Tag Archives: Immigration

Will A New Bill Aid International Students with Ph.D.s – and Others?

The Wall Street Journal has reported that House Judiciary Committee Chair Lamar Smith (R-TX) plans to introduce legislation to provide extra green cards for certain international students. (Find article here, registration required.)

As described, the legislation would likely have a positive impact on skilled immigrants.

For several years there has been great interest in the high tech community in exempting graduates of U.S. universities from employment-based green card quotas. In particular, the focus has been on individuals with advanced degrees from U.S. universities in science, technology, engineering or mathematics (STEM) fields. Some high tech executives have referred to such legislation as stapling a green card to the diploma of certain international students. In fact, a bill by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) is called the STAPLE Act (H.R. 399).

What Would New Legislation Likely Include?

The Wall Street Journal summarizes the likely contents of a new bill aimed at international students with Ph.D.s: “Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said he plans to introduce legislation providing up to 10,000 visas a year to foreign students graduating from US universities with doctorates in engineering, information technology and the natural sciences.”

It is unclear from the description whether the intention is to create a new category or an exemption from the current 140,000 annual quota for employment-based green cards.

Which Universities Would Be Eligible?

A key question in any proposed legislation is whether degrees from all universities will allow international students to qualify. One concern expressed by lawmakers is a “diploma mill” could come into operation seeking to attract students by offering a way to gain a green card easier. For that reason any legislation is likely to restrict degrees to those obtained from universities in operation for a number of years and possibly only “research” universities. The definition of research universities and how many would be included in such a definition will remain an issue.

Which Degrees Would Be Eligible?

Another issue is whether legislation would be restricted to only Ph.D.s or to include recipients of masters degrees as well. Based on the Wall Street Journal article, it appears Rep. Smith would like to limit any bill to Ph.D.s. only.

A related matter is Ph.D.s in which fields. Members of Congress have focused on degrees in science, technology, engineering or mathematics (STEM) fields. It is possible Rep. Smith’s legislation would be narrower. In the interview with the Wall Street Journal, Rep. Smith mentioned engineering, information technology and the natural sciences as eligible areas.

Job Offer

It is likely any legislation would require the individual receive a job offer from an employer before being eligible for a green card.

Labor Certification

One of the most burdensome aspects of the employment-based immigration process is labor certification. That is a process that can cost employers several thousand dollars and can take 6 months to two years to gain approval from the U.S. Department of Labor. The process is meant to show no other qualified American is available to fill the job. Proving that often involves paying for advertisements and showing the results to the Department of Labor. Any exemption or special visa would be much more desirable if the applicant did not have to endure the labor certification process.

Likely Impact

Legislation limited to Ph.D. recipients would have a two-fold impact. First, it would likely allow for a green card to be received in a timely fashion for such individuals without regard to country of origin. (One assumes any legislation would exempt the recipients from the per country limit.) Even individuals who earn a Ph.D. could wait years for a green card in the employment-based second preference category if they are born in India or China. Second, adding extra visas to the employment-based immigrant category would free up numbers even for individuals who are not eligible, thereby reducing overall waiting times by a modest amount.

Rep. Smith’s bill would be notable because a bill introduced by the chairman of the committee with jurisdiction, in this case the House Judiciary Committee, has a far greater chance of moving through the legislative process than bills introduced by other members of Congress. Once introduced, it will be legislation worth watching.

 

The Story of Two Immigrant Entrepreneurs

Immigrants are more likely than natives to start businesses, according to the Kauffman Foundation. “For immigrants, 530 out of 100,000 people start a business each month, compared to 280 out of 100,000 native-born people,” notes the foundation. Other studies have found a similar propensity of immigrants to start companies. However, what informs us best about remarkable immigrant entrepreneurs is not studies but the individual stories of such people. Here are the stories of two such entrepreneurs.

Nancy Chang, Taiwanese-born Co-Founder of Tanox

photos.state.gov“If you really believe in something, the best approach is to invest yourself in that idea,” said Dr. Nancy Chang, co-founder of Tanox, a biotechnology company based in Houston, Texas that was purchased by Genentech.

Not many people take undergraduate classes from one professor who is a future Nobel Prize winner (Yuan T. Lee) and another who would go on to become the nation’s prime minister. Nancy says her good fortune to learn under these teachers gave her the courage to leave Taiwan and study at Brown in 1974, barely able to speak English. On the plane ride to America she read James Watson’s book on the discovery of the double helix, which led to changing her academic focus to biology, even though she had never taken a course on the subject.

