow as reason to raise the cap so
businesses can get the talent they need from abroad. Critics see the
queue as a mockery of what the H-1B is supposed to be. Instead of a
ticket for the supertalented to work in the United States, the visas
are being hoovered up, often by offshore outsourcing
companies that want to train workers on U.S. business and technology
practices so they’ll be better workers when they head home.
Does H-1B surge mean cap should be raised? – Via CNet News
By Anne Broache
VIA CNET News
This week’s record-setting avalanche of applications for H-1B visas is
undeniable. Now in dispute: what caused it and what should happen next.
On Tuesday, the U.S. government announced that this year’s limit on
H-1B visas had already been reached after only one day, the first time
in history the annual cap had been reached so quickly. Since 1990,
American employers have relied on the visas to hire skilled foreign
workers for up to six years, often in computer- or engineering-related
jobs.
The reason for the surge matters: Congress is expected to hold
hearings on raising the limit later this year, and will surely question
why the quota was reached so instantly. Technology companies argue the
surge is further proof that the quota must be increased, while
opponents say there are enough Americans to do those jobs already.
High-tech companies say the visas are critical to filling voids in
their workforces and have been lobbying for Congress to raise the cap,
which currently stands at 65,000 (but climbs just above 100,000 when a
number of exemptions are taken into account). Critics say the program
has depressed U.S. wages and put qualified Americans out of jobs.
For lawyers who counsel clients on how to apply for H-1Bs, the record-high 150,000 applications reportedly received by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
by Monday afternoon–the first day it began accepting them–was a
natural response to what they said is an ever-narrowing window in which
visas remain available.
H-1B Quota Exceeded On First Day of Filing, AILA Issues Response
April 3, 2007
VIA AILA.ORG
CONTACT: George Tzamaras
202-216-2410
WASHINGTON, DC, April 3 – Illustrating the inadequacy of the quota
for specialized H-1B workers, USCIS announced today that it received
more applications than the 65,000 limit on April 2. April 2 was the
first day on which an employer could request a first-time visa for an
H-1B worker for the period that begins on October 1, 2007. Agency rules
state that if the limit is reached on the first day of filing, all
applications received on the first two days are put into a lottery to
determine who gets the relatively few visas that are available.
In the fiscal year now in effect, the supply of such visas lasted
less than eight weeks after the filing period opened. For the fiscal
year that starts October 1, 2007, the supply did not last through even
the first day. “Every year, the application window becomes shorter and
shorter, to the point that it is now practically non-existent,” said
Carlina Tapia-Ruano, President of the American Immigration Lawyers
Association. “These high-skilled workers help to keep our system
dynamic, and many sectors of the economy will suffer from this
shortage.”
The H-1B visa program is utilized by U.S. businesses and other
organizations to augment the existing labor force with foreign workers
in specialty occupations that require expertise in a specialized field.
Typical H-1B occupations include scientists, architects, engineers,
computer programmers, teachers, accountants, and doctors. H-1B workers
are admitted to the United States for an initial period of three years,
which may be extended for an additional three years.
“This absurd situation illustrates the disconnect between current
immigration policy and the needs of our economy,” concluded
Tapia-Ruano. “The best way to resolve this crisis is for Congress to
pass a comprehensive immigration reform measure as soon as possible.”
The American Immigration Lawyers Association is the national
association of immigration lawyers established to promote justice,
advocate for fair and reasonable immigration law and policy, advance
the quality of immigration and nationality law and practice, and
enhance the professional development of its members.
For more information contact George Tzamaras at 202-216-2410 or Brooke Hewson at 202-216-2435
US: To give or not to give more visas
Via ReDiffNews
By Peter Elstrom, BusinessWeek
March 15, 2007
The U.S. has begun a ferocious debate over
immigration. Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.)
have introduced legislation into the Senate for what they’re calling
comprehensive immigration reform, an ambitious effort to address
everything from illegal immigration from Mexico, and the estimated 12
million undocumented workers now in the country, to technology
companies’ request for more visas for programmers and engineers.
The
House is likely to follow with its own legislative effort. And
President George W. Bush has already said he supports immigration
reform.
Hopes are high that the reforms will actually become
law this year. Similar bills were proposed last year, passing in the
Senate before stalling in the House. Today, however, there may be more
common ground between Congress and the President, since the Democrats
who now control both houses are closer to Bush on the issue than some
Republicans.
