Monthly Archives: April 2011

Immigration Blog

Little Known Fact: Indians and Others on H-1B Visas Fund Scholarships and Job Training for Americans

6 Comments

One of the more surprising aspects of America’s debate about high skill immigration is how little attention focuses on the fees paid by employers of H-1B visa holders. Indians generally make up roughly half of H-1B professionals, though it varies from year to year, so the fee issue should be of interest to the Indian American community, particularly since it can play a role in the broader immigration policy debate.

Back in 1998, when Congress debated an increase in the H-1B quota, a compromise was reached to raise the 65,000 annual limit for temporary visas for high skilled professionals. The policy debate over increasing the annual H-1B limit centered largely on whether America and U.S. employers were doing enough to train and educate Americans for high skill jobs in the technology field. Under the legislation passed in 1998, Congress raised the H-1B quota for three years, but also assessed a $500 fee on for-profit employers each time they hired (or renewed the status of) an H-1B professional, with the money going towards scholarships and job training.

In 2000, Congress again temporarily boosted the annual quota on H-1B visas and this time raised the training/scholarship fee to $1,000. After both the fee and H-1B quota increase ended in late 2004, Congress raised the H-1B training/scholarship fee to $1,500 ($750 for smaller companies) and provided 20,000 H-1B visas annually (in addition to the 65,000 quota) for individuals who received a masters degree or higher from a U.S. university. Congress also added a $500 anti-fraud fee on each H-1B and L-1 visa.

Lots of Money Raised, But Little Attention

The money raised from this training/scholarship fee has quietly grown over the years. In fact, its growth has been so quiet that nobody seems to have realized how much money has been spent by employers on these fees and where the money has gone.

A recent study from the National Foundation for American Policy concluded:

In addition to paying skilled foreign-born professionals the same wages as comparable American workers, government data show U.S. employers have been required to pay over $3 billion in mandatory government fees since 2000. The data call into question critics’ assertions H-1B visa holders are hired to save money. Data from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services obtained by the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) show from FY 2000 to FY 2011, employers have paid over $2.3 billion to the federal government in H-1B scholarship/training fees (generally $1,500 per individual), while a $500 anti-fraud tax/fee on each H-1B and L-1 visa has cost employers more than $700 million.

(A copy of the study from the National Foundation for American, where I serve as executive director, can be found here.)

Where Has the Money Gone?

There is no scandal here. No one claims the money has not gone to its intended purpose. But it is clear this topic has fallen through the cracks. Employers gain no political credit for paying the fee and neither the U.S. Department of Labor nor the National Science Foundation give much publicity to the training or scholarships that the fee funds. Nor do employers gain much credit for their individual efforts to train workers or support education.

According to the most recent annual budget document of the National Science Foundation, due to the H-1B fees assessed on each H-1B professional hired, “Approximately 58,000 students have received scholarships ranging from one to four years.” The scholarships can be as high as $10,000 and are used by U.S. undergraduate and graduate students pursuing math and science degrees.

Examining past budgets finds over 100,000 U.S. workers have received training via the H-1B fees paid by employers. In its annual budget document the Department of Labor describes its H-1B-funded job training initiatives as targeting “skills and competencies in demand by industries for which employers are using H-1B visas to hire foreign workers.”

Table 1

College Scholarships and Job Training Funded by Employers

Through H-1B Fees: FY 2000 to FY 2011

College Scholarships through National Science Foundation 58,000
Job Training through Department of Labor 100,000 +

Source: National Science Foundation, U.S. Department of Labor, National Foundation for American Policy.

Conclusion

Thirty percent of every H-1B fee goes to scholarships provided to U.S. students through the National Science Foundation. Fifty percent of the fee is allotted to training programs. That means every time an H-1B visa holder is hired (or his/her status is renewed), $450 goes to fund a scholarship for a U.S. student and $750 is sent to provide job training for a U.S. worker.

