Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article: The Fortunes of H-1B Workers and Their Native-Born Colleagues Rise and Fall Together. By Walter Ewing

Collapse
X
Collapse

  • Article: The Fortunes of H-1B Workers and Their Native-Born Colleagues Rise and Fall Together. By Walter Ewing

    The Fortunes of H-1B Workers and Their Native-Born Colleagues Rise and Fall Together

    by


    3554615091_e9c05317f0_b

    There is no denying that the granting of H-1B visas for highly skilled professionals from abroad is a politically charged topic. However, the recurring controversies over H-1Bs should not obscure a well-documented fact about H-1B workers: on average, they tend to create jobs and give a wage boost to native-born workers. This is because H-1Bs and their native-born counterparts are not identical and, therefore, cannot be swapped for one another like batteries. More often than not, they are complementary workers with different skill sets. In the final analysis, H-1B workers represent innovation that increases the demand for labor by fueling the growth of the U.S. economy.

    The H-1B visa category is reserved for the temporary employment of educated foreign professionals in “specialty occupations” that require at least a bachelor’s degree or the equivalent. Since 1990, Congress has limited the number of H-1B visas made available each year. The current statutory cap is 65,000 visas per year, with 20,000 additional visas for foreign professionals who graduate with a master’s or doctorate from a U.S. university. In recent years, the limit has been reached only a few days after the visas are made available. A computer-generated random selection process is then used to select the petitions needed to meet these caps.

    Despite suggestions to the contrary, there is an abundance of evidence indicating that H-1B workers actually increase employment opportunities for native-born workers. Consider, for instance, a study released in May by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). The study—written by economists Giovanni Peri, Kevin Shih, and Chad Sparber—examines the impact of the H-1B lotteries of 2007 and 2008 on the labor markets of different metropolitan areas. The findings were unequivocal:

    “our results contradict the idea that by reducing H-1B permits in a labor market, employers would increase their demand for native skilled workers and/or the wages paid to them. To the contrary, the results suggest that foreign workers are complementary to native workers and/or stimulate the productivity of natives in computer-related occupations.”

    Moreover, the authors found that:

    “Employers of computer-related workers did not hire more natives when the foreign workers they intended to hire were denied H-1B permits. Instead the employment and wages of natives in similar occupations was at best unchanged and at worst harmed.”

    In other words, the fortunes of the H-1B workers and their native-born colleagues rose and fell together, as would be expected if they were complementary and not in competition with each other.

    Consider also that, from 1990 (the start of the H-1B program) to 2010, H-1B-driven increases in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) workers were associated with a significant increase in wages for college-educated, U.S.-born workers in 219 U.S. cities. More precisely, H-1B-driven increases in STEM workers in a city were associated with increases in wages of 7 to 8 percentage points paid to both STEM and non-STEM college-educated natives, while non-college educated workers saw an increase of 3 to 4 percentage points. From 2009 to 2011, wage growth for U.S.-born workers with at least a bachelor’s degree was nominal, but wage growth for workers in occupations with large numbers of H-1B petitions was substantially higher. For example, in the Computer Systems Design and Related Services category, there has been 5.5 percent wage growth since 1990 and 7.0 percent wage growth since 2009. In comparison, wage growth across all industries has been 0.8 percent since 1990 and 1.6 percent since 2009.

    In addition, research show that the United States has missed out on the opportunity to create new jobs by limiting the number of H-1B visas to 65,000 per year. For example, estimates show that, had the U.S. government not rejected 178,000 H-1B visa applications in computer related fields in the 2007 and 2008 visa lotteries, U.S. metropolitan areas could have created as many as 231,224 tech jobs for U.S.-born workers in the two years that followed.

    H-1B workers tend to complement U.S.-born workers, fill employment gaps in many occupations, and expand job opportunities for all workers regardless of where they were born. Put differently, the H-1B visa program is a valuable economic resource and should be treated as such.

    Photo by Joi Ito.

    This post originally appeared on Immigration Impact. Reprinted with permission.


    About The Author

    Walter Ewing Walter A. Ewing, Ph.D., is the Senior Researcher at the Immigration Policy Center. He has authored or co-authored 20 reports and opinion pieces for the IPC and has published articles in the Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy, Stanford Law and Policy Review, and Immigration Law Today. Before joining the IPC, he was an Immigration Policy Analyst at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and Program Director of the National Citizenship Network at Immigration and Refugee Services of America. Mr. Ewing received his Ph.D. in Anthropology from the City University of New York (CUNY) Graduate School in 1997 and his B.A. in Sociology and Anthropology from the University of Maryland, College Park, in 1987.

    Guillermo Cantor, Ph.D., is the Senior Policy Analyst at the American Immigration Council, where he also leads the Council’s research efforts. He has authored numerous publications on immigration policy and immigrant integration and regularly appears in English- and Spanish-language media. He also currently teaches sociology of immigration at Georgetown University. Mr. Cantor holds a Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Maryland, College Park.


    The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.

      Posting comments is disabled.

    Categories

    Collapse

    article_tags

    Collapse

    There are no tags yet.

