All posts by Stuart Anderson

Stuart Anderson is the author of the book Immigration (Greenwood, 2010) and a researcher on trade and immigration issues. From August 2001 to January 2003, Stuart served as Executive Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning and Counselor to the Commissioner at the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Before that he spent four and a half years on Capitol Hill on the Senate Immigration Subcommittee, first for Senator Spencer Abraham and then as Staff Director of the subcommittee for Senator Sam Brownback. Stuart has published articles in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and other publications. The views expressed in this blog are not intended to support specific pieces of legislation or candidates.
Immigration Blog

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

Leave a comment

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.

 

Immigration Blog

The Story of Two Immigrant Entrepreneurs

8 Comments

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.

Immigration Blog

Unused Employment Visas Contributed to Green Card Backlog

Leave a comment

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.

Immigration Blog

Indians and Illegal Immigration

Leave a comment

The vast majority of Indians come to the United States legally and stay here as legal visa holders. Many become permanent residents (green card holders) and then U.S. citizens. Indeed, in terms of income and education, it would be difficult to find a more successful immigrant group in U.S. history.

There are also Indians in the United States illegally. Such individuals remain a small part of the overall illegal immigrant population. Still, it is a segment worth exploring to help us better understand the immigration issue.

According to the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Indians made up only 1.9 percent of the illegal immigrant population in the United States as of January 2010. (Here is a link to that report.) There were approximately 200,000 Indians not in legal status in the U.S. out of a total illegal immigrant population of 10,790,000, according to a DHS report released in February 2011.

Table 1

Illegal Immigrant Population by Country (2010)

Country of Birth Estimated Unauthorized Immigrant Population (2010)
Mexico 6,640,000
El Salvador 620,000
Guatemala 520,000
Honduras 330,000
Philippines 280,000
India 200,000
Ecuador 180,000
Brazil 180,000
Korea 170,000
China 130,000
All Countries 10,790,000

                                               Source: Department of Homeland Security.

A Country by Country Look

One can see by examining Table 1 that Mexico dominates the overall illegal immigration population in the United States, representing over 60 percent, with 6.6 million. The next three countries have far smaller numbers of illegal immigrants in America: El Salvador with 620,000, Guatemala with 520,000 and Honduras with 330,000. These figures are as of January 2010, which means it’s possible newer data could yield slightly different results.

The Philippines has the fifth most illegal immigrants with 280,000, followed by India in 6th place with 200,000. Illegal immigrants from the Philippines and India largely come to the United States legally on visas and then overstay their visas. Unlike Mexicans, Indians cannot simply cross a border and find themselves in the United States. While it is possible some may have gone to Canada or Mexico and entered America illegally, it is more likely Indian illegal immigrants were once in some type of legal status and lost that status.

Changes in Indian Unauthorized Immigrant Population Over Time

In 1990, Indians made up an estimated 0.8 percent of the unauthorized immigrant population, with only 28,000 illegal immigrants, according to the then Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). It’s possible the 28,000 figure is a low estimate of the number of illegal immigrants from India in 1990. That is because an initial INS estimate of the number of Indians in the country illegally in the year 2000 was only 70,000. However, a few years later that figure was revised to 120,000.

Measuring the number of illegal immigrants in the United States is, by definition, not easy. It is even harder to make accurate estimates of smaller subsets of that population. Table 2 shows the overall number of Indians in the United States in the “unauthorized immigrant population” – the term used by the Department of Homeland Security – in 1990, 2000 and 2010. The numbers indicate the Indian population not in legal status has risen from 28,000 in 1990 to 200,000 in 2000.

Table 2

                                         Indian Unauthorized Immigrant Population: 1990 to 2010

Year Indian Percentage of Total
1990 28,000 0.8 percent
2000 120,000 1.4 percent
2010 200,000 1.9 percent

                   Source: Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Illegal Immigration Issue Remains Important

Whether someone is waiting for a green card or is an employer of immigrants, it would do well to remember that illegal immigration remains important in the American public’s mind. It drives the overall debate on immigration. In past years, disagreement on whether or not to provide legal status to the illegal immigrant population scuttled attempts to provide more green cards for high-skilled immigrants, including many Indians. The issue of illegal immigration is not going away.

Immigration Blog

New Obama Administration Policy on Deportations could help some Indian Immigrants

2 Comments

Indian immigrants are less likely to be here illegally than other immigrants. Despite this, some Indians in the United States or their friends and family members may benefit from the Obama Administration’s newly announced policy on deportations. There are approximately 200,000 individuals from India now residing in the United States without legal status, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

The new policy came in response to criticism, largely in the Hispanic community, that many individuals were being placed in deportation when encountered after traffic stops or after committing minor violations. In many cases, police or federal authorities became aware of these people under the “Secure Communities” initiative. On the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) website, Secured Communities is described as follows: “It uses an already-existing federal information-sharing partnership between ICE and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that helps to identify criminal aliens without imposing new or additional requirements on state and local law enforcement.”

Controversy has swirled as the initiative appeared to sweep up many people beyond the initially stated intention of the policy to focus on getting off the streets illegal immigrants who pose a danger to others. In response to this criticism, in June 2011, John Morton, the Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), released a memo that informed personnel in the field who they should prioritize in pursuing deportation. Still, despite the memo, stories of individuals with sympathetic stories being placed in deportation proceedings under the initiative began to dominate the Spanish language press in the United States.

In an August 18, 2011 letter to Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) and other members of Congress, the Obama Administration described the new policy: “Under the new process, a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ) working group will develop specific criteria to identify low-priority removal cases that should be considered for prosecutorial discretion.  These criteria will be based on ‘positive factors’ from the Morton Memo, which include individuals present in the U.S. since childhood (like DREAM Act students), minors, the elderly, pregnant and nursing women, victims of serious crimes, veterans and members of the armed services, and individuals with serious disabilities or health problems.” (Senator Durbin’s website provides more details.)

What does this all mean?
How does this review of pending deportation cases affect people in the country illegally or those with family members here out of status? Whether from India or Mexico, anyone in the country illegally should not view the policy as an amnesty. There is nowhere to apply. However, those placed in deportation proceedings whose cases are not pursued may be able to receive work authorization.

“The announcement should mean the end of the deportation process for a large number of individuals,” according to immigration attorney Greg Siskind. “Individuals whose deportation proceedings are closed are not going to receive a visa, green card or any new type of legal status. Some may be eligible for work authorization, however, but even being granted such documentation will not be the same as having a legal status in the U.S.”

This is an important distinction: being allowed to work is not the same as possessing a permanent right to live in the United States, which would normally come from receiving a green card. Individuals likely will not be able to travel freely even if they receive work authorization under the policy. “The new policy will not remove barriers to green card processing such as being subject to the three and ten year bars on reentering the U.S. as well as bars on adjusting status for individuals who entered the country without inspection,” notes Siskind. Upon attempting re-entry an individual might not be allowed back into the United States.

Every immigration case is unique. Those with friends or family members who may benefit under this policy should be wary of anyone promising they will be able to secure someone a green card because of the new procedures. The new policy is designed as temporary relief and a response to a political outcry over a possible misapplication of enforcement resources. It is not an amnesty, nor should it be considered one. Most important, this is a discretionary change in policy and, as such, can be changed again in the future.