Tag Archives: employment-based immigration

How Well Do Immigrants to America Assimilate?

Do immigrants assimilate or stay forever apart from American society? This question affects nearly all immigration issues, including family and employment-based immigration, both of which concern many Indian immigrants. A lack of consensus on the issue of assimilation has prevented action on broader immigration reform. In addressing the question of immigrants and assimilation it is useful to look at three areas: wage growth, education and English language acquisition.

Historical Concerns About Assimilation

Concerns about the assimilation of immigrants have been a key part of the debate over immigration for much of our nation’s history. Discussing the restrictions on immigration imposed by Congress in the 1920s, historian Oscar Handlin wrote, “The objections to further immigration from Italy and Poland reflected the objectors’ unfavorable observations of the Italians and the Poles they saw about them. The arguments that Greeks and Slovaks could not become good Americans rested on the premise that the Greeks and Slovaks in the United States had not become good Americans.”

Wage Growth

Jeffery S. Passel, senior research associate, Pew Hispanic Center, has developed techniques to differentiate between legal and illegal immigrants in Census data and to track changes based on years in the country. Passel’s research on immigrant wage growth and other issues demonstrates how important it can be to determine legal status when examining data on assimilation.

Census data show legal immigrants experience significant wage gains over time, even surpassing the average family income of natives, in the case of naturalized citizens. But illegal immigrants do not show that type of income gain based on years in the United States. “Average family income for both legal immigrants and refugees in the U.S. for more that 10 years is only 2 to 3 percent below that of natives,” writes Passel. “For longer term naturalized citizen families, average family income is 23 percent higher than native income.” But the average income level of an illegal immigrant family remains well below the average native family (about 35 percent below) even among illegal immigrants in the country 10 years or longer.

Research that did not distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants still found significant wage growth among immigrants. Economists Harriet Duleep and Mark Regets found that after a decade in the United States the earnings gap between new immigrants and natives largely disappears, with immigrant wage growth faster than native (6.7 percent vs. 4.4 percent).

Education

A similar story on legal immigrants can be seen in the Pew Hispanic Center’s analysis of Census data on education and immigrants. Overall, 32 percent of legal immigrants have obtained a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared to 30 percent of natives and 15 percent of illegal immigrants.

What about those who did not finish high school (ages 18-24)? Among illegal immigrants, 49 percent did not graduate high school, compared to 21 percent of legal immigrants and 11 percent of natives. Even among illegal immigrants who completed high school, less than half went on to attend college.

In contrast, among immigrants and natives who have completed high school, more legal immigrants have gone on to attend a college than natives – 73 percent of legal immigrants vs. 70 percent of natives – according to Passel’s research.

Education levels for legal immigrants improve across generations, just as they have historically for Americans. “Turning to the data, educational assimilation appears alive and well,” according to Pia Orrenius, senior economist, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. “High school dropout rates for immigrants improve across generations, dropping from 27 percent in the first generation to below the native average of 8.9 percent in the third generation.”

English Language

Do immigrants and their children learn English? Do they want to learn English? It’s possible many Americans believe the answer is “no.” The data suggest otherwise.

In the report The New Americans, produced by the National Research Council, only 3 percent of immigrants in the country 30 years or more reported not speaking English well in the 1990 Census. This illustrates that assimilation takes place. But also how important it is to make judgments on data that are longitudinal, since newly arriving immigrants can skew the totals.

The story is quite positive with the children of immigrants. According to a Pew Hispanic Center survey, 88 percent of second generation children from Latino immigrant families and 94 percent from the third generation said they spoke English very well.

Contrary to concerns Spanish-speaking immigrants will pass along to their children and grandchildren a proclivity to speak Spanish over English, research shows the opposite is true. A study by Frank Bean and Ruben Rumbaut (both University of California, Irvine) and Douglas Massey (Princeton University) found “Although the generational life expectancy of Spanish is greater among Mexicans in Southern California than other groups, its demise is all but assured by the third generation.”

Bean, Rumbaut and Massey concluded, “Based on an analysis of language loss over the generations, the study concludes that English has never been seriously threatened as the dominant language in America, nor is it under threat today.”

Conclusion

The conclusion one draws from the data is that today’s immigrants are indeed assimilating. As a group, they are gainfully employed and experience wage growth over time, education levels rise, and acquisition of the English language increases, particularly in the second generation. This does not mean all immigrants assimilate. But it does mean that, overall, the American “melting pot” continues to work.

Responsible Ways to Increase Compliance with H-1B Visas

While critics often overstate problems with H-1B temporary visas, it is good policy to eliminate H-1B visa fraud in a practical manner. Perhaps the best way is to empower the potential victims of such fraud – H-1B visa holders. To the extent the current legal regime is insufficient to protect H-1B professionals it can result in individuals being taken advantage of, which harms the H-1B visa holder and, potentially, American workers.