The following year, Nancy Chang became one of the first international students to attend Harvard Medical School and, she was told, the medical school’s first major entrepreneur. After Harvard, she was hired at Hoffman-La Roche on a work visa and later became director of the molecular biology group for Centocor. She also has taught at the Baylor College of Medicine and holds seven patents.

In 1986, she co-founded Tanox and served as CEO from 1990 to 2006. Starting Tanox was “part passion and dream and went against the textbook” by developing an asthma drug that focused on the allergy-related basis of asthma. At the time, this ran counter to the central belief in how asthma operated. The perseverance paid off when in June 2003, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Xolair, the first biotech product cleared for treating those with asthma related to allergies. Xolair was developed under an agreement among Tanox, Inc., Genentech, Inc., and Novartis Pharma AG.

When Tanox went public in April 2000 on the NASDAQ, it raised $244 million, which at the time was the largest biotech initial public offering. Dr. Chang said she is passionate about AIDS, since as a young researcher she worked in one of the first laboratories to confront the disease. Tanox developed TNX-355, an antibody for the treatment of HIV/AIDS. Genentech licensed TNX-355, known as Ibalizumab, to TaiMed Biologics.

“I came to the United States frightened and scared. But I found if you do well and if you have a dream you will find people in America willing to help and give you an opportunity,” said Dr. Chang. “Life is very rich. I just love this country.”

Asa Kalavade, Indian-born Co-Founder of Tatara Systems and Umber Systems

photos.state.govTwenty or so years ago, it might have been considered improbable for a young woman in India to found her own technology business. “Even when I just started studying engineering people came to my parents to talk them out of it, never mind starting my own company,” said Asa Kalavade.

Asa came to America as an international student and received a master’s and Ph.D. in electrical engineering and computer science from the University of California at Berkeley. While most people think of wireless networks and streaming as relatively new technologies, Asa has worked on these technologies for a decade and a half. Early in her career at Bell Labs, Asa invented patent-pending technologies for wireless multimedia streaming, network interfaces, and real-time multiprocessor DSP (digital signal processing) systems. She holds multiple patents.

After serving as vice president of Technology at Savos, she founded Tatara Systems along with an immigrant from China, Hong Jiang. Based in Acton, Massachusetts, the privately held Tatara Systems, which provides technology for mobile services for companies like Vodafone, employs 60 people.

After Tatara Systems, Asa became a founder and chief technology officer of Umber Systems, a mobile data analytics company based in Concord, MA. Asa’s two siblings are both in the United States working as electrical engineers. Her Indian-born husband has started his second company, Tizor Systems. “We’re serial entrepreneurs,” said Asa.

Risk Takers

 
Asa Kalavade and Nancy Chang both took risks as young women coming to study in demanding fields in a new country far from their families. Both women sought opportunity and achieved the American Dream. In achieving that dream, they also made a great difference in the lives of many Americans. That is the story of immigrants to this country.

India and America: common values, shared success

By Richard G. Lugar

As Secretary of State Clinton’s recent trip to India demonstrated, these are exciting times for India, and for the India-United States relationship. India has liberalized and opened its economy, unleashing the entrepreneurial talent of its people and using its strong technology base to establish leading positions in such fields as telecommunications, information technology and pharmaceuticals.

America and India, for too long estranged during the Cold War, have developed steadily closer ties built on a uniquely strong foundation: both countries are stable, multi-ethnic democracies with a deep tradition of religious tolerance.

With a well-educated middle class that is larger than the entire U.S. population, India can be an anchor of stability in Asia and a center of economic growth. It is already the world’s second-fastest growing major economy, and bilateral trade with the U.S. has more than tripled over the past 10 years. I have worked to build a strategic partnership between the United States and India that will benefit both sides as India plays an ever-larger role on the world stage.

I am also excited by a new opportunity to match India’s entrepreneurial zeal with America’s current need for investment and jobs through the Startup Visa Act, which I introduced earlier this year. The bill would allow an immigrant entrepreneur to receive a two-year visa if he or she can show that a qualified U.S. investor is willing to invest in the immigrant’s startup venture. Many of India’s smartest and most entrepreneurial individuals are already here studying at our universities, so helping them stay to invest in their ideas would create jobs and help all Americans.

