Grassley wants a real discussion

Sen. Chuck Grassley has thrown the brakes on HR3012, and I think that's the one thing that the Indian immigrant lobby didn't want to happen.  He's working to craft amendments to the bill, so that it serves more than one constituency of foreigners.

"I have concerns about the impact of this bill on future immigration flows, and am concerned that it does nothing to better protect Americans at home who seek high-skilled jobs during this time of record high unemployment," said Grassley, last week, in the Senate in announcing his action.

http://m.computerworld.com/s/article/9222416/Grassley_wants_worker_protections_in_green_card_bill_?mm_ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fm%2Fsearch%3Ftbm%3Dnws%26gl%3Dus%26client%3Dsafari%26source%3Dmog%26hl%3Den%26aq%3Df%26oq%3D%26aqi%3Dp2g4-k0d0t0%26fkt%3D161754%26fsdt%3D166884%26cqt%3D%26rst%3D%26htf%3D%26his%3D%26maction%3D%26q%3Dgrassley%26flip%3D0

Let me be clear...the immigration system in the United States has serious flaws.  There are problems with the whole thing, from illegal aliens, to non-immigrant/guest worker programs like H1B, to permanent residence.  Rushing through with legislation that tinkers about the edges is likely to have far more negative unintended consequences than anything that it intends to solve.

I for one look forward to a vigorous discussion of the issues surrounding non-immigrant and immigrant visas in the United States.

Reciprocity is Fair

There are over a million Americans living in Europe, many more than those living in countries like India or China. Many of these European Countries and other countries like Australia provide thousands of work permits to Americans and provide a relatively short path to permanent residency. 

Currently, over 35% of the green cards through employment in the US go to Indian Citizens. If HR 3012 becomes a law, 85% of the green cards available through employment will be assigned to Indian Citizens. This excessive amount of green cards assigned to a single country would considerably increase the amount of time it takes immigrants from other countries to obtain a residency permit in the US.


Indeed, were the same people to immigrate to India as are coming to the US, they would only be able to obtain a 3 year "E" visa, not permanent residence, in India.  That 3 year visa may be extended on a year-to-year basis for a maximum of 5 years.  This is analogous to the H-1b visa for people to come to the US, with 3 years plus a single 3 year extension. (India Visa FAQ)

How is it fair for countries like Germany, France, Spain or Australia that provide thousands of work permits and permanent residency permits to Americans in 1-2 years, that their citizens would need to wait over 12 years to obtain a residency permit in the US?

Legal immigration is not only about high skilled IT professionals coming from India. There are many doctors, architects, lawyers, scientists coming from many other countries. It is important to look at this bill from a global international affairs perspective. One can make many arguments about what is fair for immigration. For instance, wouldn't it be fair to provide more green cards to countries that provide more residency permits to Americans? 

Please analyze this bill carefully. Look at the big picture for immigration and ask yourself if one country obtaining 85% of the green cards, while other countries receive less than 1% is fair.


Perhaps the furor over country caps is a time to do a deeper look at situations.  Why does the United States grant permanent residency to citizens of countries that don't reciprocate?  Maybe it's time for an immigration reciprocity arrangement, where rights extended to foreigners do not exceed those rights that US citizens are granted in the foreign country.  That way countries like France, Canada, and the UK, where Americans are afforded speedy paths to permanent residency would have those privileges reciprocated by the US.  While countries that deny permanent residency, like India, would likewise have those policies applied to their citizens.

Why the rush?

One thing that strikes me as odd about HR3012 is that it's being rushed through the process.

The bill was pushed forward in the House of Representatives.  It was not considered in subcommittee.  The amendments offered in the Judiciary Committee markup weren't even allowed to be considered, but were rejected by the Chair as being "not germane".  They couldn't even have it considered in the House under regular order, but had to consider it under Suspension of the Rules.

What is in there that they don't want you to know about?  Is it that they don't want you looking at who is pushing the bill?  Is it that the bill is tailor designed to benefit two countries (India and China) only to the detriment of all others?