- Immigration: The Lessons of History
- Educating Engineers for the New Market
- The World’s Happiest Countries
“The
prospects are very good,” says Robert Hoffman, vice-president for
government and public affairs at software giant Oracle, which has been
pushing for an overhaul of the current regulations.
Still,
there’s a risk that reform could suffer the same kind of defeat this
year as in 2006. While plenty of people are frustrated with the current
policies, it’s not clear that there is anything close to a consensus on
how to change them.
The most controversial part of the reform
effort is what to do about the 12 million undocumented workers already
in the country. The McCain-Kennedy legislation is expected to provide
those workers with a way to stay in the country under a temporary
worker program, if they pay certain penalties. Republican opponents in
the House object to any law that lets undocumented workers benefit from
coming into the country illegally.
“A Vote Tomorrow Would Pass”
Peter
King, a Republican representative from New York, is part of a group of
House Republicans who opposed the McCain-Kennedy bill last year. He
plans to fight this year’s legislation, too, if the provisions for
undocumented workers are similar. “My position has not changed,” he
says. “Once we start legalizing the people here, to me that’s amnesty.”
Even King says there’s probably support in Congress for an
immigration bill along the lines of last year’s effort. “If there were
a vote tomorrow, it would pass,” he says. But he thinks that Democrats
want assurances from the White House that enough Republicans would
support legislation that it would pass, so Democrats can call it a
bipartisan effort. “The White House will have to do this on their own,”
he says.
In advance of this year’s immigration legislation, BusinessWeek
talked to experts in academia, business, and beyond about the coming
battle. The idea was not to build support for a particular agenda or
political stance.
Rather, the goal was to press beyond the
partisan politics and grandstanding to collect fresh ideas from outside
the Beltway on the hotly contested topic. Here are a few of the more
intriguing thoughts and concerns on the eve of the debate.
Singular Economic Impact: A Myth
Most
people talk about the economic impact of immigration as if there were
only one kind, whether it’s good or bad. Paul Samuelson, the Nobel
Prize-winning economist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
says that’s a big mistake, one that can lead to misguided public
policy.
One important distinction, Samuelson says, is that
wealthier Americans tend to benefit from the current wave of
immigration while poorer Americans tend to suffer. A farmer in
California may benefit from the inexpensive labor of illegal
immigrants, while a construction worker in Texas sees fewer jobs and
lower pay.
A well-off suburban family may get lower-priced house
cleaning or lawn care, while an engineering student has fewer companies
offering positions. “There are obviously great advantages to the
winners socioeconomically to have immigrants doing work cheaply,” says
Samuelson.
This
isn’t necessarily an argument against immigration; rather, it makes the
point that immigration policies need to differentiate between the
people who benefit and the people who suffer.
Don’t Overlook the Highly Skilled
Most
of the attention in the immigration debate has been focused on the
low-skill workers who enter the country illegally. In contrast, the
programs for high-skill workers are getting relatively little
attention. There are, however, issues that experts say need to be
addressed with the policies for both temporary and permanent high-skill
workers.
One example is the H-1B program, which are temporary
visas allocated to people with specialized skills. Frustration with the
program has been building in recent years because there’s a cap of
65,000 visas (with some exceptions). This is down from 195,000 a few
years ago, and U.S. companies haven’t been able to hire as many foreign
workers as they would like.
The tech industry wants to boost that
number, and President Bush has said he fully supports an increase. “We
hit the cap in May almost two months after the applications opened,”
says Oracle’s Hoffman, who is also a spokesman for Compete America, a
group that advocates for more high-tech worker visas. Compete America’s
other members include Intel, Motorola, Texas Instruments, and
Hewlett-Packard.
But very little attention has been given to
the criteria for H-1B visas. While the program was set up to help tech
companies and others hire the workers they need, it appears that many
of the visas are not being used to that end. The most active applicants
for the visas are outsourcing companies, particularly those based in
India, including Infosys Technologies and Wipro.
Critics say the outsourcing firms may be using the H-1B program to facilitate the outsourcing of U.S. jobs to other countries.
In
addition, there have been reports that some companies pay H-1B workers
lower wages than their American counterparts. This is prohibited under
the program’s rules, but companies that participate are rarely, if
ever, audited. “If you had no chance of being audited by the IRS, how
honest would you be on your taxes?” says Ron Hira, a research associate
at the Economic Policy Institute and author of Outsourcing America. “I
think you can devise policies to address this issue.”