The bill would also apply to those already in the U.S. on unexpired H-1B visas, and entrepreneurs living outside the United States who already have a market presence here. If this legislation is enacted, it will help more Indians take part in the great American tradition of immigrant business success.

Another concern of Indians abroad is Pakistan, a concern I share. I believe the U.S. should use its influence to promote stability in the region, which could lead to a Pakistan that is more likely to cooperate and trade with India. That’s one of the reasons I co-sponsored the 2009 Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act.

The bill emphasizes economic assistance over military aid, and contains incentives for Pakistan to stabilize its democracy. It requires the Secretary of State to certify every year that Pakistan is meeting specific benchmarks of conduct, namely, that it is cooperating to dismantle supplier networks of nuclear weapons-related material, that it is making “significant efforts” to combat terrorist and extremist groups and that such groups are not receiving support from Pakistan’s military or spy service, and that it is not letting terrorist groups use Pakistan’s territory to stage attacks on other countries.

On that score, the bill specifically mentions Pakistan-based terrorist groups that threaten India as well as the United States and Afghanistan, including al Qaeda, the Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba, which conducted the 2008 Mumbai attack. The legislation aims to encourage Pakistan to re-orient its armed forces to a mission more focused on counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency than regional conflict, and calls for a cut-off of assistance if the security forces are deemed to be “subverting the political or judicial processes of Pakistan.” In short, India has much to gain from the success of this legislation.

All this is part of a larger strategic engagement between India and America, which took a major step forward three years ago with the passage of the US-India nuclear cooperation agreement, a step that I strongly supported. The legislation lifted a three-decade American moratorium on nuclear trade with India and opened the door for trade in a wide range of other high-technology items, such as supercomputers and fiber optics.

Some critics called the deal a set-back for U.S. non-proliferation efforts, since India remains outside the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). I argued, however, that it actually provides incentives for the United States and India to deepen their cooperation in stopping proliferation, and confers numerous other benefits outside the nuclear realm by paving the way for broader economic and strategic collaboration.

The remarkable deepening of US-India ties over the past decade is only a start, as the relationship has still not reached its full potential. If Indians and Indian-Americans continue to contribute their ideas, their energy and their commitment, I am sure that even more exciting days lie ahead.

(Senator Richard Lugar is the Republican leader of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee.)

Unused Employment Visas Contributed to Green Card Backlog

The green card backlog is significant for employment-based immigrants, particularly for professionals born in India. It’s possible the overall employment-based backlog is close to half a million people. Absent reform of the per country limits and an increase in the annual quotas it will take years – many years – to clear this backlog.

Few people realize there is a surprising cause for at least some of the backlog – unused employment visas. Since the 1990 Act, the annual quota for employment-based green cards has been 140,000. That includes both the principals and dependent family members.

However, even though the annual quota has been 140,000, that does not mean 140,000 green cards were awarded each year. Due to administrative issues within the federal government, in several years the quota was underutilized. This is detailed in the 2010 Annual Report of the U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman.

As Table 1 illustrates between FY 1992 and FY 2006, more than 506,000 employment-based immigrant visas went unused. The data were provided to the Ombudsman by the U.S. Department of State. In 1995, for example, there were 58,694 employment-based visas that went unused. In 1997, the number that went unused was 40,170. In 1999, the number reached 98,491. As recently as 2003, 88,482 unused visas authorized by Congress were not used due to administrative problems within the federal government.

As the table shows, of the 506,410 employment visas that went unused since the 1990 Act, only 180,039 have been recaptured via special legislation. It is likely most members of Congress do not realize this many green cards authorized by Congress have gone unused. It would take special legislation for the visas to be reauthorized. If Congress were to reauthorize the use of the remaining 300,000-plus unused visas accumulated over the years it would significantly reduce the waiting times for employment-based immigrants and give such immigrants their chance at the American Dream.

Table 1

Unused Employment-Based Visas FY 1992-FY 2009

Fiscal Year

Unused Employment Preference Numbers
1992 21,207
1993 0
1994 29,430
1995 58,694
1996 21,173
1997 40,170
1998 53,571
1999 98,491
2000 31,098
2001 5,511
2002 0
2003 88,482
2004 47,305
2005 0
2006 10,288
2007 0
2008 0
2009 0
2010 0
Total 506,410(180,039 were recaptured by special legislation)

Source: U.S. Department of State; USCIS Ombudsman,

Annual Report to Congress, June 2010, p. 35.

