Is H-1B increase ripe for the picking?
Is H-1B increase ripe for the picking?
Date: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 11:56 PM
<<<<< JOB DESTRUCTION NEWSLETTER No. 1648 -- 2/28/2007 >>>>>
Businessweek has a new article that is better than their usual one-sided
pro-business diatribes in favor of H-1B.
A statement made by immigration attorney Robert Whitehill is worthy of
attention:
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.
He has a point. How often do you see debates about H-1B or L-1 in the
mainstream media? It's not just the mainstream media either -- most
immigration groups either ignore the issue or consider it a side-issue.
Many immigration reformers recognize the damage that illegal immigration
imposes on low skilled workers while at the same time supporting H-1B
because they believe the shortage shouting from high-tech employers.
Whitehill takes this thinking one step further. He figures that pushing
H-1B increases through Congress is easy pickings.
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.
Whitehill's point might get missed by the casual reader. He suggests that
it would be far easier to push a separate bill such as the Skil bill than
trying to bundle H-1B with comprehensive immigration reform. He recognizes
that amnesty is a hot potato that might jeopardize the cherished H-1B
increase.
I'm going to be very blunt about something: Whitehill thinks H-1B is an
easy win because he thinks we are a bunch of patsies!
Whitehill's statements shouldn't be dismissed even if they are somewhat
insulting. He thinks H-1B is easy pickings because there is so little
organized opposition to it. While employers are unanimous in their desire
to increase H-1B Americans remain divided on the issue, or in most cases,
they are totally oblivious. Unlike the scattering of techies who oppose
H-1B increases the cheap labor lobby is highly organized and they have
plenty of cash to push their agenda. American workers who have the most to
lose if an H-1B increase is passed through Congress are doing very little
to stop the cheap labor juggernaut.
Hopefully the low-hanging fruit that Whitehill thinks is ripe for the
plucking isn't as easy to plunder as he envisions. Let's don't lose sight
of the fact that NumbersUSA and a few other organizations successfully
stopped the Skil bill last year. Despite the huge lobbying campaigns of
shills like CompeteAmerika, and despite the fact that Bill Gates went to
Washington DC twice, the cheap labor lobby was sent home with nothing to
show for the millions of dollars they spent lobbying for the Skil bill.
If you want to find out more about Whitehill, click on this web page:
http://www.foxrothschild.com/Attorneys/Attorney.aspx?id=2034
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/feb2007/db20070226_045720.htm?chan=search
Fresh Ideas for the Immigration Debate
With Congress set to take up the contentious issue of immigration reform,
we asked experts to weigh in with some constructive thoughts
by Peter Elstrom
In the next week or so, the U.S. is going to begin a ferocious debate over
immigration. Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) are
expected to introduce 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. "The prospects are very good,"
says Robert Hoffman, vice-president for government and public affairs at
software giant Oracle (ORCL), 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 (INTC), Motorola
(MOT), Texas Instruments (TXN), and Hewlett-Packard (HPQ).
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 (INFY) and Wipro (WIT). Critics say the outsourcing firms may
be using the H-1B program to facilitate the outsourcing of U.S. jobs to
other countries (see BusinessWeek.com, 2/8/07, "Work Visas May Work Against
the U.S.").
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 (MSFT)
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 (see BusinessWeek.com, 2/12/07, "Campaign 2008: Cranking
Up the Money Machine").
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 (see BusinessWeek.com, 5/16/06, "Huddled Masses, Tricky
Politics"). "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."
Click here for a slide show examining the lessons of history in U.S.
immigration.
Elstrom is news director at BusinessWeek.com.
Newsletter Homepage:
http://www.JobDestruction.com/shameh1b/JobDestructionNews.htm
Support this Newsletter and www.JobDestruction.com by donating:
www.zazona.com/Donations.htm
To Be removed from this mailing list, reply to this
email with UNSUbSCRIBE in the subject window
Back to archives