It’s not
just the temporary work visas for high-skill employees. Those seeking
green cards often have to wait years while they’re required to stay
with the same employer in the same job.
On Feb. 25, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates wrote an editorial in The Washington Post
on how to keep the U.S. competitive. A key point was making it easier
for U.S. companies to retain highly skilled professionals from other
countries. “These employees are vital to U.S. competitiveness, and we
should welcome their contribution to U.S. economic growth,” Gates
wrote.
Do We Need Comprehensive Reform?
Throughout
Washington, politicians and their staffs are focused on comprehensive
immigration reform, a push to address all the issues at once. One major
reason is a concern that if one group gets the changes it wants, that
group may stop pushing for reform elsewhere.
But this may end
up being a strategic mistake. Most of the political tension is over
what to do about illegal immigration and the undocumented workers in
this country. By comparison, the debate over highly skilled workers is
downright tame.
Robert Whitehill, chairman of the immigration
group at the Pittsburgh law firm Fox Rothschild, argues that it
probably would be easier to split the reforms in two. Whitehall
suggests it makes sense to address the high-skill workers first, where
the reforms are relatively simple.
“Why not go after the
low-hanging fruit?” he says. “I think they should.” He argues that the
cap for H-1B visas should be raised substantially, and that foreign
nationals who get masters or doctorate degrees in the U.S. in certain
specialties, such as engineering, should be automatically granted
residency.
“I think it would be in the best interests of the
country for these boys and girls to stay,” he says. He also says it’s
critical to speed up the process for temporary and permanent workers,
so they don’t wait years for their approvals.
Forget the Wall
Everyone
likes to talk about the wall between the U.S. and Mexico.
Anti-immigration politicians love to show how tough they’re getting on
illegals. Pro-immigrant forces use it to prove they take concerns over
illegal immigration seriously.
But what does all the talk about
the wall accomplish? Nothing, argues Tamar Jacoby, a senior fellow at
the Manhattan Institute, along with plenty of others outside of
politics.
Why? It is expensive and it doesn’t work. The wall with
Mexico can cost between $1 million and $10 million a mile, and it would
cost billions to cover a reasonable chunk of the border. And yet
immigrants from Mexico and other parts of Latin America continue to
slip through. “People are going to get here as long as they have
economic incentives to come,” says Jacoby. “The only real way to get
control is to recognize the reality of our economic needs for labor.”
Jacoby
is in favor of letting many more workers into the country to help boost
economic growth. But you don’t have to share her political stance to
share her disdain for the wall. It is, she argues, a symbol that’s
become a distraction.
Politicians argue about the wall instead of
addressing the tough questions, such as how to meet America’s economic
needs for more workers or how to stop the flow of illegal immigrants
who enter on tourist visas. “It’s like Prohibition or Victorian sex,”
Jacoby says. “If you pretend it doesn’t exist, you can’t control it.”
Put a Hold on the Politics
In
Washington, pundits say immigration reform has to get through Congress
before the end of 2007 to have any chance of passing. That’s because
the Presidential campaign of 2008 will kick into high gear after that,
curbing the chances of the politicians involved agreeing to any
legislation that could alienate potential voters.
Trouble is, the
2008 campaign is already heating up. The camps of Senators Hillary
Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) have already tussled, and so
many politicians from both parties have declared their interest in the
nomination that the bare-knuckle competition may begin much earlier
than anticipated.
That would be a shame, say those pushing for
reform. They hope the presidential candidates and other politicians
will put off the politics long enough to make a real push for new
legislation. “We want to make sure that our immigration laws are
consistent with our economic needs,” says Oracle’s Hoffman.
Lower the Volume
One
fresh idea has been around for a while, but it seems to keep getting
lost in the heated debate. Advocates on both sides say they want to
lower the debate’s volume, so they have a genuine chance to debate the
issues and perhaps reach a resolution.
That was a point Bush
raised last May when he gave a prime-time address on immigration.
“America needs to conduct this debate on immigration in a reasoned and
respectful tone,” he said at the time.
“Feelings run deep on this
issue — and as we work it out, all of us need to keep some things in
mind. We cannot build a unified country by inciting people to anger, or
playing on anyone’s fears, or exploiting the issue of immigration for
political gain. We must always remember that real lives will be
affected by our debates and decisions, and that every human being has
dignity and value no matter what their citizenship papers say.”