Senate Hearing Sends Signals for Immigration Reform

Similar to a House hearing held earlier this year, a July 26, 2011 Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security hearing pointed toward agreement on the need to enact fixes to the employment-based green card system.

Committee Chair Charles Schumer (D-NY) titled the hearing “The Economic Imperative for Enacting Immigration Reform,” hoping to encourage such legislation to move forward in Congress. The hearing contained a remarkable amount of economic data and arguments in favor of liberalizing U.S. immigration laws, particularly in favor of allowing in more highly skilled immigrants.

Robert Greifeld, CEO of the NASDAQ OMX Group, testified, “Our world view must change to recognize that employers no longer have to locate jobs and workers because of physical capital requirements. Human capital is now highly mobile. The work product of STEM and other knowledge workers is just a plane ticket or an internet connection away.” He said NASDAQ supported “stapling” a green card to graduates of U.S. universities with a science, technology, engineering or math degree, and also support establishing a new visa for entrepreneurs.

Brad Smith, general counsel and senior vice president, legal and corporate affairs at Microsoft, noted the company had thousands of job openings for highly skilled positions. He also cited a 2010 University of Washington Economic Policy Research Center study that found Microsoft’s hiring of U.S. citizens, permanent residents and foreign nationals combined to create a “multiplier effect” creating 267,611 jobs in 2008 in Washington. “Through this multiplier effect, every job at Microsoft supported 5.81 jobs elsewhere in the state economy.”

Compelling Testimony on Green Card Backlog
One of the best things a Congressional hearing can do is put a human face on a problem. Dr. Puneet S. Arora, born in India and now a practicing physician in Los Angeles, CA, testified at the hearing on behalf of the organization Immigration Voice. Dr. Arora said though he had lived and worked in America for 15 years – and has two U.S. citizen children – he does not have permanent residency. He explained that due to the low annual quota for employment-based green cards combined with the per country limit, which affects potential Indian immigrants the most, he has been waiting years for permanent residence. In fact, he estimated it might be an additional 8 years of waiting before he could receive a green card.

The Old and the New
Hearings are often a way to gauge the views of members of Congress, particularly new ones. We have not heard much about their views on high skill immigration from either Senator Al Franken (D-MN) or Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT). By their questions and comments it appeared both are sympathetic to high skill immigration, particularly the plight of long-term green card holders. Senator Franken engaged in a long discussion with Dr. Arora, praising him for his previous work as a physician in Minnesota.

Veteran Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Jeff Sessions (R-AL) were less sympathetic. Senator Grassley said in a statement, “As part of the solution to America’s immigration problem, some policy makers have proposed the idea of giving immigrants a green card upon graduation . . . While it is important to keep the best and the brightest, getting a degree from a U.S. institution should not equate to a fast track to citizenship for all. Should this happen, the demand for enrollment in U.S. universities by international students would only increase and further erode the opportunities for American students.” He also discussed his efforts to encourage U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to root out fraud in H-1B and L-1 visas.

Senator Sessions scolded supporters of business immigration on the panel, saying they should not have supported comprehensive immigration reform legislation back in 2007. Sessions said he favored a point system similar to Canada’s. Under a point system, there would be no employer sponsorship and most family immigration categories would be eliminated. Instead, the government would set a maximum number of immigrants allowed in during a given year and award permanent residence only to those who achieve a specific number of points. The points would be determined based on characteristics such as age and education level.

Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith said that a point system would take power away from individual employers to hire and sponsor the foreign-born employees they think are best and instead turn those decisions over to a bureaucratic government body. As a conservative Republican who often expresses skepticism of the federal government’s ability, Sessions seemed to understand the criticism, though did not appear to change his mind.

Reform Ideas
It appears the case was made that there is greater consensus on moving forward with reforms on employment-based green cards than on H-1B temporary visas. In fact, one of the risks for employers remains that efforts to liberalize green card quotas will be met by attempts to restrict temporary visas, such as H-1B and L-1. In addition, there are those who oppose narrow fixes to the immigration system, viewing smaller bills as a possible drain on efforts to achieve a broad comprehensive approach that deals with illegal immigration as well. These types of competing interests continue to make immigration reform a challenging proposition.