Even if the typical H-1B visa holder is not an indentured servant, as critics allege, situations can arise that leave an individual vulnerable to exploitation. For example, one type of case is when a professional enters the United States but goes a number of months without working or being paid. Such an employer has acted illegally, since it is explicitly against the law to “bench” or place someone in a nonproductive capacity and not pay the individual.

Recommendations

To address these and other situations a number of measures can be taken that would enhance protections for H-1B visa holders and, indirectly, U.S. professionals.

First, Congress, USCIS and DOL should explicitly protect the immigration status of any H-1B visa holder who files a complaint alleging a violation by his employer. Whistleblower protections exist under current law. However, these provisions are not widely known, carry a degree of ambiguity, and are virtually unpublicized by the Department of Labor and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

More explicit language by Congress can be combined with effective action by government agencies to protect the immigration status of whistleblowers. This should not require an employer to pay a salary to an individual simply because he or she filed a complaint that is pending, since that can easily be abused. And there should be discouragement in the law or regulations regarding the filing of frivolous claims. However, making it clear that an H-1B visa holder who files a complaint can stay in the United States in H-1B status (and seek other employment) while a complaint is adjudicated would increase protections for the individuals and the integrity of the H-1B visa process.

Second, a process should be in place for an H-1B visa holder to file for private arbitration, if necessary, to retrieve disputed wages owed. Such a dispute may not rise to the level of a formal complaint or perhaps an individual feels uncomfortable contacting federal authorities over a private wage issue. While government bureaucrats are not universally loved in America, they are loathed in other nations. The right to arbitration of a wage dispute, which could also carry protection of immigration status, would help provide greater employee-employer balance for a group of people concerned with their immigration status in the United States.

Third, increase employment-based green card quotas and eliminate the per country limit for skilled immigrants. The possibility one would need to re-start the process with a new employer can limit the mobility of someone in H-1B status, which would make them less likely to complain. While most employers only want people to work for them who wish to be there, some employers could take advantage of a situation created by Congress not increasing the quotas for employment-based green cards.

Fourth, all H-1B visa holders should receive the key documents relevant to their case and H-1B status. This includes a copy of the labor condition application, which carries wage information and, for example, the I-797 approval notice. USCIS and the Department of Labor should seek to ensure H-1B visa holders are receiving the documentation they are entitled to, as well as information related to protection of immigration status and how to file complaints.

Finally, Congress should avoid enacting measures that would be so restrictive as to encourage U.S. employers to hire skilled foreign nationals abroad rather than in the United States. Two such actions would be to apply “recruitment” and “nondisplacement” attestations to all U.S. employers. There is no evidence of a need to expand the scope or application of these attestations. In the days of flexible job functions and multiple locations such provisions can cause a General Counsel to conclude his or her company may be unlikely to be in compliance if they hire any H-1B professionals. The safer alternative would be to expand outside the United States rather than risk such legal liability.

Current Law Addresses Key Concerns

Current law already addresses the main concerns of critics. Under Section 413 of the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act (passed in 1998), a company found committing a “willful” violation of the law regulating the proper wages for H-1B visa holders and displacing a U.S. worker is barred for three years from hiring any foreign nationals in the United States and faces up to a $35,000 fine per violation.

The problem is that the solutions proposed by some critics are essentially thinly disguised efforts to prevent employers from obtaining H-1B visas for any skilled foreign nationals, not really an attempt to address abuse. If one were concerned with companies committing fraud, then strict new requirements would not impact businesses that already ignore the current rules but rather would affect those who obey the law.

Understanding the Wait Times for Indians and Chinese in the EB-2 Category

The wait times for employment-based immigrants are of enormous significance to those personally affected by the green card backlog. In the employment-based second preference, or EB-2 category, those waiting are invariably from India or China.

Why Do Indians and Chinese Wait Longer?

The long waits for employment-based green cards are caused by two primary factors: 1) the 140,000 annual quota is too low and 2) the per country limit, which restricts the number of green cards available to skilled immigrants from one country to 7 percent of the total. Due to the per country limit, skilled foreign nationals from India and China, who make up most of the applicants, wait years longer than nationals of other countries.

In the EB-2 Category, There is No Wait for Europeans and Others

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services states, “You may be eligible for an employment-based, second preference [EB-2] visa if you are a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or its equivalent, or a foreign national who has exceptional ability.” Since there is normally a spilling down of unused immigrant visas from the EB-1 category, there are usually about 50,000 immigrant visas available each year under EB-2.