It is good that U.S. workers and students receive training and scholarships. Whether that money, particularly $3 billion worth, should come directly from employers when they hire H-1B professionals is less clear but it has been U.S. government policy for a decade. If these fees are to continue, then they should figure more prominently in the debate over skilled immigration. The fees call into question the assertions made that 1) employers hire H-1B visa holders to save money and 2) companies do not help educate and train students and workers. There is one point everyone should agree on – even in Washington, $3 billion is a lot of money.

India-US Relations Blog

What Indians (Some) Want the U.S. to do

Leave a comment

There is little doubt that the left in India wish the United States ill–not that the U.S. has done them any harm. The Indian left, ever since the Soviet bloc collapsed and China turned capitalist and aggressive, has needed an imperialist enemy to focus their enmity upon. After all, their version of socialism or communism ruined nine odd countries whose people revolted against the rule of the proletariat and went back into the capitalist fold. So the U.S. wish to democratize other nations and slap around a few dictators evokes little sympathy in places like JNU.  Opposing national stands taken in other capitals, are looked at by the Indian left benignly, unless the capital concerned is Washington. Any disagreement with Washington arises, according to the left, from an imperialist or capitalist plot, as is for instance the U.S. envoy in Delhi reporting to Washington (according to wikileaks) that dealing with a Mamta ruled Bengal would be easier than dealing with Buddhadeb. If the U.S. consular office reports that Hyderabad is the Center of an Indian visa application forgery scam, that too must be a capitalist plot.

Most Indians have a sensible view of the United States and world order. What do the sensible majority wish the U.S. to do? They certainly don’t want what they see as a huge Republican negativism in opposing the ruling party – for the sake of opposition – even if it means dragging the U.S. down. We have enough of that in our own country, where the beneficial nuclear deal was opposed by a right wing  – left wing anti-national coalition in parliament, when the nuclear deal was originally a BJP idea.

May be a world led by the USA is not an ideal world – but it is more acceptable than, say, a world in which the Chinese have the last word. So the majority of Indians wonder, when is the U.S. going to pull itself out of the economic doldrums, and re-invent itself, as it has done so many times in the past? When are the happy days of oodles of I-20 visas, a thriving Silicon valley, huge back office contracts and masses of desi California weddings coming back? The US-India relationship is largely run by the people, in any case. If we left it to the government they would lower it to the same ‘estranged’ levels as existed in the 1980s. The strength of the U.S. lies in technology innovation. That innovation is converted into dual use merchandise and military power. This process is the US’ monopoly. Techno-innovation comes from concentrating the best brains around booming university towns. To make all that happen again, the U.S. government must pour money into technology innovation, start ups, entrepreneurs and university research. Will the U.S. do all that? Do they have the money to create jobs, fix medical insurance and still have enough money to plough back into the process that makes the U.S. the number one nation? Indians are worried.

Delhi has enough unpredictable allies and friends – from Myanmar to Bangladesh to Sri- Lanka and Afghanistan. But all these unpredictabilities are small compared to the future of the US. Even two U.S. authors of Indian origin have joined in predicting a failing future for the U.S. – but the majority refuse to give up hope.  Of course Obama’s speech on cheap Indian medicine doesn’t help. Hasn’t he seen that the U.S. and India grow rich together? Or that, if the U.S. launches another technological revolution, in say, alternate energy, the Indians in the U.S. will link Indian back offices and labs to execute that revolution to the mutual advantage of both countries?

The Indian government is just as wayward as the U.S. government – flirting with a non-entity of alphabets like BRIC. We really have nothing in common with China buying our iron ore and dumping manufactured goods on us. Our relationship with Brazil is a really stretched concept. The bilateral relationship with Russia is healthy and strong without lumbering it with China and Brazil, in a pointed slap to the Americans. But that is what governments do – make diplomatic headlines  that are of no consequence on the ground.

Immigration Blog

Where Does India Rank on Immigration?

3 Comments

Americans like rankings. The rankings of college football teams help determine the sport’s national champion. Every week, Americans can read the rankings of movies at the box office or which songs or albums have sold the most. Having become Americanized, it is likely immigrants and the children of immigrants are curious about where their family’s country of origin ranks in immigration to the United States.