Time to expand H-1B visas
By Boston Herald editorial staff
Sunday, March 11, 2007
As
this state wrestles with the sorrowful aftermath of that immigration
raid in New Bedford, it’s a good time to remember that not all
immigrants – legal or illegal – slave away at sewing machines under
sweatshop conditions.
No,
many bring skill sets critical to keeping our high-tech economy growing
– many, but not nearly enough to fill the needs of American business.
This
past week no less an authority on the subject than Microsoft founder
Bill Gates appeared before Congress to plead for more visas for skilled
foreign workers. Currently only 65,000 such workers are allowed in a
year under the so-called H-1B visa program.
“Even though it may
not be realistic, I do not believe there should be any limit” on the
program, Gates told a hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor
and Pension Committee, chaired by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.
One
legislative proposal would increase the number to 300,000 and Gates
gave every indication those would be used up in a heartbeat. His own
firm has 3,000 available jobs that could be filled by foreign workers,
he said.
Sure,
it would be wonderful to think they could be filled by qualified U.S.
workers too. But that isn’t going to happen in the near-term without
vast improvements in public education. (Although on that score Gates,
through his foundation, has truly put his money where is mouth is.)
Too
often U.S. companies take an easier – and cheaper – way out. They
either outsource work to foreign companies or take their own operations
offshore, to places from India to Ireland where they can get the
skilled labor they need.
Unless
and until U.S. schools are turning out the kind of workforce this
nation’s corporations need to grow, there is no reason not to lift the
current limit on H-1B visas and thousands of reasons to do so.
How to Keep the U.S. Competitive – Washington Post Editorial by Microsoft’s Bill Gates
Article By Bill Gates
For centuries people assumed that economic growth resulted from the interplay between capital and labor. Today we know that these elements are outweighed by a single critical factor: innovation.
Innovation is the source of U.S. economic leadership and the foundation for our competitiveness in the global economy. Government investment in research, strong intellectual property laws and efficient capital markets are among the reasons that America has for decades been best at transforming new ideas into successful businesses.
The most important factor is our workforce. Scientists and engineers trained in U.S. universities — the world’s best — have pioneered key technologies such as the microprocessor, creating industries and generating millions of high-paying jobs.
But our status as the world’s center for new ideas cannot be taken for granted. Other governments are waking up to the vital role innovation plays in competitiveness.
This is not to say that the growing economic importance of countries such as China and India is bad. On the contrary, the world benefits as more people acquire the skills needed to foster innovation. But if we are to remain competitive, we need a workforce that consists of the world’s brightest minds.
Two steps are critical. First, we must demand strong schools so that young Americans enter the workforce with the math, science and problem-solving skills they need to succeed in the knowledge economy. We must also make it easier for foreign-born scientists and engineers to work for U.S. companies.
Education has always been the gateway to a better life in this country, and our primary and secondary schools were long considered the world’s best. But on an international math test in 2003, U.S. high school students ranked 24th out of 29 industrialized nations surveyed.
Our schools can do better. Last year, I visited High Tech High in San Diego; it’s an amazing school where educators have augmented traditional teaching methods with a rigorous, project-centered curriculum. Students there know they’re expected to go on to college. This combination is working: 100 percent of High Tech High graduates are accepted into college, and 29 percent major in math or science, compared with the national average of 17 percent.
To remain competitive in the global economy, we must build on the success of such schools and commit to an ambitious national agenda for education. Government and businesses can both play a role. Companies must advocate for strong education policies and work with schools to foster interest in science and mathematics and to provide an education that is relevant to the needs of business. Government must work with educators to reform schools and improve educational excellence.
American competitiveness also requires immigration reforms that reflect the importance of highly skilled foreign-born employees. Demand for specialized technical skills has long exceeded the supply of native-born workers with advanced degrees, and scientists and engineers from other countries fill this gap.
This issue has reached a crisis point. Computer science employment is growing by nearly 100,000 jobs annually. But at the same time studies show that there is a dramatic decline in the number of students graduating with computer science degrees.
The United States provides 65,000 temporary H-1B visas each year to make up this shortfall — not nearly enough to fill open technical positions.