It is quite surprising to most people who hear about it but in the EB-2 category, for the past number of years, individuals sponsored from countries other than India and China have experienced no wait for their green cards, other than processing times. In contrast, many Indian and Chinese have been forced to wait 6 yeas or more for their green cards.

Backlog only for Indians and Chinese in EB-2

The demand for Indian and Chinese highly skilled researchers and professionals, combined with the relatively low quotas and per country limits, has created a backlog in the EB-2 category. However, the backlog has been made up entirely of Indian and Chinese nationals. Earlier this year, it appeared the backlog of Indians and Chinese in the EB-2 category, including dependents, could be as large as 90,000. However, it is likely that number has been decreasing (with some speed) in recent months.

Factors Helping Indians and Chinese in EB-2

It appears the number of green cards available to Indians and Chinese in the EB-2 category has increased in recent years, possibly due to slack demand among individuals from other countries. (A provision in U.S. immigration law allows the per country limit to be, in essence, ignored, if immigrant visas in a category would otherwise go unused.) In the January 2012 Visa Bulletin, the State Department has announced it is inviting applicants with priority dates as of January 1, 2009 to complete the final stage of the green card process. (Priority dates are based on the filing of applications or labor certification.)

This represents rapid movement forward for Indian and Chinese skilled immigrants. Only a year ago, in the January 2011 Visa Bulletin, the eligible priority dates for Indians and Chinese in the EB-2 category were May/June 2006, meaning the priority dates have jumped forward three years in the space of one calendar year.

Eliminating the Per Country Limit Would Help More

It is unknown at this time whether the improvement in the situation for Indians and Chinese in the EB-2 category is only a temporary phenomenon. In any case, because of the per country limit, Indians and Chinese are at a disadvantage if a sufficient individuals from other parts of the world apply for green cards in the EB-2 category. The only thing that will change that situation in the future is legislation that eliminates the per country limit for employment-based immigrants. Such legislation has been held up, at least temporarily, by Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA). Passing H.R. 3012 in the U.S. Senate would move employment-based immigration to a “first come, first serve” system, without regard to an individual’s country of origin.

Understanding the Potentially Decades-Long Waits for Indian Professionals in the Most Common Employment-Based Green Card Category

Today, hundreds of thousands of highly skilled foreign nationals, particularly Indians, are languishing in immigration backlogs, waiting years for the chance to obtain permanent residence (also known as a green card). The lack of employment-based green cards harms the competitiveness of U.S. employers and exacts a large personal toll on those who must wait.

Understanding the Indian Green Card Backlog

The long waits for employment-based green cards are caused by two primary factors. First, the 140,000 annual quota is too low to accommodate the number of skilled foreign nationals able to be absorbed successfully in an economy the size of America’s. The 140,000 annual limit includes both the principal and dependent family members. For example, in 2009, dependents utilized more than half of the slots for employment-based visas – 76,935 of 140,903.

In addition to the 140,000 overall annual limit on employment-based green cards, there is also a per country limit, which has a disparate impact on immigrants from countries with a large population of highly educated professionals, particularly India and China. The Immigration and Nationality Act, in Section 202(a), details the per country limit: “[T]he total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state . . . may not exceed 7 percent . . . of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.” That would limit employment-based immigrants from one country to approximately 10,000 a year (out of the 140,000 quota), although another provision permits nationals of a country to exceed this ceiling if additional employment-based visas are available. Still, in general, in the most common employment-based category, fewer than 3,000 Indians per year can immigrate.

The Indian Backlog in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3)

The reason Indian nationals will continue to wait a long time for employment-based green cards in the employment-based third preference (EB-3), the most common employment category, is the demand for their labor combined with the per country limit has created a large Indian backlog.

The backlog of Indians in the employment-based third preference could be as large as 210,000. One can estimate the backlog of Indians in the EB-3 category from available data. Earlier in 2010, the U.S. Department of State listed 49,850 Indians on the waiting list in the third preference category with a priority date prior to January 1, 2007. Priority dates normally coincide with the filing of a petition or of labor certification, an early stage in the employment-based green card process. However, that 49,850 figure does not include all the cases at various stages in the process at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services with a priority date prior to January 1, 2007. Rounding that figure upwards would get to at least 60,000 (and it could be higher).

To reach another 150,000 Indians for fiscal years 2007 through 2011 requires only about 15,000 individual Indian professionals sponsored for green cards each year for 5 years, with each averaging one dependent, another 15,000, for a total of 30,000 a year for 5 years or 150,000. To illustrate why an estimate of at least 15,000 Indians sponsored for green cards annually in EB-3 is reasonable, consider that 61,739 new H-1B petitions (for initial employment) were approved for Indians in FY 2008, and 33,961 Indians were approved for new H-1B petitions in FY 2009. A large proportion of H-1B visa holders are sponsored for green cards. In addition, employers frequently sponsor for green cards skilled foreign nationals already inside the country in another temporary status, such as L-1 (for intracompany transferees). Attorneys estimate 20 percent of those waiting for employment-based green cards are in a status other than H-1B.