The 2010 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, compiled by the Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security, contains a wealth of information, most of which receives little attention in the press. Below I’ve put together some of the highlights of the yearbook and where immigrants from India rank among immigrants from other countries.

Overall Immigration to the United States

In the United States in 2010, 1,042,625 persons obtained legal permanent resident status, according to the Department of Homeland Security. The statistics include people who came from abroad to receive legal permanent resident status in 2010 and also persons here already in another status (i.e., student, temporary worker) who changed their status to receive a green card. As shown in Table 1, the leading countries were Mexico, China (People’s Republic), India, Philippines and the Dominican Republic. Individuals are designated in this tabulation by their country of birth.

Table 1
Immigration to the U.S. (2010) – All Categories, by Country of Birth


Rank

Country

Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status in 2010 – All Immigration Categories
1 Mexico 139,120
2 China  70,863
3 India 69,162
4 Philippines 58,173
5 Dominican Republic 53,870

Source: Table 10, 2010 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security. Note: Country designation is by country of birth.

Family Immigration

There are two types of family immigration. Immediate relatives are the spouses, minor children and parents of U.S. citizens. India ranked 5th in 2010 for most individuals immigrating as immediate relatives, behind Mexico, the Philippines, China and the Dominican Republic. (See Table 2)

Table 2
Immediate Relatives – Immigration to the U.S. (2010) by Country of Birth


Rank Country Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status in 2010 – Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizens
1 Mexico 88,572
2 Philippines  33,746
3 China 24,198
4 Dominican Republic 22,218
5 India 21,831

Source: Table 10, 2010 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security. Note: Country designation is by country of birth.

The second type of family immigration includes the family-sponsored preference categories: unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens, spouses and children (minor and adult) of legal permanent residents, married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens and siblings of U.S. citizens. As Table 3 shows, India ranked 5th among countries in individuals immigrating to the United States in the family preference categories in 2010.


Table 3
Family Preference Categories – Immigration to the U.S. (2010) by Country of Birth


Rank Country Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status in 2010 – Family Preference Categories
1 Mexico 34,114
2 Dominican Republic  31,089
3 Vietnam 18,027
4 Philippines 17,849
5 India 14,636

Source: Table 10, 2010 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security. Note: Country designation is by country of birth.

Employment-Based Immigration

Table 4 shows India was the leading source country for employment-based immigrants (green card holders), ranking ahead of China, South Korea, Mexico and the Philippines. This reflects the large proportion of H-1B visa holders who were born in India and have worked in the United States while waiting for their priority date to receive permanent residence.


Table 4
Employment-based Preference Categories – Immigration to the U.S. (2010) by Country of Birth

Rank Country Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status in 2010 – Employment-based Preference Categories
1 India 31,118
2 China  17,949
3 South Korea 11,642
4 Mexico 11,535
5 Philippines 6,423

Source: Table 10, 2010 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security. Note: Country designation is by country of birth. Includes “Other Workers” category in which an undergraduate degree is not required.

Conclusion

The data show that India ranked 3rd overall in immigration to the United States in 2010. Close to half of Indian immigration came through the employment-based preference categories. However, the data show family immigration also remains an important source of immigration to the United States for Indians.

Defence And Strategic Affairs Blog

India’s Military Modernization is Stagnating

1 Comment

According to a recent KPMG report, India is likely to spend up to US$ 100 billion on the purchase of military equipment over the next 10 years. During the last decade, India acquired T-90S main battle tanks; the USS Trenton, an amphibious warfare ship that can lift one infantry battalion; AN-TPQ37 weapon locating radars; and, signed deals for six Scorpene attack submarines as well as for upgrading Mirage 2000 fighter-bomber aircraft. Admiral Gorshkov, a Russian aircraft carrier, will soon be on its way after a prolonged refit and INS Arihant, an indigenously designed nuclear-powered submarine is undergoing sea trials.