Permanent residency regulations compound this problem. Temporary employees wait five years or longer for a green card. During that time they can’t change jobs, which limits their opportunities to contribute to their employer’s success and overall economic growth.
Last year, reform on this issue stalled as Congress struggled to address border security and undocumented immigration. As lawmakers grapple with those important issues once again, I urge them to support changes to the H-1B visa program that allow American businesses to hire foreign-born scientists and engineers when they can’t find the homegrown talent they need. This program has strong wage protections for U.S. workers: Like other companies, Microsoft pays H-1B and U.S. employees the same high levels — levels that exceed the government’s prevailing wage.
Reforming the green card program to make it easier to retain highly skilled professionals is also necessary. These employees are vital to U.S. competitiveness, and we should welcome their contribution to U.S. economic growth.
We should also encourage foreign students to stay here after they graduate. Half of this country’s doctoral candidates in computer science come from abroad. It’s not in our national interest to educate them here but send them home when they’ve completed their studies.
During the past 30 years, U.S. innovation has been the catalyst for the digital information revolution. If the United States is to remain a global economic leader, we must foster an environment that enables a new generation to dream up innovations, regardless of where they were born. Talent in this country is not the problem — the issue is political will.
The writer is chairman of Microsoft Corp. and co-chairman of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. His wife is a director of The Washington Post Co.
High cost of U.S. citizenship could exact high price
Karen has been in the United States for three years. She has applied for a work permit four times, paying almost $300 each time, including the cost of all the documents required.
Her petition always has been denied. She works – without a permit – as a waitress in Miami, earning $300 a week.
If she were to qualify for citizenship, she wouldn’t hesitate to make the sacrifice, work extra hours and pay the high cost of becoming an American.
If her petition were denied again, it would take a toll on her finances and her spirit.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officials have announced their intent to significantly raise the price for services.
If approved by Congress, the price of a work permit would go from $180 to $340. Permanent residency costs would almost triple, from $325 to $905, and citizenship applications would go from $330 to $595.
The immigration service doesn’t receive funds from Congress. It’s supported almost entirely by applicants.
In 2006, there were 823,000 petitions filed for citizenship and 806,000 for permanent residency.
There are approximately 8 million legal residents in the country who are eligible to become U.S. citizens. So immigration service officials are poised to make plenty of money from potential new clients.
Before implementing such changes, agency officials have opened the process to public opinion for 60 days.
They didn’t have to wait long to have the proposed hike come under a storm of criticism.
Immigration advocates complain it’s unacceptable and excessive. It will become one more obstacle for immigrants who want to legalize their status, they say.
It could prevent immigrants from applying for citizenship and make them lose out on the right to vote in 2008.
Excessive? Perhaps. Especially if you’re surviving on the minimum wage. Suppose a person, like Karen the waitress, would be willing to do whatever is necessary to become a legal resident or U.S. citizen, the new price increase wouldn’t benefit her in any way or improve her chances of getting it, for now.
Immigration service officials claim the higher fees will help it provide better service, better treatment and shorter waiting time for the applicants.
It would allow them to hire more personnel and acquire better technology and, subsequently, speed up the process.
They say citizenship claims will be processed in five months instead of seven, and residency in four months instead of six.
The problem is the “new and improved” services wouldn’t kick in until 2009.
Jorge Rivera, an immigration attorney in Miami, said the average wait is a lot longer than the immigration service claims.
“You have to add to those six or seven months the time it takes to do a background check,” he said. “If your name just happens to be similar to that of someone with a criminal background or (you) live in a city with a high number of applicants, you are looking at years and years of waiting for residency or citizenship.”
Members of the American Immigration Lawyers Association are appalled by the proposal to increase the rates.
It’s unacceptable, they say, to promise a 20 percent improvement in processing times by the end of 2009 and ask applicants to pay approximately 66 percent more for services they most likely will not be receiving.
“They are charging immigrants not only to process applications but for the agency’s overhead and for law enforcement activities such as investigations and security checks,” the association added in a written statement.
Members of Congress need to take a serious look at this price hike.
The fees already have been increased – or “adjusted,” as they like to call it – four times in the past decade.
Immigrants from all over the world are willing to pay the high price of becoming Americans, but they shouldn’t have to support a U.S. agency, especially when the great majority already are helping support this country with their work, taxes and as consumers.
The federal government should help subsidize the cost of the immigration process instead of making immigrants pay now for services someone else might receive in the future.
