Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 23:24:35 -0700 From: Norm Matloff To: Norm Matloff Subject: lame-duck H-1B action appears more and more likely To: H-1B/L-1/offshoring e-newsletter Congress is at the end of its current session, but it will have a "lame duck" session after the elections. There has been some speculation that they will enact H-1B/green card legislation during the lame duck session, when there is less public scrutiny. Generally speaking, the more you see mention of this kind of thing in the press, the more likely it is to occur. The enclosed article quotes an Intel representative regarding this, and recently another article had a Microsoft rep saying something similar, and in fact stronger (http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/Archive/SKILAct.txt)/ The last H-1B increase, which added a special 20,000-visa category for foreign nationals with a graduate degree from a U.S. university, was also enacted in a lame duck session, in 2004. (A much lesser-known feature of that legislation, long sought by immigration attorneys, also made it even easier for employers to pay H-1Bs below-market wages.) I believe that legislation will indeed be enacted during lame duck time. Specifically, I believe that: the general H-1B cap will be raised for a temporary period of time; 20,000 category mentioned above will be changed so that it has no cap; most of the Masters/PhD green card SKIL bill will be implemented. I think passage of the graduate-degree-related provisions is a near certainty. Readers of this e-newsletter know that I don't support those provisions at all; see my CIS article, www.cis.org/articles/2001/back301.html for my analysis of why those measures are unnecessary and harmful. But it has become the conventional wisdom in DC, not just in Congress but also in the press, in think tanks and so on that we "need" all the foreign students who come here for graduate school, and thus there is a lot of support for any legislation aimed at making it more attractive for foreign students to come here for study and then stay permanently. As I've mentioned, even an academic who has been critical of the H-1B program, Richard Freeman of Harvard, has been talking along these lines, and I know of several other immigration researchers whom I suspect feel that way. I rarely talk to people on the Hill, but I did call a staffer whom I know a few months ago concerning this issue. I specifically asked about the proposed F-4 visa for foreign students, which would be a fast track (though, tellingly, not THAT fast) route to a green card. The staffer was quite surprised that I would mention it, as she considered it an entirely different issue than H-1B. I of course consider them to be the same issue, but the fact that she viewed them as being unrelated again tells me that this legislation is coming, and in fact is probably already informally agreed to, a done deal. As an aside, I feel compelled to comment on the reporter's choice of phrasing in the enclosed article, as I have done on another recent article of hers. Before I say something negative, let me say something positive: Though it won't sound like it below, I am one of Ms. Kalita's fans. I've always enjoyed talking to her when she has interviewed me, and I'm not embarrassed to say that I went out and bought a copy of her book, Suburban Sahibs: Three Immigrant Families and Their Passage from India to America," the minute it came out. (It's an excellent book, by the way.) But I feel something happened to her when she went from Newsday to the Washington Post--she became "PC." I don't know if that is cause-and-effect or just a coincidental juxtaposition of events in time, but I do believe she has changed. Take for example this passage: # A few professional associations and anti-immigrant groups oppose # expanding the skilled-worker programs, contending that they can # depress wages, but the programs have historically drawn support from # both political parties. The phrase "anti-immigrant" is unfair and unprofessional. A desire to tighten up immigration policy doesn't mean one is "anti-immigrant." I like chocolate cake, but I know that too much of it is bad for me. Similarly, if immigrants enter, say, California, faster than we can develop infrastructure to accommodate them, then it makes things a lot more difficult for the people who are already here. Note that I said, "the people who are already here," rather than natives. Yet Ms. Kalita insists on making it a native-vs.-foreign born issue, as she also does in another passage: # For years, many of the country's largest technology companies and # most prestigious research laboratories have said they are unable to # find enough U.S.-born scientists and similar workers to fill their # openings. They have depended on the H-1B visa to bring overseas # talent into the United States. The companies also sponsor such # skilled workers for green cards, which allow them to live and work # here permanently. There are lots of earlier immigrants (including earlier H-1Bs) who are adversely impacted by the H-1B program, just as there are lots of natives in the same boat. And many people, native and immigrant alike, who USED TO work for "the country's largest technology companies and most prestigious research laboratories" can't even get interviews, let alone jobs, in those same places, because those employers want to hire the young and cheap. I've tried to explain these issues to Mitra, but her response has been that though immigration reform groups say that they are not anti-immigrant, this is not what they mean. Sorry, but to me this kind of comment is an indicator of loss of objectivity, a sign that the speaker mixes only with people with one particular point of view, Finally, a word on the recurring theme of the article that the H-1Bs are "the best and the brightest." Some