Talk:H-1B visa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Globalization (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Globalization, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Globalization on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article is a mess.[edit]

It reflects the conflict between industry lobbyists, worker advocates and H-1B workers. This gives the article an incoherent tone. I also add that the "lobbyist spins" here have added completely false or misleading information. The "immigrant" spins have added pour gramer and Englesh. Even the "neutrality" disputes here are calls for advocacy.

The "Congressional Yearly Numerical Cap" is pretty much factually correct but poorly written.

The "Employer Attestations to Protect U.S. Workers" section looks like it was created as a propaganda piece to make it appear as though there are real protections for U.S. workers in the H-1B program. The additions, while factual, are incoherent.


The "H-1B Fees Earmarked for U.S. Worker Education and Training" section looks like it was added as a propaganda section. No one filled it out. It does not describe the nature of the fees in detail; where they go; or even some of the criticisms of their effectiveness.

The "income taxation" section here is nonsensical. It sounds like it was written by an H-1B worker trying to prove he pays taxes.

The "U.S. policy on maximum duration" is incoherent.

"H-1B and legal immigration" is poorly written and does not include citations. The H-1B program is specifically exempted from the non-immigrant intent requirement for most visas.


"Quotas and changes in quotas" the writing here isn't great but finally a section that is factually accurate.

This section "H-1B-dependent employers" makes no sense. It comes out of the blue. There is no mention of the H-1B Dependent concept being created in 1998; expiring at 2003; then being renewed again in 2004.


"Criticisms of the Program" This section is disjointed -- though factually accurate.

"Guy Santiglia v. Sun Microsystems" This case failed. So what's the point? Shah v. Wilco Systems is the prevailing case in H-1B law there is no mention.

"Criticisms by H-1B holders" should go in the previous section. However, the inability of spouses to work on H-1B visas should be just a factual statement in the description, not a criticism. Payment of out-of-state tuition is a matter of state law. It is simply a gripe. It is factually stated later in the article. (Dependents of H-1B visa holders) "An H-1B Worker Faces Additional Obstacles at His/Her Workplace" is factual but written as a gripe.

"Worker protection and law enforcement" duplicates a previous section. HOWEVER, this is the best written and most factually accurate section in the entire article.

"Recent changes to U.S. law" so poorly written I can't understand it.

"Similar programs" Second best section.

"Dependents of H-1B visa holders" third best section.

70.111.227.90 (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Faceman28208


Non-availability of U.S. citizens requirement[edit]

"It allows U.S. employers to employ foreign guest workers skilled in specialty occupations only when qualified U.S. citizens or residents are not available."

The article on United_States_visas says: "Contrary to popular myth, there is no requirement whatsoever that employers must prove they could not find U.S. workers before hiring H-1B workers"

Also, the cited source is dubious. Does anyone have reliable information on this? 86.212.5.35 (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


Please see the wikipedia section of this article titled "Employer Attestations to Protect U.S. Workers." This wikipedia article is, apparently, contradicting itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.173.71 (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

US Department of Labor's Strategic Plan on page 35 states: "H-1B workers may be hired even when a qualified U.S. worker wants the job, and a U.S. worker can be displaced from the job in favor of the foreign worker." http://www.dol.gov/_sec/stratplan/strat_plan_2006_2011.pdf http://programmersguild.blogspot.com/2007/04/news-flash-corporate-executives-and.html

The Federal Register 2006-06-30, Sec. 2, paragraph 4: "the statute does not require employers... to demonstrate that there are no available US workers or to test the labor market for US workers as required under the permanent labor certification program." (from Donna Conroy)

71 FR 37802 (VOL 71 NO 126, PAGE 37802 OF 30-JUNE-2006, PART VI, SEC 2, PARA 4) applies specifically to H-1B1 (as opposed to H-1B) visas. The FR suggests comparing 8 USC 1182(a)(5)(A), (n) and (t). The text in the FR reads:
"... the Department notes that the statute does not require employers who seek to hire foreign workers on H–1B1 visas to demonstrate that there are no available U.S. workers or to test the labor market for U.S. workers as required under the permanent labor certification program, and in limited circumstances under the H–1B program." (Weirpwoer (talk) 05:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC))