Salinas hosts “Noticieros Univision.” Her Web site is http://www.mariaesalinas.com.
The 110th Congress and Immigration Reform
Author: Robert McMahon, Deputy Editor
Counsel on Foreign Relations
Introduction
The
country’s immigration system, assailed by all sides as inadequate,
generated intense congressional debate in 2006. However, widely
divergent approaches by the House of Representatives and the Senate
doomed efforts at comprehensive reform. Democrats, now in leadership
positions in the 110th Congress, say they will attempt to revive
efforts at comprehensive immigration reform with measures that
encompass temporary work provisions, a path to citizenship for illegal
aliens in the country, as well as bolstered security at the border.
President Bush and a number of Senate Republicans share common ground
with Democrats on many key aspects of immigration reform, including
efforts to legalize many of the estimated twelve million illegal
immigrants in the country. Congressional Republicans opposed to such
moves, though diminished in numbers since the 2006 election, have vowed
to fight any attempt at what they term an amnesty for workers who break
the law.
Round 3: H-1B Battle – American engineers vs. senior Democrats!
By Dino Perrotti on Sun, 02/11/2007 – 6:56pm
Leading
Democrats struck American engineers with a powerful left-left combo
before the opening bell of round 3 of the H-1B battle. Senator Kerry
(D-MA) and Senator Kennedy (D-MA) attempted to secretly add an amendment to
the Minimum Wage bill last week. This earmark would have massively
increased the H-1B cap and could have dealt a death blow to countless
engineering careers across the country. With the immigration bill
still months away, two senior Democrats stepped into the ring to
demonstrate where their allegiance lies. It looks like it may be
“curtains” for the engineers of America.
First, senior Republican Senators Cornyn and Shadegg secretly
attempted to earmark an H-1B increase into the India-Nuke bill. Now,
senior Democratic Senators Kerry and Kennedy secretly attempt to do the
same with the Minimum Wage bill. The President campaigns in favor of
expanding the program while his administration has not been enforcing
the current cap.
For the last several years, ordinary citizens have been begging the
government to reform the program, yet their voices are muted by those
in power. Why would all of these Senators secretly attempt to amend
H-1B provisions onto bills which are completely unassociated with
immigration? It would appear to the average voter that tech company
lobbyists wield unimaginable influence and control over the very
highest levels of our government.
It looks like a duck
It hardly seems necessary to even continue this battle. After all, the
fight is fixed. The H-1B cap has not been enforced under this
administration, so why would Kerry and Kennedy bother to attack
middle-class engineers when they are already de facto defeated?
The Democrats are supposed to be attempting to reach out to the
middle-class by raising the minimum wage. The truth is that the
minimum wage only affects people living at the poverty level. It
should be raised, but so should the salaries of America’s
professionals, who are feeling squeezed by politics such as this.
Engineering salaries have been stagnant for the last decade due to the
H-1B law and outsourcing.
Why would these two senior Democrats make the same “secret” move
that the senior Republicans just tried? Perhaps members of both
parties are competing for those huge tech company campaign
contributions but do not want the public to know about their actions.
This leads us to confront the ugly question of whether legal variations
of graft have deeply infected both major parties. If that is true,
then who can you trust?
Who do you vote for when the most powerful members of both major
parties are equally trying to destroy your livelihood? It seems that
the days of voting straight down the line for one party or the other
are over for U.S. citizens. Americans will have to pay closer
attention to the specific positions that each candidate supports and
votes for. Americans will also have to pay closer attention to the
flow of campaign contributions to political candidates. And it is not
easy to track all the players in this congressional battle.
Let’s get ready to rumblllllllllllll…!
In one corner are the tech companies and their highly paid lobbyists
who want to dramatically increase the H-1B cap without considering any
reform at all. They’re represented by some of the most powerful
members of our government who support expanding the H-1B visa program
as it is. They are:
President Bush (R-TX)
Senator Cornyn (R-TX)
Senator Shadegg (R-AZ)
Senator Kerry (D-MA)
Senator Kennedy (D-MA)
Senator Specter (R-PA)
Senator Boehner (R-OH)
In the other corner are American engineers and informed middle-class
voters who want intelligent immigration reform. They are represented
by a minority of members of both parties who are against expanding the
H-1B visa program without reforming it first. They are:
Senator Webb (D-VA)
Senator Tancredo (R-CO)
Congessman Pascrell (D-NJ)
It looks like the odds of American engineers winning this fight are
microscopically low. Dazed and confounded by the pervasive power of
their opponents, they stand wearily in the middle of the ring, as if to
simply prove they’re still there. If there are no more underhanded
attempts to earmark any other bills, the fight will be won or lost
fairly in the immigration reform bill coming up in congress. The
Judiciary committees of the House and Senate are responsible for
drafting any reform or adjustment to the cap.
