YES vs NO on H-1B
YES vs NO on H-1B
Date: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 10:08 PM
<<<<< JOB DESTRUCTION NEWSLETTER No. 1906 -- 8/26/2008 >>>>>
It's very rare to see a point/counterpoint argument in the newspapers,
especially on immigration related topics. Instead we usually only get to read
one-sided stories that support increased levels of immigration. The DC
Examiner broke the mold by featuring a debate on the H-1B issue.
In the first op-ed, Gene Nelson, on behalf of American workers, opposes H-1B.
In the second op-ed, Stuart Anderson, on behalf of the cheap labor lobby,
supports H-1B.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/columns/guestcolumnists/NO_Foreign_workers_take_jobs_away_from_skilled_Americans.html
NO: Foreign workers take jobs away from skilled Americans
By Gene Nelson
Special to the Examiner | 8/20/08 10:39 PM Wealthy advocates of H-1B visas
have industriously worked to keep this employer-designed program hidden from
middle-class Americans, who are outraged when they learn how it harms them.
In 2002, Nobel economics laureate Milton Friedman correctly identified the
1990 H-1B visa program as a "government subsidy" because it allows employers
access to imported, highly skilled labor at below-market wages.
False allegations of worker shortages have been a popular approach. But
American colleges and universities graduate four to six times the number of
students needed to fill openings in technology fields that are generated by
retirements and business expansion.
Consequently, since 1960, there have been more than 30 million graduates with
bachelor s degrees who are qualified to work as scientists, engineers,
computer programmers and mathematicians (the STEM fields) pursuing
approximately 8 million "high tech" positions requiring this level of
training. The importation of foreign technical professionals further swells
the job-seeker ranks.
Between 1975 and 2005, more than 25 million admissions were approved in just
five highly skilled visa programs.
Former Microsoft lobbyist Jack Abramoff helped direct $100 million in
political expenditures between 1995 and 2000, enabling Microsoft and other
employers to procure employer-friendly changes to H-1B visa legislation in
1996, 1998 and 2000. As a result of this work force glut, real wages in STEM
fields have remained flat since at least 2000.
Contrary to Stuart Anderson s claim, this program prevents innovation since
American citizens are typically discarded by employers by age 35 -- before
their inventions can be turned into practical revenue generators.
It facilitates hiring discrimination against Americans. In the April 15, 2007,
edition of the New York Times, Indian Commerce Minister Kamal Nath called H-1B
the "outsourcing visa."
This program also undermines national security, as 200,000 U.S. science and
engineering jobs have already been lost to communist China.
In the late 1980s, bureaucrats at the National Science Foundation found that
they could increase the supply of technical professionals by importing them --
offering foreign nationals the prospect of remaining in the United States.
This increase in supply depresses wages -- an important policy objective.
One measure showing that this government intervention was successful (at least
from the employers perspective) is that a typical postdoctoral research or
teaching position in a STEM field (requiring 12 years of education after high
school) offers pay and benefits comparable to what a high school graduate
earns managing a fast-food restaurant.
University of California at Davis computer science professor Norm Matloff
recommends sharply diminishing the size of the H-1B program to about 15,000
admissions annually so that it is only used to import "the best and brightest"
-- rather than the "fresh [inexpensive] young blood" of average talent
currently imported from the developing world.
In a 1993 article in the American Scholar, CalTech Vice Provost David
Goodstein pointed out that the American taxpayer is forced to support
extremely expensive research universities whose main purpose is to train
students from abroad who will stay here and take jobs that could have gone to
Americans, or go home and take our knowledge and technology with them.
We are ignoring our own students and using our money to train our economic
competitors.
This piece is part of an American Conversation in the Examiner, featuring both
pro and con views. Please click here to read the other side of the argument.
Gene Nelson, an advocate for the employment rights of American technical
professionals since 1979, works as an IT professional at NumbersUSA.com in
Arlington.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/columns/guestcolumnists/YES_US_firms_need_all_the_technical_talent_they_can_get.html
YES: U.S. firms need all the technical talent they can get
By Stuart Anderson
Special to the Examiner | 8/20/08 10:42 PM American companies do not hire
skilled foreign nationals for "cheap labor," as critics like Gene Nelson
allege (they must be paid the same as comparable Americans), but because they
represent a key part of the global labor pool for technical talent.
For large companies, U.S. immigration policies dictate whether these talented
people are hired to create jobs and innovations here in the United States or
in offices overseas. The lack of an available visa means smaller companies may
lose out on hiring a key foreign-born individual needed to grow the company.
U.S. companies hire as much talent as possible, primarily Americans.
Government data show that nearly all companies in the United States employ
85 to 99 percent Americans, or permanent residents who can become Americans.
But when U.S. employers recruit on college campuses, they find foreign
nationals often make up half or more of the graduates in the fields in
greatest demand, such as computer science and electrical engineering.
H-1B visas are important because they are essentially the only way
international students at U.S. universities and outstanding individuals
seeking to come here from abroad can stay and work in the United States long
term. These temporary visas, which are renewable after three years, are
generally good for six years.
In April, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced it received
more than enough applications for H-1B visas to fill its quota of 65,000 for
fiscal 2009 (which starts Oct. 1), as well as enough applications for the
additional 20,000 H-1B slots reserved for foreign nationals with advanced
degrees from U.S. universities. This marks the fifth year in a row that the H-
1B quota had been reached before the fiscal year started.
One of the myths surrounding H-1Bs is that Indian companies get most of them,
even though U.S. government data show Indian-based firms received only about
10 percent in 2007. In fact, more than 25,000 individual U.S.
employers hired skilled professionals on H-1B visas in 2007, according to the
immigration service.
An employment-based green card is necessary to stay in the country permanently
and later become a citizen. A separate quota for green cards (permanent
residence) for skilled immigrants is set at 140,000 a year.
That quota has also been insufficient to meet demand. Typically, a skilled
immigrant now has to wait five to 10 years for a green card, causing some to
give up and others to not even begin the process.
Recent research from the National Foundation for American Policy found that
major U.S. technology companies today average more than 470 U.S.-based job
openings for skilled positions (bachelor s degrees or above), while defense
companies have more than 1,265 each.
Another NFAP study found that contrary to concerns that skilled foreign
nationals harm the job prospects of Americans, H-1B visa holders are more
likely to complement U.S. workers and create jobs.
The study found that for every H-1B position requested with the Department of
Labor, U.S. technology companies increased their employment by five workers.
Many U.S. executives confirm this experience at their own firms.
Congress should increase the H-1B visa cap, address the large pent-up visa
demand and not count those who have received a master s degree or above
against the annual quota. Lawmakers should also significantly raise
employment-based immigration quotas (green cards) for those seeking to stay
here permanently, such as through legislation recently introduced by Rep.
Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif.
Adopting these measures would place U.S. companies in a more competitive
position internationally and set America on the path to maintaining its edge
in innovation and job creation in the 21st century.
This piece is part of an American Conversation in the Examiner, featuring both
pro and con views. Please click here to read the other side of the argument.
Stuart Anderson, a former staff director of the Senate immigration
subcommittee, is executive director of the National Foundation for American
Policy.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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