    Latest Articles

    Collapse

    • Article: Birthright Citizenship Is Not A Legal Assumption; It
      ImmigrationDaily
      Last week on Fox News, Tucker Carlson said,
      08-21-2018, 01:24 PM
    • Blogging: Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation.. By Roger Algase
      ImmigrationDaily
      Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation. Trashing Immigrant Rights Endangers Freedom of All Americans.

      CNN reports on August 21 that 175 former US officials have denounced Donald Trump for revoking the security clearance of former CIA director John Brennan for speaking out in opposition to Trump.

      https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/20/polit...ent/index.html

      Presidential use of "national security"
      ...
      08-21-2018, 12:54 PM
    • Article: The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process By H. Ronald Klasko
      ImmigrationDaily

      If you are having difficulty viewing this document please click here.

      08-20-2018, 08:15 AM
    • Article: Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence By Karolina Walters
      ImmigrationDaily
      Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence by Karolina Walters The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the union that represents the nation’s immigration judges, is challenging the government’s decision to remove an immigration judge from a well-known case and replace him with a judge who immediately ordered the immigrant in the case deported. NAIJ’s grievance addresses the treatment of one immigration judge, but its resolution will have implications for judicial independence throughout the entire immigration court system. The grievance was filed on behalf of Philadelphia-based immigration judge Steven A. Morley, who was presiding over the case of Mr. Reynaldo Castro-Tum. Castro-Tum’s case rose to national importance earlier this year when Attorney General Jeff Sessions chose to refer the case to himself to reconsider the Board of Immigration Appeals’ previous decision in the case. In reconsidering the decision, Sessions effectively eliminated judges’ use of administrative closure, a docket management tool. Sessions sent Castro-Tum’s case back to Judge Morley, noting that the immigration court order Castro-Tum removed if he did not appear at his next hearing. Castro-Tum did not appear at the next hearing. However, Judge Morley continued the case to resolve whether Castro-Tum received adequate notice of the hearing. Due process requires, at a minimum, that an individual be given notice of proceedings and an opportunity to be heard by a judge. But before the next hearing could take place, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) replaced Judge Morley with an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge who ordered Castro-Tum removed when he did not appear at court again. In their grievance, NAIJ asserts that the decision to remove Judge Morley from Castro-Tum’s case and reassign many other cases from his docket resulted in unacceptable interference with judicial independence. The grievance specifically claims that EOIR’s actions violate immigration judges’ authority under the regulations to exerci...
      08-17-2018, 11:12 AM
    • Article: Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico By Sophia Genovese
      ImmigrationDaily
      Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico by Sophia Genovese The Trump Administration is seeking to create and implement a safe third country agreement with Mexico . Under this agreement, asylum seekers arriving at the US border who have travelled through Mexico would be denied the ability to file their asylum claims in the US. Such an agreement would trample on the rights of asylum-seekers, violating both international and US asylum law. In particular, the US would be violating the international principle of non-refoulement , which provides that no State “shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened,” where Mexico has a proven track record of being anything but safe for asylum seekers . The US has also codified Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention into Section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which provides that it will not return an asylum seeker to his or her country of origin, but may, at the determination of the Attorney General, remove the asylum seeker to a “safe third country… where the [asylum seeker] would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection.” Although Mexican officials have not yet indicated whether they would sign a safe third country agreement with the US, asylum advocates should proactively seek to prevent such a devastating policy with a country that lacks adequate asylum protections. As reported by Human Rights First and Amnesty International , 75 percent of asylum seekers apprehended and detained by the National Institute of Migration (INM), the Mexican immigration enforcement agency, were not informed of their right to seek asylum. Even if asylum seekers are able to make their claims, only 30% of the asylum proceedings are ever concluded , and even fewer are granted, leaving many bona fide asylum seekers stranded without a resolution. The treatment of unaccompanied minors’ asylum claims in Mexico are even more dismal. Of the 35,000 minors apprehended by the INM in the first half of 2016, only 138 were able to apply for asylum , of which only 77 were granted protection. Beyond the failing asylum system in Mexico, asylum seekers are also in extreme danger of kidnapping, murder, rape, trafficking, and other crimes by INM officers and civilians. A safe third country agreement with Mexico would violate the United States’ international obligations under the 1967 Optional Protocol to the Refugee Convention, to which we are a signatory, which adopts by incorporation the obligations outlined in the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which the US is not a signatory. Take the example of an asylum-seeker, Mrs. H, who is fleeing politically-motivated violence in Honduras. Her husband, Mr. H, was a vocal political activist who opposed the National Party and members of the Honduran government. Mr. H began to receive death threats due to his political beliefs and reported such threats to the authorities. The authorities, however, di...
      08-16-2018, 02:32 PM
    • Article: Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence By Eugene Goldstein, Esq.
      ImmigrationDaily

      Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence

      by


      On August 9, 2018 USCIS published a “Policy Memorandum” restricting the 20-year-old calculation of Duration of Status (D/S) for F-1, J-1 and M-1 entrants (and their derivative families). https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/...immigrants.pdf

      USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors https://www.uscis.gov/news/uscis-iss...hange-visitors , and a general discussion “Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility” ...

      08-15-2018, 12:57 PM
    Working...
    X