Tag Archives: H1-B visa

India-US Relations Blog

Yesterday, once more?

Leave a comment

And just like that, the much awaited, once postponed India-US Strategic Dialogue came and went, with not even the the tiniest frisson of excitement of that had accompanied previous Dialogues. Minders on both sides must have been secretly pleased that the Murdoch slugfest in London came in as a suitable excuse to explain away the limited interest and analysis of the Strategic Dialogue in the media. With new lists of grievances building up on both sides to replace the long-drawn out lists of the Cold War era, the Strategic Dialogue process has had the unintended consequence of focusing attention on these issues for which all available political capital has been expended or there is no solution even at the highest political levels.  Given this reality, the reports of half-hearted wagging of fingers and admonishments behind closed doors were more for the benefit of respective constituencies than to move the process forward. The overriding urge to prevent any SNAFUs meant that Mrs. Clinton proposal to visit Kolkata as part of itinerary was shot down by the hosts. And whilst Mrs. Clinton broke bread with all her leading interlocutors, from the Prime Minister downwards, the glaring exception was Defence Minister A K Antony, for whom the Dialogue that was to take place in April had been postponed since he was ostensibly busy with the Kerala elections.

01-1The U.S. side, in particular, has become a master at the art of coming out with comprehensive factsheets laying out the massive advances in joint projects, emphasizing the width and breadth of the partnership.   With many of the bilateral agreements signed over the years stuck at various stages of implementation, it is almost as if both sides were virtually scrapping the bottom of the barrel this time around to come out with agreements on cyber security cooperation and cooperation in aviation safety. This is not to belittle the importance of these agreements, and particularly the one on cybersecurity. However, the impression one gets is that there is still a sufficient amount of mistrust on both sides to ensure that even this initiative will live uptoits potential for some time to come. By way of comparison, the agreement between cyber adversaries Russia and the United States on cyber security cooperation signed just the previous week is much more specific on actions and timelines.

But it is not as if Mrs Clinton would be particularly disappointed by either the dampened expectations or outcome of her visit. From an American perspective, given the flux in the wider Asian region, accelerating the strategic partnership with India in the security and defence realms, especially if it is only on the back of unilateral concessions, will only fetch diminishing returns. One only needs replace India with the U.S. in the previous sentence to come up with the Indian view. On the American side, there is reasonable confidence that an increasingly powerful and belligerent China will eventually drive India into U.S. arms. In the meantime, there is plenty of other fish to fry, particularly when it comes to pushing the economic and people-to-people aspects, part of larger initiativesthat Mrs. Clinton has focused on since taking up stewardship of the State Department.  And therefore it is not surprising that out of the many factsheets brought out by the Department at the end of the visit, it is those on economic ties and education and people-to people ties that have the most substance. While the former leads with talks on a Bilateral Investment Treaty, there is a consolation prize in the establishment of the first ever Consular Dialogue to take place on July 25 “for a full discussion of visa and other consular matters”. From Tri-Valley to the harassment of H1B visa holders and diplomatic pat-downs, there will be much to discuss at this Dialogue. Considering that a similar Consular Dialogue has been part of the EU-IndiaStrategic Dialogue since 2000 and the India-Australia Dialogue more recently,one wonders why this did not come into being earlier even earlier.

On the education and people-to-people front, the noteworthy developments are the publication of the first request for proposals under the aegis of the Obama-Singh Knowledge Initiative with the fields of focus being Energy Studies, Sustainable Development, Climate Change, Environmental Studies, Education and Educational Reform, and Community Development and Innovation. How different this Initiative is from existing programs being carried out under the India U.S. Science and Technology Forum remains to be seen.  The other interesting program to watch out for would be the newly launched Passport to India which will facilitate increasing number of American students to come to India for periods ranging from three weeks to six months, to match the 100,000 odd Indian students in the United States. This, too, has an economic focus since the students will be here on internships with companies rather than for study programmes.

The silver lining in this particular cloud might be this; with both sides forced by exigencies to dial down the relationship a notch, this provides some breathing space to consolidate the initiatives that have been taken up in previous years. The U.S. State Department Inspector General’s office  has recommended that a separate office be established for India since “nations of comparable importance and with important bilateral relationships, such as China, Russia, Cuba, Canada, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, have their own offices”. A similar initiative on the Indian side would go a long way in implementing the many worthy initiatives of the Strategic Dialogue and make it less of the annual junket that it is being perceived to be.

Immigration Blog

What Do Employers Find on U.S. College Campuses?