USS Trenton; Credit: www.defense.govIndia also acquired a host of low-end equipment for counter-insurgency operations and for upgrading the infantry’s combat efficiency. Besides these purchases, the acquisition or manufacture of 126 MMRCA fighter aircraft, almost 1,500 155mm howitzers, about 250 light helicopters, P8I Poseidon maritime reconnaissance aircraft, C-130J Super Hercules aircraft for Special Forces, C-17 Globemaster heavy lift aircraft and many other items of defense equipment, is in the pipeline.

Are these defense acquisitions part of a carefully structured strategy for military modernisation or are these piecemeal purchases that will only replace obsolescent weapons and equipment with more modern ones but not add substantially to India’s comprehensive military power? In their recent book Arming without Aiming: India’s Military Modernization, Stephen P. Cohen and Sunil Dasgupta aver that the process lacks political support and guidance, is haphazard and bereft of strategic direction and is not in consonance with evolving doctrinal and organisational changes.

In the absence of a resolute strategic culture and the gross neglect of long-term national security planning, it is difficult to dispute Cohen and Dasgupta’s finding that India is arming without aiming. Not only does India not have a coherent national security strategy, but also lacks the tools and processes necessary to formulate such a strategy. While there is a National Security Council for long-term defence planning, its apex body – which essentially comprises the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) plus the National Security Advisor (NSA) – seldom meets to deliberate over long-term threats and emerging challenges and the adversaries’ military capabilities that should together drive military strategy, force structures and the modernisation plans necessary to meet and defeat future threats.

The armed forces have drawn up a long-term integrated perspective plan (LTIPP), but it is yet to be approved by the government. The 11th Defence Plan (2007-12) is now in its fifth year and has not been accorded formal approval. The armed forces are left with no choice but to stumble along from one financial year to the next. The defence acquisition process is plagued by tardy decision making and large amounts of budgetary allocations on the capital account are surrendered every year, leading to completely haphazard military modernization.

However, not all is lost. The two new mountain divisions now under raising by the army clearly indicate that the emphasis in defence planning has shifted from Pakistan, whose military power is rapidly declining, towards a rising and increasingly assertive China, which shall indisputably remain a long-term military threat as long as the territorial dispute is not satisfactorily resolved. The acquisition of strategic sealift and airlift capabilities and air-to-air refuelling for fighter aircraft signals India’s attempts to build intervention and rapid reaction capabilities in keeping with its regional power status. The importance being given to upgrading command and control (C4I2SR) systems shows the aspirations of the armed forces to acquire the tools necessary to benefit from the combat synergies provided by network-centric and effects-based operations.

India-US Relations Blog

A US-India Nuclear Alliance

1 Comment

Although President George W Bush understood the need to ensure parity for India with France and the U.K. in a 21st century alliance calculus, the Europeanists within his administration slowed down his effort at ensuring an equal treatment for India. Much the same as Winston Churchill in the previous century, they regard it as a “country of a lesser god” that is simply undeserving of any except a subservient status. Sadly, the Obama administration has become even more a Europeanists’ delight than its predecessor, and it has very rapidly sought to dilute the few concessions that President Bush succeeded in extracting from his skeptical team.

Credit: IBNLive.com

This has been especially pronounced in the nuclear field. It is not rocket science that India’s ascent into middle income status will depend on a huge increase in its generation of energy, and that such an increase, given existing green technologies, will need to be powered mostly by energy from nuclear sources. The nuclear industries of India and the U.S. have excellent synergy between them, provided the U.S. acknowledges the implicit premise of the 2005 Singh-Bush statement and the 2008 unanimous vote of the Nuclear Suppliers Group to allow commerce and cooperation with India.

The non-proliferation lobby within the U.S. (a group heavily represented in the Obama administration) made India its primary target since 1974, neglecting to take account of the leaching of nuclear and missile technology from China and other locations to Pakistan and North Korea. Small wonder that it has demonized the India-US deal as a “danger to non-proliferation efforts”, despite the fact that a democracy of a billion-plus people is as much entitled to critical technologies as France or the UK. The reality, however, is that the Manmohan Singh government made several concessions to the U.S. side that have had the effect of substantially degrading India’s offensive capability. An example was the closing down of the CIRUS reactor, which was producing weapons-grade plutonium for decades. In exchange, India was to be given access to re-processing technology. Not merely has such technology continued to be denied to India, but the Obama administration is seeking to cap, roll back and eliminate India’s homegrown reprocessing capabilities.

