Tag Archives: Lamar Smith

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

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

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

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

What Would New Legislation Likely Include?

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

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

Which Universities Would Be Eligible?

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

Which Degrees Would Be Eligible?

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

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

Job Offer

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

Labor Certification

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

Likely Impact

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

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

 

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

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.