Leave a comment

Policy toward employment-based immigration is often mired in accusations that companies ignore U.S. citizens in the recruitment process. In reality, the issue is not companies hiring foreign nationals instead of Americans. It’s that when companies recruit on college campuses they find a high proportion of students in important disciplines are foreign nationals.

In 2007, U.S. universities awarded about half of master’s degrees and 73 percent of Ph.D.s in electrical engineering to foreign nationals, according to the National Science Foundation. Patents produced by foreign nationals are indicators that international students completing their studies not only make up a large proportion of new potential entrants to the labor market but also end up producing important innovations.

As Tables 1 and 2 show a substantial percentage of fulltime graduate students at U.S. universities in important fields are foreign nationals on student visas. Such visas do not allow an individual to stay and work in the United States long-term. To work for years in the United States an international student generally would need an H-1B visa.

Table 1

Percentage of Foreign Nationals in U.S. Graduate School Programs

in Selected Fields (2006)

Field Percent of Fulltime Graduate Students with Foreign

Student VisasTotal Fulltime Graduate Students with Foreign Student VisasStatistics

60.8%

1,960

Economics (except agricultural)

59.6%

5,966

Computer Sciences

58.4%

16,801

Cardiology

50.0%

16

Physics

45.9%

5,707

Chemistry

40.7%

7,712

Mathematics/Applied Mathematics

39.4%

4,862

Pharmaceutical Sciences

36.8%

1,650

Radiology

31.5%

58

 

Source: National Science Foundation/Division of Science Resources Statistics, Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering. Tables 18 and 21 of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering: Fall 2006.


                                                                                    Table 2

Percentage of Foreign Nationals in U.S. Engineering Programs (2006)

Field Percent Fulltime Graduate Students with Foreign Student Visas Fulltime Graduate Students with Foreign Student Visas
Petroleum Engineering

83.9%

543
Electrical Engineering

68.2%

18,683
Mining Engineering

56.9%

103
Agricultural Engineering

56.6%

505
Industrial Engineering

56.5%

3,625
Mechanical Engineering

52.4%

6,640
Chemical Engineering

52.1%

3,241
Metall./Matl. Engineering

51.7%

2,390
Engineering Science

48.0%

795
Engineering (other)

44.6%

1,830
Civil Engineering

42.5%

5,554
Aerospace Engineering

39.3%

1,327
Biomedical Engineering

34.4%

1,948
Nuclear Engineering

33.0%

300
ENGINEERING (TOTAL)

54.1% 

47,484 

Source: National Science Foundation/Division of Science Resources Statistics, Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering. Tables 18 and 21 of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering: Fall 2006.


In computer sciences, statistics and economics, international students made up 58 to 60 percent of the fulltime graduate students on U.S. campuses in 2006. In mathematics (39 percent), chemistry (41 percent) and physics (46 percent) the proportion of international students in graduate programs is also significant. In graduate level engineering programs in the United States, 47,484 of the 87,818 fulltime students (54 percent) were in the U.S. on temporary student visas in 2006.

When an employer recruits at a U.S. college and finds an outstanding international student a company can file for him or her to be on OPT (Optional Practical Training) for 12 months, with the possibility of an extension for an additional 17 months. At some point in that process, the individual could be hired on an H-1B visa, if one is available. If the individual was educated outside the country or OPT is not appropriate or the best option for that person, the employer would generally attempt to hire them directly in H-1B status.

Depending on their size, U.S. employers hire either all U.S. workers or some combination of Americans and foreign nationals. When companies recruit on campuses, they find a high percentage of foreign nationals in key fields. To ignore all these candidates because they were not born in America would concede many talented individuals to competitors. It would be difficult for companies to remain successful with such a policy.

Immigration Blog

Employers May Soon Need Approval From a Federal Database for New Hires

Leave a comment

It is surprising that only months after taking office on a platform of smaller government, House Republicans appear poised to enact a program that some consider to be quite a big government solution to illegal immigration. The legislation is H.R 2164, sponsored by House Judiciary Committee Chair Lamar Smith (R-Texas). It bears watching in the coming weeks.

E-Verify is an electronic employment verification that allows employers to send, generally speaking, the name and social security number of a potential new hire and get back an answer from the federal government as to whether that individual is legally authorized to work in the United States.

The key issue is not whether such a system should exist. The issue is whether the federal government should require every employer in America to use E-Verify, as mandated in H.R. 2164.

In theory it may make sense to have such a system for checking new hires. But in practice it may be an entirely different story. A new report I completed details some of the problems with making E-Verify mandatory. (A copy of the report can be found here.)