Apart from strong-arm (and secret) tactics designed to force India to agree to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), the Obama administration is now seeking to force India to give up its Fast Breeder Reactor program. As if on cue, those commentators in the world’s second-largest English-speaking country – including those not known for any previous interest in matters nuclear- who hew to the line of any incumbent U.S. administration have used the Fukushima disaster to call for the FBR program to be abandoned.

Whether by accident or by design, since 2007, this program has slowed down substantially, to the dismay of scientists working in the Atomic Energy Establishment who were rooting strongly for the India-US nuclear deal on the premise that this would ensure a much-needed alliance between the nuclear industries of both countries.

 Instead, because of the present administration’s steady drumbeat of fresh conditions (and retrogressive tweaking of existing agreements), nuclear cooperation between the U.S. and India has remained frozen, even while that with Russia has bloomed. Hopefully, such a state of affairs will not continue for long.

One sector where a vigorous India-US partnership would immensely benefit both countries (of course, on the assumption – challenged by key elements in the Obama administration – that India is entitled to the same status as other key U.S. allies) would be in the field of thorium. India has nearly 300,000 tons of thorium (Th), more than enough to power the nuclear industries of both countries. India has already gone a substantial distance towards a viable thorium-based technology. The catch is that this involves reprocessing on a significant scale, a technology that the Churchillians in the U.S. administration say should be denied to India. This is despite the fact that when anyone last checked, India was not an authoritarian state but a democracy. Unless of course, such a prejudice is based on instincts that are not mentionable in polite company.

Despite having been treated as a pariah state by the US, India consistently abided even by agreements that the U.S. side had unilaterally discarded, for example at Tarapur. In this facility, a huge amount of radioactive material has piled up, that India has not re-processed, despite having the technology to, because the plant was set up in collaboration with the US. Some of the spent fuel has been converted after much expense and effort from unsafeguarded radioactive material to safeguarded irradiated fuel, especially in RAPS 1 and 2.

Despite such good behavior, not to mention an impeccable non-proliferation record, the Obama administration in effect continues to treat India as a nuclear pariah, seeking to drive it down to the status of a recipient country under the proposed international scheme for nuclear cooperation. Such a mindset would put paid to any possibility of an India-US alliance, and would be very good news to a country that U.S. non-proliferationists treat with kid gloves, China.

Credit: www.dae.govIndia has already developed two thorium-based systems, the Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR) and the Compact High Temperature Reactor (CHTR). Although for some reason there seems to be a sharp deceleration in such plans by the present Manmohan Singh government, plans are for the entry of the Indian private sector in this greenfield industry. Ideally, these would partner with U.S. companies, but the way matters are going, it would seem that Russian state enterprises may eventually end up as the preferred partners. This is presumably the reason why there is a significant lobby within India that opposes those within the government who seek to buy either the F -16 or the F-18 for the Indian Air Force. The continued reluctance to give India its due as a major power is behind the skepticism in South and North Block about relying on the U.S. for critical defense equipment. The Obama administration’s cavalier treatment of India’s rights as a responsible nuclear power are behind the pressure by elements of the armed forces to backtrack on plans for a comprehensive defense partnership with India. India gets treated as a Sudan or as a Gautemala in such a pairing, rather than get located in the same bracket as France and the US.

 

Despite their worst efforts, the plan to once again consign India to the bottom of the nuclear heap will not succeed. The 21st century mandates a vigorous partnership of the two most populous Anglosphere countries, India and the US. The non-proliferationists in the U.S. ought not to be allowed to make this hostage to their refusal to admit that India and its population are as responsible and deserving of privileges as the people of major U.S. allies in Europe. Should such a Churchillian view on India continue, the geopolitical gainers would be Russia and China.