Backlog is Large and Few Are Removed From Backlog Each Year

With no change to current law, an Indian-born professional sponsored today could wait decades for an employment-based green card. Due to the per country limit, generally no more than 2,800 Indians can receive permanent residence in the EB-3 category each year. Indians averaged fewer than 3,000 green cards annually in that category in 2009 and 2010, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

If, as discussed above, the potential backlog in the EB-3 category is 210,000 for Indians (principals and dependents) and 3,000 or fewer Indians can receive permanent residence in the category each year, then that means the theoretical wait for Indian professionals sponsored today in EB-3 is 70 years.

Nobody Will Wait 70 Years for a Green Card

In practice, no one can wait 70 years for a green card. That holds important implications for whether highly skilled foreign nationals from India will be able to stay long-term in the United States without changes to the law. Foreign nationals would have concerns that children included as part of the immigration petition would “age out” and not be allowed to become permanent residents. Moreover, generally speaking, spouses are not able to work. The numbers provide an illustration of how long the waits for permanent residence could be absent action by Congress. Eliminating the per country limit for employment-based green cards and raising the quotas for skilled immigrants will have a significant impact on reducing the time Indians wait for green cards.

Indian Entrepreneurs Fit into an American Tradition

America is a nation of immigrants. But it is historically has been a nation of entrepreneurs. Because of geography and U.S. immigration laws it was not possible for Indian immigrants to play a large role as entrepreneurs in the U.S. economy. However, the rise of Indian business people in America, especially since 1990, fits into a long tradition in America.

Early History of Immigrant Entrepreneurs in America

American history is fueled by the story of entrepreneurs. “The history of the United States lies in entrepreneurial ambition,” notes the Babson Entrepreneur Experience Lab. “The first colonies established in the New World sought to take advantage of new access to raw materials, agricultural lands and trade routes. More importantly, immigration to America offered the chance to escape class and persecution and to create opportunities for oneself; it was seen as the ‘land of opportunity.’ In particular, economic growth and entrepreneurial opportunities were found in owning land, various mercantile activities and exploration.”

Entrepreneurs Introducing New Methods and Technologies

Individual entrepreneurs, both native-born and foreign-born, have influenced how Americans communicate from the time of the telegraph up to the modern-day advent of mobile phones. In 1844, Samuel Morse won a federal grant to demonstrate the feasibility of the telegraph, though initially it could only transmit about 1,000 feet. When the federal government showed little interest in expanding the capability of the technology, Morse licensed private companies that within 6 years had built a “comprehensive network between major commercial centers.” According to Gerald Gunderson, author of An Entrepreneurial History of the United States, “Merchants extended their operations over a much wider area as the delays and uncertainty of working in distant markets fell. The telegraph took Americans a long way toward creating a national market by eliminating much of the disadvantage of distance.”

Entrepreneurs have also helped introduce new methods of operating businesses that later became common practice. Andrew Carnegie, an immigrant from Scotland, is famous for producing steel. “Carnegie’s challenge in 1870 was to develop an organization that improved efficiency as rapidly as possible,” explained Gunderson. “This turned not so much on inventing technology to produce steel, as on building an organization whose instinctive, primary focus was to reduce costs. Some of Carnegie’s innovations are so widely employed today they have become standard topics in management textbooks. One was the development of profit centers.”

Indian Entrepreneurs Emerge in America Post-1965

Between 1820 and 1959, only 13,363 Indians immigrated to America. This was due to the long distances but also because of immigration legislation passed in 1924 that severely limited immigration from eastern European, Asian, and African countries.

The 1965 Act eliminated the national origins quotas, opening the door to the immigration of Indians, Chinese and many others. The rise of Indian students in the United States helped lead to more family and employment-based immigrants and, as a result, that helped lead to more immigrant entrepreneurs.

A study I did for the National Venture Capital Association in 2006 examined publicly traded companies that had received venture capital. (See study here.) The study found, India, with 32 companies (22 percent), ranked first as the country of origin for immigrant-founded venture-backed public companies, followed by Israel with 17 companies (12 percent), and Taiwan with 16 companies (11 percent). Canada, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, China, Iran, and two dozen other countries were also among the countries of origin of the immigrant entrepreneurs on the list.

A study just released by the National Foundation for American Policy examining the top privately-held venture-funded companies. It also found India was the leading source country for immigrant entrepreneurs. (See study here.) Today’s Indian entrepreneurs are fitting into an American tradition of influencing society through entrepreneurship that goes back hundreds of years in our country’s history.