First, it is unclear whether the system will actually reduce illegal immigration in any significant way. A government report by the consulting group Westat found about half of illegal immigrants show up in the system as work authorized, primarily, it’s assumed, by using a false identity. In addition to identify fraud the system could be thwarted by employers that decide not to submit the names of employees suspected of being illegal immigrants.

Second, the errors in the databases are likely to affect individuals here lawfully who seek jobs but are mistakenly shown by the system to be not authorized to work. This could be a major problem, since even under the current system employers often go against protocols and “pre-screen” applicants. That means individuals may not even realize why they are not called back after a job interview.

Misspellings of names and naturalization can lead to errors in the database. It is not surprising that someone with the name Mukherjee or Chidambaram is more likely to have a database error than a guy named Smith or Jones.

By some estimates foreign-born individuals are far more likely to experience problems with the Social Security or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services databases than native-born. “E-Verify error rates are 30 times higher for naturalized U.S. citizens and 50 times higher for legal nonimmigrants than for native-born U.S. citizens,” according to Congressional testimony by Tyler Morgan of the National Immigration Law Center.

Third, employers should be aware that H.R. 2164 vastly increases fines not only for employing illegal immigrants but also for what may be considered paperwork violations or a failure to submit an individual through the E-Verify system. The legislation puts in place a system more complex than simply checking new hires. An employer is also required to check existing employees under certain circumstances, including if an employee starts working on a state or federal contract or is within 30 days of work authorization expiring. A government allegation that workers were misclassified as independent contractors (and not required to be checked through E-Verify) rather than as employees could potentially trigger fines of at least tens of thousands of dollars.

The House legislation provides a short window for this to be up and running. The largest employers would be required to use E-Verify within 6 months, employers with between 20 to 499 employees within 18 months, and those with 1 to 19 employees would be required to use E-Verify within 24 months. A Senate bill, sponsored by Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) has a shorter window – one year for all employers – and requires all existing employees to be verified as well.

The House legislation could be marked up in the Judiciary Committee as early as this month. If it became law it could mark an enormous change in the operation of the U.S. workplace. Supporters of the bill view that as a good thing. Others are not so sure.

Immigration Blog

Can Immigration Policies Become More Open?

1 Comment

While immigrants and employers deal with the daily reality of overcoming immigration policies aimed at restricting, rather than promoting, migration, there are those who have called for liberalizing the world’s policies on the movement of people. In their book Exceptional People: How Migration Shaped Our World and Will Define our Future, authors Ian Goldin (Oxford), Geoffrey Cameron (Oxford) and Meera Balarajan (University of Cambridge) call for a fundamental change in immigration policies.

The authors argue that freeing up migration around the world would reap benefits. The authors note that according to the World Bank, “Increasing migration equal to 3 percent of the workforce in developed countries between 2005 and 2025 would generate global gains of $365 billion.” More radically: “Completely opening borders, some economists predict, would produce gains as high as $39 trillion for the world economy over 25 years.”

The authors are realistic enough to note that nothing like complete open borders is going to happen anytime soon. Their detailed history of migration around the world explains that until about 100 years ago, “open borders” was mostly the policy around the globe. The advent of World War I, nationalism, and the increase in modern transportation made such policies politically untenable.

Yet Goldin, Cameron and Balarajan explain that even if borders were not completely open, more migration, particularly if it was done in an orderly, legal way, can achieve positive results: “A small increase in migration would produce a much greater boon to the global economy and developing countries than free trade and development assistance combined.”

The authors call for an international body to help facilitate more open migration policies. Such calls are likely to fall on deaf ears. “So long as nationalism can legitimately trump more universal claims of international cooperation, world development, poverty alleviation, and human freedom, the project to advance an agenda for the liberalization of migration will be stalled,” the authors note.

Goldin, Cameron and Balarajan do not discuss the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), which has provided a degree of openness on skilled migration through a multilateral body. The United States, for example, committed, in essence, to maintain its policies on H-1B and L-1 temporary visas in exchange for greater market access in other sectors. To date, no cases have been filed against the United States for failing to honor those commitments, although it’s possible that could change.

The immigration issue is not going away. Factors beyond the control of elected officials propel both the issue and individual migration decisions. “A growing supply of migrants will result from greater pressure and propensity for people to move,” the authors note. “The pressure to migrate arises from the push and pull factors (whether economic, social, or political) that make migration attractive, whereas the propensity to migrate is related to individuals’ ability and willingness to bear the costs of moving.”