"A small number of H-1B employers are required to make additional attestations concerning the non-displacement and recruitment of U.S. workers... All employers are also required to make four attestations on the application as to: 1. Wages: The employer will pay non-immigrants at least the local prevailing wage or the employer’s actual wage, whichever is higher, and pay for non-productive time caused by a decision made by the employer; and offer nonimmigrants benefits on the same basis as U.S. workers. 2. Working conditions: The employment of H-1B non-immigrants will not adversely affect the working conditions of U.S. workers similarly employed. 3. Strike, lock-out, or work stoppage: No strike or lockout exists in the occupational classification at the place of employment. 4. Notification: The employer has notified employees at the place of employment of the intent to employ H-1B workers... Certain employers are required to make 3 additional attestations on their application. These additional attestations apply to H-1B employers who: (1) are H-1B dependent, that is, generally those whose workforce is comprised of 15 percent or more H-1B nonimmigrant employees; or (2) are found by [the Department of Labor] to have committed either a willful failure to meet H-1B program requirements or misrepresented a material fact in an application during the previous 5 years. These employers are required to additionally attest that: (1) they did not displace a U.S. worker within the period of 90 days before and 90 days after filing a petition for an H-1B worker; (2) they took good faith steps prior to filing the H-1B application to recruit U.S. workers and that they offered the job to a U.S. applicant who was equally or better qualified than an H-1B worker; and (3) prior to placing the H-1B worker with another employer, they inquired and have no knowledge as to that employer’s action or intent to displace a U.S. worker within the 90 days before and 90 days after the placement of the H-1B worker with that employer... These additional requirements first applied from 2001 January 19 - 2003 September 30. However, the provision requiring these attestations sun-setted, or expired, and was not reinstituted until 2005 March 8. Consequently, from 2003 October 1 to 2005 March 7, H-1B dependent employers and willful violator employers were not required to make the additional attestations, and, in effect, were able to hire H-1B workers even if they displaced U.S. workers and did not make efforts to recruit U.S. workers." --- Sigurd R. Nilson 2006-06-22 GAO "H-1B Visa Program: More Oversight by Labor Can Improve Compliance with Program Requirements" http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06901t.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.20.55 (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Milton Friedman quotation[edit]

find the primary source for this quotation that an H1-B amounts to a subsidy.  It doesn't  very Friedman to me.

--- Actually it does, given that Friedman was a libertarian. Googling for the quote turns up references to it in publications like Computerworld, but I didn't research far enough to find the origin.

- - - The earliest I found was this ComputerWorld article by Paul Donnelly 2002 July: http://computerworld.com/printthis/2002/0,4814,72848,00.html http://www.computerworld.com/careertopics/careers/labor/story/0,10801,72848,00.html

Then Gene Nelson and Frosty Wooldridge referred to it 2003 November: http://michnews.com/artman/publish/article_1741.shtml and again 2005 April: http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty52.htm

It may have come from a private interview of Friedman by Donnelly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.20.55 (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

jfeise (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)==Need to Add a Section on Microsoft==

In March 2008, Bill Gates testified before Congress, claiming that the software industry needs more H-1B visas because technology is analogous to the Olympics and America needs the best tech minds. This is, of course, pure baloney used to rationalize replacing American workers with low-cost foreign labor. People such as Gates would have us believe that H-1B workers are superb intellectuals with doctorates, but the reality is that most H-1B workers have just undergraduate training. Hiring cheap foreign labor helps corporations make profits, but the losers are American workers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.145.224 (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to a June 2009 article directly from Microsoft's Steve Ballmer. The Detroit Free Press recently interviewed Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer who asked him why Microsoft in 2007 built a research and development facility in Canada--over the border in Vancouver--not that far from Microsoft's quarters in Redmond, Wash. Detroit Free Press.

It is obvious that the 2009 numbers are down because of the political ramifications of companies getting visas when they continue to lay off U.S. workers (i.e. Microsoft laying off 5,000 workers, yet continuing to employ Visa Holders). 1

How can a company like Microsoft continue to assert that there is a "shortage of talent" before congressional testimony, yet lay off U.S. citizens right in Redmond, WA, USA?