of them in fact are, and I have championed many of them to get jobs and green cards in the U.S. I believe it is correct that say, for instance, that at least two of my faculty colleagues (one Chinese and one Indian) would not be with us if not for my intense insistence that my department hire them. (Both have turned out to be outstanding successes.) I've helped a number of brilliant foreign students get jobs and green cards in Silicon Valley. But only a tiny minority of H-1Bs are "the best and the brightest." See my CIS article above, or for more detail my article in the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform (http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/ MichJLawReform.pdf) for my analysis showing this. And as to Andy Grove, he is a remarkable businessman, but he is not a testimonial to the H-1B program. He came here as a family immigrant, not as an H-1B. His contribution to Intel was primarily as a businessman, not as a technologist. He was not a co-founder of Intel. And believe it or not, the computer industry would have progressed a lot faster if IBM had chosen some other processor chip, say Motorola's, for its PC in the early 80s. Norm www.washingtonpost.com_wp-dyn_content_article_2006_09_27_AR2006092701996_pf.html Visas for Skilled Workers Still Frozen By S. Mitra Kalita Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, September 28, 2006; A12 For technology companies and research institutions that have spent recent autumns lobbying for permission to hire more foreign workers, this was supposed to be the year that ended the annual rite of desperation. A bill that passed the Senate this spring would have doubled the number of visas issued every year for highly skilled professionals, such as scientists and engineers. And it would have helped clear a backlog of applications for permanent residency from such workers. But the attempt by Congress to rewrite the nation's immigration laws has bogged down in controversy over border security and illegal immigration. That means changes in the skilled-worker programs, while less controversial, are also in limbo. With Congress due to recess tomorrow, advocates of the programs have given up on winning immediate change. Now they're hoping members of Congress will focus on the issue in the lame-duck session late this year. "It is incredibly difficult to pass major legislative reforms in any areas, and they tried to bite off a lot," said Jenifer Verdery, a policy director for Intel Corp., which has lobbied for more skilled foreign workers. "We've made a strong case, and we're hoping to take that to the finish line . . . if there is any policymaking left to do after the election." For years, many of the country's largest technology companies and most prestigious research laboratories have said they are unable to find enough U.S.-born scientists and similar workers to fill their openings. They have depended on the H-1B visa to bring overseas talent into the United States. The companies also sponsor such skilled workers for green cards, which allow them to live and work here permanently. But only 65,000 H-1B visas are issued each year, and demand has been so high recently that all of them are taken instantaneously -- mostly with tech workers from India and China. People from those countries also face among the longest waits for green cards. The Senate plan would have nearly doubled the H-1B quota to 115,000 a year, and it would have helped clear a backlog of green-card applications. The technology industry mounted a huge push on the issue this year. Microsoft Corp. Chairman Bill Gates met with members of Congress. A group of computer programmers hired a lobbying firm. An industry coalition handed out fake green cards imprinted with their demands. A few professional associations and anti-immigrant groups oppose expanding the skilled-worker programs, contending that they can depress wages, but the programs have historically drawn support from both political parties. At Microsoft, H-1B and green card reform has emerged as the "top legislative priority right now," said Jack Krumholtz, the company's managing director for federal government affairs. "We are really at a crisis in terms of the industry's ability to hire the best and the brightest and retain them." A company spokeswoman estimated that about 7 percent of Microsoft's hires over the past five years had H-1B visas. Of the company's H-1B employees, 20 percent a year obtain green cards. The company said the low number stems from delays in processing green cards. An estimated 500,000 green-card applications are pending nationwide. The employees describe agonizing, life-altering waits. In some cases, marriages, home purchases and retirement investments are put off. Graduates of master's and doctorate programs describe stringing together fellowships and one-year appointments to stay in this country. A spokesman for the National Institutes of Health said those on temporary work visas have trouble qualifying for federal research grants. Immigrant scientists call the policies crippling and said they had expected relief from a provision in the Senate bill that would have allowed favorable treatment for graduates in the sciences, technology, engineering, and mathematics. "In the midst of this whole debate, very little is said about legal immigration. And even within legal immigration, little about PhDs and scientists," said Jai Pathak, a research scientist who lives in Washington. "There are a lot of very fine scientists the government would like to keep, but their citizenship status impedes it." Pathak cited the Hungarian roots of Intel Corp. co-founder Andrew S. Grove, whose work helped create the modern computer industry that employs millions of Americans. "What would have happened if the United States had decided to close the doors on him?" Pathak said.