Goldin, Cameron and Balarajan conclude by placing their call for more open immigration policies in historical perspective: “Genetic and other evidence has placed the old arguments for ethnic purity in the dustbin of history. The ethical justification for discriminating on the basis of nation-states is also becoming moribund. While the world may still hold tightly to its national categories, as an excuse for restricting human liberties, they are being eroded by the tides of history. We contend that the idea of freer movement . . . will end up like the other big ideas that emerged from the margins of impossibility into the realm of the self-evident.”

Immigration Blog

A Closer Look at H-1B Numbers

Leave a comment

H-1B temporary visas for skilled professionals remain in the news as commentators note the relative decline in use of the visa as compared to previous years. According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, H-1B petitions filed for FY 2012 are indeed running below earlier years. (See Table 1.)

Table 1

FY 2012 H-1B Cap Count

Cap Type Cap Amount Cap Eligible Petitions Date of Last Count
H-1B Regular Cap 65,000 15,200 6/13/2011
H-1B Master’s Exemption 20,000 10,200 6/13/2011

Source: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Past Years: Which Companies Have Used the Most?

One source of controversy on H-1B visas has been the number of Indian companies featured among the top H-1B users. While the federal government has not released a complete list of H-1B employers for fiscal year 2010, some press outlets have obtained a top 12 list. Table 2 below shows that Infosys, an Indian company, was at the top of the list. Cognizant was second, Microsoft third, followed by Wipro, IBM India, Accenture, Larson & Toubro Infotech, Satyam, Mphasis and Deloitte. Google and Patni America were number 11 and 12 on the list.

Table 2

2010 H-1B Approved Petitions: Top Ten Employers

Company Petitions Approved in FY 2010
Infosys

3,792
Cognizant

3,388
Microsoft

1,618
Wipro

1,521
IBM India

882
Accenture

506
Larsen & Toubro

333
Satyam

224
Mphasis

197
Deloitte Consulting

196

Source: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Although the H-1B limit was reached in both FY 2009 and FY 2010, total approvals can differ each year. An application is generally counted in the fiscal year it is approved, rather than the fiscal year the H-1B professional starts working. In other words, a new H-1B approved on May 1, 2010 will be tabulated for data purposes in fiscal year 2010, even if the individual will not start working until October 1, 2010, which begins fiscal year 2011. That may explain why the FY 2010 numbers are higher than FY 2009 for petitions for new H-1Bs (rather than existing H-1B visa holders changing employers or having their status renewed).

Table 3 shows a list of the top 30 employers of new H-1B petitions approved in FY 2009. Wipro tops the list, followed by Microsoft, Intel, IBM India, Patni Americas, Larsen & Toubro, Ernst & Young, Infosys, UST Global and Deloitte Consulting. The list of the top 30 companies is more revealing than only a top 10 list, since one can see a wider variety of employers in the 11-30 range. For example, well-known U.S. companies such as Cisco Systems and Motorola were not in the top 10 but filed for a fair number of petitions for skilled foreign nationals in FY 2009. One also gains a view of the use of H-1Bs by educational institutions, with the Baltimore Public School System, University of Maryland and University of Michigan on the list.

Table 3

Top 30 Employers for New H-1B Petitions Approved in FY 2009 

EMPLOYER

NEW H-1B PETITIONS
Wipro Ltd.

1,964
Microsoft Corp.

1,318
Intel Corp.

723
IBM India Private Ltd.

695
Patni Americas Inc.

609
Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd.

602
Ernst & Young LLP

481
Infosys Technologies Ltd.

440
UST Global Inc. 

344
Deloitte Consulting LLP 

328
Qualcomm Inc.

320
Cisco Systems Inc.

308
Accenture LLP

287
KPMG LLP

287
Oracle USA Inc. 

272
Polaris Software Lab India Ltd. 

254
Rite Aid Corp. 

240
Goldman Sachs & Co. 

236
Deloitte & Touche LLP 

235
Cognizant Tech Solutions Corp.

233
Mphasis Corp.

229
Satyam Computer Services Ltd.

219
Bloomberg 

217
Motorola Inc. 

213
Google Inc. 

211
Baltimore Public School System 

187
University of Maryland 

185
University of Michigan 

183
Yahoo Inc. 

183
Amazon Global Resources Inc 

182

Source: USCIS. Petitions approved for initial beneficiaries in FY 2009

Conclusion

Although India-based companies have populated the top 10 list among largest users of H-1B visas, they do not use the majority of the visas each year. A tabulation of India-based companies has found their numbers have declined significantly since FY 2006. As often the only practical way to hire a skilled foreign national to work long-term in the United States, we can be sure employers of all types will continue to use H-1B visas.