Apocalypse Soon: The Judiciary Committee battles
If the House of Representatives members
are not sympathetic to this cause, all may be lost. If they increase
the cap, and the Senate follows suit, engineers may again be forced out
of their jobs and out of their professions. If that happens, American
engineering careers will be knocked out for good. American students
will be discouraged further from entering math and engineering fields.
Tech companies will get their cheap labor and America will have lost
her soul. The stakes could not be any higher.
Many new House members are largely unaware that there are H-1B
problems. Voters in the states listed below have the most power to
influence the first draft of the H-1B immigration reform bill. Anyone
who lives in one of these states and wants to be a part of this fight,
should contact their representatives. These are the states with the most House members in the Judiciary Committee:
Florida
Hon. Wasserman Schultz (D)
Hon. Keller (R)
Hon. Wexler (D)
Hon. Feeney (R)
California
Hon. Berman (D)
Hon. Lofgren (D)
Hon. Waters (D)
Hon. Sánchez (D)
Hon. Sherman (D)
Hon. Schiff (D)
Hon. Gallegly (R)
Hon. Lungren (R)
Hon. Issa (R)
Virginia
Hon. Boucher (D)
Hon. Goodlatte (R)
Hon. Scott (D)
Hon. Forbes (R)This is a list of members of the Senate Judiciary Committee:
Patrick J. Leahy, CHAIRMAN (D-VT)
Arlen Specter, RANKING MEMBER, (R-PA)
Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA)
Charles E. Schumer (D-NY)
Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE)
Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT)
Herb Kohl (D-WI)
Russell D. Feingold (D-WI)
Charles E. Grassley (R-IA)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Richard J. Durbin (D-IL)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD)
Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
The above men and women are the political warriors who will decide
the fate of the next major H-1B battle. It doesn’t look good for
engineers. Many of the members of these commitees are highly funded by
tech company lobbyists. However, new members of congress who may not
be members of this committee, but have broad support among voters, may
also become powerful players in this battle.
Mr. Webb goes to Washington
Is there any member of congress who has the “right stuff” to make a
difference in Washington? Is there an American who has the proper
qualifications, someone who is not beholden to special interests
groups, and someone we can trust? One person is newly elected Senator
Jim Webb, an intelligent military man with a son in Iraq and a genuine
concern for the middle-class. He does not believe in the myth of the
high-skilled labor shortage and wants to reform the H-1B program. He
may soon become a leader in congress and his honor is beyond reproach.
Jim Webb is proof that elections can be won without receiving massive
campaign contributions from special interests groups.
Senator Webb showed his mettle when, instead of getting seduced by
President Bush’s presence, he confronted the president on the Iraq
war. The President insisted on asking Webb about his son, who is
currently serving in Iraq. “That’s between me and my boy Mr.
President”, Webb told the the President. At that moment, Senator Webb
sent a message to senior members of the government that he is there to
do the people’s business. With a few more people like Jim Webb,
Americans might actually be able to wrestle back control of the country
from the tight grips of big business.
Round 3: Fight recap
So to recap, the tech companies have in their corner, the President and
most senior members of congress. American engineers have in their
corner, only a few newer members of congress, a few awakening news
outlets, and an active grass-roots movement.
American engineers may want to just throw in the towel and begin to
look for other types of work at this point. But the fight’s not over
yet, in fact, this may actually be a victory for American engineers and
other high-skilled professionals. If the Minimum Wage bill passes
without another attempt to slip in an H-1B provision, then American
engineers and the middle-class will win this round. The larger battle
may still seem all but lost, but American engineers have a
not-so-secret weapon of their own.
Right makes might
American engineers may have one indomitable defense in this brawl.