Why is the reason you claim for the 2009 numbers obvious? Because Bloomberg says so? The more obvious reasons are stepped-up enforcement by DOL and USCIS, and the recession.

And Microsoft did not lay off people until late 2009. The Congressional testimony of Ballmer was in 2007, the testimony of Gates in 2008. Therefore, your assertion is completely ridiculous, and only shows your anti-H1 POV. And in 2009, MS laid off Americans AND foreigners. jfeise (talk) 06:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


This Business Week article from April of 2009 didn't think it was so far fetched or else why would they have included this statement in their article?

Microsoft came under fire in January when it announced it would lay off 5,000 workers while continuing to seek H-1B visas. On the company's first-quarter earnings call on Apr. 23, Microsoft Chief Financial Officer Chris Liddell said the company wants to add 2,000 to 3,000 new jobs in "higher growth" areas over the next 18 months.


Microsoft has admitted that it continues to add people to its payroll while laying people off.

Here is the June 2009 article from Ballmer himself: Detroit Free Press.


Stepped up enforcement of H1-B? The only person authorized to investigate fraud is the Secretary of the Dept. of Labor himself?

Here it is from DOL themselves:

37802 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 126 / Friday, June 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations:

One such comment suggested that the Department require in-person interviews to address alleged fraud in the program.

In response, the Department is unable to address this comment.

Under the INA, the statute specifies that employers must file attestations with the Secretary and the Secretary must issue a certification within seven (7) days unless the attestation ‘‘is incomplete or obviously inaccurate.’’ See INA § 212(n) and (t); 8 U.S.C. 1182(n) and (t).


There is no provision in the law for any enforcement other than the 4 things listed on the application which are simply to "deny the application" for incorrectly filling out the form. Letter to the editor, with references. Here is the LCA application form from the Dept. of labor. It only says you may file complaints, but there is only a provision in the law for one person authorized to investigate them.


This very own wikipedia article makes that point:

The law specifically limits the approval process of LCAs to checking for "obvious errors and inaccuracies."[6] The approval process for these employer attestations simply amounts to the checking the form is filled out correctly. The employer is, however, advised of their liability if they are replacing a US worker.

There is even a legal link to the requirements as well as DOL (Dept. of Labor) statements indicating that.

see:


An E-3 or H-1B1 worker may be hired even when a qualified U.S. worker wants the job, and a U.S. worker can be displaced from the job in favor of the foreign worker. ...

H-1B nondependent employers are not subject to the conditions, and their H-1B workers may be hired even when a qualified U.S. worker wants the job, and a U.S. worker can be displaced from the job in favor of the foreign worker.


Section F of Form ETA 9035 “Labor Condition Application for Nonimmigrant Workers,” which can be found on the Department of Labor website,[2] provides the four labor certification conditions: 1) Pay the prevailing wage; 2) Provide working conditions that do not affect the working conditions of similar workers; 3) No strike or lockout within the occupational classification; 4) Post notice of the application to sponsor H-1B workers.

Notably absent are requirements to first recruit American workers and to hire American workers when they are available.

ETA Form 9035 contains a misleading section F-1 which asks whether the employer is “H-1B Dependent” or a “Willful Violator.” Less than one percent of employers of H-1B workers fall into these categories. Even for that one percent, there is option “C” in which even these employers need not recruit Americans as long as they only sponsor “exempt nonimmigrants” – where “exempt” means paid at least $60,000 or holding at least a Master’s degree. 3

Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) recently introduced "The H-1B and L-1 Visa Fraud & Prevention Act of 2009." They charge that the H-1B program “is plagued with fraud and abuse and is now a vehicle for outsourcing that deprives qualified American workers of their jobs." 5 Durbin said in a statement that the “H-1B visa program should complement the U.S. workforce, not replace it."[ http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/apr2009/db20090423_219068.htm 6]

The reason it is plaqued with fraud and abuse is because there is no provision in the law for enforcement, other than application errors or omissions. This is the reason that Senators Durbin and Grassley have been investigating this and fighting for changes in the law.