The Senate needs to consider this bill carefully and not rush a bad piece of legislation through.

HR. 3012 & S.1857 Need More Debate

On November 29th the House of Representatives passed the bill HR 3012 titled "The Fairness for High Skilled Immigrants Act". While the intentions of the legislators behind this bill are commendable, when one looks at the bill in detail it raises troubling questions.  It also highlights a few gaps that have not been addressed by this bill. Similar bill S. 1857 is pending in the Senate.

At a high level this bill eliminated the per country cap of 7% in the employment based category.  The argument being "Is it fair to award 7% of the visas to larger population countries such as India & China compared to country such as Ireland?" If this bill is passed then it slightly reduces the immigration backlog for applicants from India & China but significantly worsens it for applicants from all other countries.

Let's look into some areas that the bill does not address:

1. In 2010 49,087 of visas of the 148,343 immigrant visas granted in the employment based categories were awarded to applicants born in either India or China. This accounts for ~33% of the total EB visas granted. Applicants from India alone were granted ~20% of the visas and not the 7% as stated (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2010/ois_yb_2010.pdf)
2. An argument in favor of this bill is that this bill helps America's competitiveness by attracting skilled labor.  But is it really about skilled labor or cheap labor? Is there a conclusive study which proves that this change will make America more competitive in the global economic space?
3. A recent survey (http://topics.dallasnews.com/article/04GS8O506kfDn?q=Europe) shows that Indian IT companies ranked amongst the world's lowest paying employers. On an average Indian IT companies paid $36,120 & a Swiss IT company paid a similar employee $167,8902. In view of this data one cannot help but wonder if this is about attracting high skilled workers and not just low cost labor. Shouldn't we address the root cause of the problem and help prevent American businesses from outsourcing the jobs to low paying countries?
4. The employment based category also includes immigrants with as little as 2 years of experience who may not have a college degree.  This bill will surely facilitate the clogging of the immigrant applicants in this category?
5. The Department of State website  indicates that these 7% caps are implemented to prevent the monopolization of visas by applicants from a single country.  This is similar to antitrust regulations that protect the interests of small businesses and consumers.  This bill is a repudiation of this principle.  What provisions will be added to prevent monopolization of immigration in the future?
6. It was mentioned in the House that companies need to wait long to hire graduates from countries with a high population, however the temporary worker program, commonly known as the H1B program, was implemented to overcome that limitation and has been highly successful in recruiting graduates/skilled professionals from any country, a major portion of these visas are granted to applicants from India and China.
7. This bill is one that makes fundamental changes to current immigration queues, yet it takes effect immediately upon passage.  USCIS is not given any time to study the impact of the bill, nor time to draft and implement new guidance and regulations for immigration adjudicators.  Such immediate implementation without time to put into place the detailed regulations necessary to ensure a smooth transition will likely lead to chaos for some time to come.
8. Lastly, how will this bill deal with people who already started their immigration petition before this law will be implemented?

In full disclosure, we all do have a dog in this fight but, all we are asking is to do the "right thing" for all US Citizens, potential Immigrants & America's businesses, as only united we can make America even more competitive & continue to be the world leader.
References:

On a closing note, we would like to again state that we are not against this bill in principle, but are requesting a detailed study and debate before it is implemented.  As the butterfly effect theory states that small changes can result in a big impact. Let's make sure that this small change doesn't make a big negative impact by duly debating and studying the change.

Welcome!

Welcome to the Skilled Immigrant Blog!

On this blog, a number of issues related to Skilled Immigration into the United States will be discussed, including the trials and tribulations of immigrants, legislation working its way through Congress and in the several States, and much, much more.

We are actively seeking contributors to participate in this blog, so please don't hesitate to post in the comments section if you feel you have something interesting to contribute...although, contributing via the comments themselves is a great way to start.

Welcome, enjoy!