They have the moral high ground. It’s hard to beat a fighter who’s
fighting for a just cause. Many government reports
have reported continuing abuse and corruption within the H-1B visa
program. Many victims of abuse and experts in the field have testified
to congress about such abuses in the system. Millions of Americans
empathize with this battle as part of a larger war on the
middle-class. It will be difficult for politicians to face their
voters, debating in favor of blindly expanding this program.
Eventually enough voters will become informed and elect new leaders
accordingly. Then maybe graft will be eliminated or at least
marginalized in our government.
Dubai Ports + amnesty = H-1B
Like the Dubai Ports deal, this is a major homeland security concern
that does not sit well with the public. Like the Amnesty bill proposed
last year, this issue pits the will of the voters against the actions
of their representatives. Voters are getting frustrated with the
hypocritical actions within their government. How can politicians talk
about a war on terror while they remain mute about hundreds of
thousands of visas from the Middle-East and Southeast Asia which are
rubber-stamped by the department of immigration and homeland security
each year? How can they blatently state there is a skilled labor
shortage when so many experts in the business say none exists? It is mind-boggling to the average person.
The H-1B debate is shaping up to be ground zero for the larger
immigration battle soon to come. That is, of course if the debate is
allowed to openly take place.
Stay tuned for more fight coverage.
Commentary – “Don’t foment hate; address roots of immigration problems”
Interesting article by Immigration lawyer Ricardo Skerrett.
An excerpt;
“Recent anti-immigrant letters are an example of how misinformation can slant and misguide public opinion on an issue that has different angles.
Sadly, this is becoming a hate issue to the extreme that many would go as far as negating undocumented immigrants a basic right upon which our nation is founded: the due process of law.
Even foreign nationals who are not citizens enjoy basic due process rights, including the right to counsel, to confront witnesses and to a fair and impartial hearing. This is what has made our form of government so unique, so great and a source of inspiration throughout the world. “
The U.S. Immigration Law Blog by Ashwin Sharma 
Answering reader mail: INA Section 214(b) issues in applying for Visitor/Student visas
INA Section 214(b) issues in applying for Visitor/Student visas
Dear Ashwin,
I wanted to bring my brother over to the US for Diwali, and I sent an invitation letter, but the consulate in Chennai turned him away. What do the consular officers look for in these situations, and what should we watch out for the next time I try to get a visitor’s visa for brother or parents? When can I reapply for him?
Lakshmi
Dear Lakshmi,
Section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) states: “Every alien shall be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer, at the time of application for admission, that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status…” In short, this section of the INA presumes every applicant for a visa to America intends to eventually reside in America. It is the burden of each applicant to demonstrate that this is not the case – that they only intend to visit America for a short duration. In qualifying for B (Visitor) F (Student) or J (Exchange Visitor) visas, an applicant must demonstrate compliance with this section of the law. Most refusals concern the requirement that the applicant possess or maintain a residence abroad that he has no intention of abandoning. Applicants thereby demonstrate that they have ties abroad that would compel them to leave the U.S. at the end of the temporary stay. The INA places this burden of proof squarely on the applicant. (Note that these requirement do not apply to H or L Visa holders who may maintain ‘dual-intent’).
Consular officers have the last word in deciding who may enter the US and evaluate each applicant for a non-dual-intent visa (B, F, J among others) to determine whether the applicant has strong ties abroad. Some examples of ties can be a job, a house, a family, and a bank account. These ties bind you to your home country and demonstrate that you will return after your trip to America. Despite the fact that consular officers attempt to provide a case-specific evaluation, they have limited time allotted to each client. It is imperative that you have a well documented and organized petition which demonstrates the strength of your applicant’s case by providing evidence of the applicant’s strong ties. Unfortunately, as you can imagine, these requirements are somewhat harder to prove for younger applicants.
You should also attempt to provide documentation of why the visa applicant is coming to the United States. Temporary trips of a short duration (less than six months) for a specified period of time with a clearly defined start and end date (such as a marriage or graduation) are more likely to be approved. Remember that an invitation letter and evidence of funds of the American ‘sponsor’ are of limited benefit to the applicant – the consular officer is mainly concerned with the qualifications of the applicant themselves.
Your brother can attempt to enter the US again since a denial under section 214(b) is not permanent, however, the more times an individual is turned down the harder it becomes to become eligible for subsequent approvals. The consular officer will only reconsider a case if an applicant can show further convincing evidence of ties outside the United States. The applicant’s situation must have substantially changed since the last application. Demonstration of strong ties is still key.