Here is a collection of Articles from BusinessWeek listing the issues.


First, a company laying off people in one division is unrelated to what happens in another division. You can't shift game developers to work on Windows 7, for example. That would be like using an Electrical Engineer to work on construction projects. Anybody who actually has experience in management knows these things, but of course, most of the H1 critics come from the lower ranks and have not had the experience f actually being responsible for these kinds of things.

Second, as far as stepped-up enforcement is concerned, see things like arrests in February 2009 [1] and the January 8, 2010 USCIS memo on employer-employee relationship [2] The latter memo in particular has essentially killed the body-shops, as is evident by the very low numbers of H1 applications this year.jfeise (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

---

One of the problems with software development managers and hiring & staffing practices is precisely what you stated. Many managers simply consider software developers "resources" to be shifted around on a schedule or timeline as needed. They believe you can simply "plug-n-play" software development "resources" (aka people) as needed. I am aware of a large worldwide telecommunication company that has publicly said so and was a heavy user of the H1B visa program (via the bodyshops of WiPro, InfoSys, and Tata Systems (TCS)).

I know of people who have gone from Government industry, to embedded systems development, to health care industry, to telecommunications industry in a matter of 2-3 years time. They are hired and laid off from each of them and are hired without any question as to whether they can do the work well.

A highly-skilled software engineer would be able to do so without problem if given the chance. I believe that most software management underestimates, under appreciates, or simply ignores the amount of "ramp up time" and business knowledge that is required to perform the work of a highly complex software system. In other words, while going from game developers to Windows 7 operating system development arguably requires different skillsets, it's not out of the range of possibility that a software engineer would be able to transition from one domain to another, if offered the chance.

Many short-sighted companies have failed to demonstrate any long-term investment or commitment to its employees through training or retention. Ultimately it costs the company in lost business knowledge and failed IT systems. However, many companies appear to be only looking at "the bottom line" in terms of how much it pays it's employees per hour, not the end product or the "total cost of ownership" of an IT system in terms of business knowledge and employee investment. I know of two such telecommunication companies that have failed miserably in this hybrid "off-shore" / outsource business model to the extent that they have had to backpedal due to the results of class-action lawsuits by their shareholders and lost business and productivity and IT system failures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atom888 (talkcontribs) 03:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


If companies are shortsighted is certainly not for you to decide. It also is completely irrelevant for an encyclopedic article in Wikipedia. You can have your opinions about if companies are shortsighted or not, but such opinions have no place in a Wikipedia article. Complain about shortsightedness of companies on Slashdot...

Further, if you "know" about some companies who have failed in implementing some outsourcing strategy is also irrelevant in the context of the H-1B. The H-1B has nothing at all to do with management failures. I know about companies who failed because they produced overpriced cars with American workers, and dismal quality... So, products made by Americans are not automatically better just because they are made by Americans. And in particular, the computer industry exists worldwide. Where do you think a large part of the development for the Linux OS and other Open Source software is done? Here's a hint: Not in the US. Heck, even Mr. Torvalds, the inventor of Linux, came to the US on an H-1B.jfeise (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


Actually, it is for the public to decide. Hint: industry isn't even interviewing qualified citizens. It's not about qualified. It's about compatriot hiring of captive and too often low wage also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.244.18 (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent Changes to U.S. Policy[edit]

USCIS (U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services) recently issued a Memoranda dated 8 Jan 2010. The memoranda effectively states that there must be a clear "employee employer relationship" between the petitioner (employer) and the beneficiary (potential Visa holder). It simply outlines what the employer must do to be considered in compliance as well as putting forth the documentation requirements to back up the employer's assertion that a valid relationship exists.

Some argue that this has effectively "killed the bodyshop industry". While it is clear that the number of Visa petitions granted has declined (or is slower than normal to reach the full quota), it is not clear whether or not this is a result of simple political pressure to put the program on "hold", or a long-term result from real economic realities. The Memoranda gives three clear examples of what is and is NOT considered a valid "employee employer relationship".

  • an accountant working on and off-site to work
  • a fashion model
  • a computer software engineer working off-site

In the case of the software engineer the petitioner (employer) must simply agree to do (some of) the following among others:

  • supervise the beneficiary off-site & on-site
  • maintain such supervision through calls, reports, or visits
  • have a "right" to control the work on a day-to-day basis if such control is required.
  • provide tools for the job
  • hire, pay and have the ability to fire the beneficiary
  • evaluate work products and perform progress/performance reviews
  • claim them for tax purposes
  • provide (some type of) employee benefits
  • use "proprietary information" to perform work
  • produce an end product related to the business
  • have an "ability to" control the manner and means in which the work product is accomplished.

It further states that "common law is flexible" in how these factors are to be weighed.

Many body shops already meet most, if not all of the above requirements. WiPro, InfoSys, and Tata Systems being prime examples in the IT industry (since they have been documented to be among the highest visa holders in the past). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atom888 (talkcontribs) 03:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

H1 B Transfer[edit]

The Section on the validity of an H1 to remain in the US after termination is almost complete inaccurate to the point that one wonders if it was written knowing that it was false.

Abuse & Corruption Allegations[edit]

H1B and L1 visa is a disaster for America. 

It is no difference than illigal mexican immigration. There is no check who is qualified or not. DOL and USCIS just blindly issues H-1B and L1 to foreigners without testing their skills and education. Any Indian with fake document can get an H-1B and L1 visa. It is a massive disaster for America. In many cases, companies are replacing highly qualified Americans who have earned a REAL degree from a US university with Indian H1-B's from low quality dipoloma-mills that earned their degree in 6 months! Sure, those displaced Americans find jobs, but many of them are working in fields requiring little or no tech skill as result, such as technical marketings and sales while the skilled work is performed by lower-grader H1-B's who learn on the job and work for 10-20% less. its ridiculus. Congress should ban all Indian Companies in USA who like to hire L1 and H-1B. Any company want to do business in USA must hire US citizens or train US citizens to do the job.

hurrr durrppp perppp durrr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.160.59 (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

In 2009 Federal authorities busted a nationwide H-1B Visa Scam. In October 2008, a USCIS report found that the H-1B program has more than a 20 percent violation rate. http://www.eweek.com/c/a/IT-Management/Feds-Bust-Nationwide-H1B-Visa-Scam

Misc: Propaganda?[edit]

I wonder if the 3 links lately [added] anonymously really bear enough information to be present on the page. This looks more like propaganda to me.

http://www.geocities.com/dbdoggle is particularly dreadful -- its absurd premise is that bussiness's goal is to keep workers (especially white males over 30) unproductive and unemployed, so that they can use these shell companies to collect government grants. http://www.geocities.com/dbdoggle/?200619#nasa is particularly amusing. 71.139.55.50 23:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

H1b visa cap[edit]

THe H1b visa cap has been mentioned as being 65,000 per year. There is a proposal, S2611, sponsored by Arlen Specter in the 109th congress, to increase this to 115,000 per year, but it did not pass.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.2611.PCS:

The annual "limit" on H-1B visas, such as it is, is over 85K, not 65K. Reporting it as 65K would be misleading. It is broken down as follows, according to information obtained from the USCIS web site (I'd give a URL, but they keep moving it around and the last time I checked it was a temporary, dynamically created page): 1,400 nationals of Chile; 5,400 nationals of Singapore; 20,000 with master's and doctor's degrees from US colleges and universities; 58,200 with "bachelor's degrees or equivalent experience" from any hole-in-the-wall in the world; unlimited visas for those employed by non-profit research outfits; unlimited visas for those employed for local, state and federal research; unlimited visas for those employed by US colleges & universities.

But the numbers of applications approved each year exceed those numbers, according the the USCIS annual report "Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-1B)": year Initial renewed+extended total 1999 134,411 na na 2000 136,787 120,853 257,640 2001 201,079 130,127 331,206 2002 103,584 93,953 197,537 2003 105,314 112,026 217,340 2004 130,497 156,921 287,418 2005 116,927 150,204 267,131 year Initial renewed+extended total

The numbers of visas actually issued, OTOH, is what matters. These numbers are available in the State Department's annual reports, and include new visas issued, renewals and extensions processed within each noted fiscal year: 1996 58,327 1997 80,547 1998 91,360 1999 116,513 2000 133,290 2001 161,643 2002 118,352 2003 107,196 2004 138,977 2005 124,374 2006 135,861 2007 154,690 http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_4179.html http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY07AnnualReportTableXVIA.pdf http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY07AnnualReportTableXVIB.pdf http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY06AnnualReportTableXVIA.pdf

There are usually a few thousand unclaimed visas each year, primarily from the sub-categories set aside for Chile and Singapore. USCIS says they roll these over, adding them to the 58,200 general allotment for the next year.

Visa Statistics related to Outsourcing Firms[edit]

This is not a crackdown. The Indian firms have clearly explained that they earlier preferred Business visa's for their consultants to travel to the USA for knowledge transfer. However, the American embassy in India advised the Indian firms to use H1B so that USA may benefit from the tax payed by these workers.

BusinessWeek & InformationWeek have articles on this.[1] [2] [3]

The articles are 3 years old. Lots of things have changed since then, in particular, improved enforcement of the H-1B rules, and, on Jan. 8, 2010, a policy memo from USCIS about the employer-employee relationship requirement for the H-1B.[4] This memo may spell the end of the "H-1B bodyshop." jfeise (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone help?[edit]

I recently changed employers, I was on an H1-B, I'm now working for my new employer as we wait for the new petition (a.k.a "h1-transfer") is done. In the meantime, I received a way way better offer for a job. Can I apply for a second h1-b as I wait for this one and leave my current job? or should I wait for the current petition to be approved until I start the next petition process? --69.112.255.195 21:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I followed them and on two I had to search around for info on H-1B visas, and then it was only to oppose them. They are not serious discussions of the merits, or even demerits, of the visas, if that is what you were looking for. (speaking of anonymity - don't forget to sign your own 'talk' page additions). Willmcw 22:35, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


The programme allows for more than just engineers, scientists and programmers. It's open in principle to any professional with a relevant degree, qualification or experience. For instance, I work in the USA on the H-1B visa as a financial risk manager on the strength of a physics degree, MBA and ~8 years of experience. I'll try to find time to correct this with somre references if nobody beats me to it. Simon

Computer disciplines (job codes 030 - 039) make up over 50% of all H-1B non-immigrants. The next highest category is either engineering or health workers, depending on the year. Among the 3.6 million H-1B admissions, there are very, very few scientists, mathematicians, or micro-biologists, as the propaganda begs. See globalism. Incidently, I am one of those replaced citizens. Danarothrock 10:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

other source of income[edit]

I understand the an H1-B holder can only (legally, haha) work for the employer listed on the visa. What about other sources of income such as self-employing jobs (e.g. tutoring, website design), investing in stocks, or selling goods on ebay? What if the person has not yet converted to an H1-B and still on OPT? Does that change anything?

--Chochopk 05:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

neutrality dispute[edit]

The H1B article takes a biased view on the H1B visa. It is sad that wiki that should strive to become a platform for all the citizens of the world has been converted into a propoganda medium for jingoists. The articles does not touches on the pain and the plight of H1B workers from India and China who have spent 6 years of their life contributing to the American economy, consider it their home, and now live a life as vagabonds waiting for a green card to come through. The article completely ignores the contribution of the H1B workers as code coolies doing jobs such as code maintenance, automation, localization etc.that American citizens do not want to do. The fact is that it is expensive for an non-American to do undergraduate studies in US and so the percentage is low. Masters and higher studies is typically funded by the college for all the students. If American students do not want to avail of this opportunity then it is their fault and not a fault of H1B workers. On wage depression: the survey quoted does not accounts for Cost to Company which is the real metric that should have been taken and 15% reduction could be easily explained by things such as the lawyer cost and the government charges that are paid to the American government for brining in the worker. The survey ignores the fact that once the H1B worker moves to green card this difference disappears. The criticism of American workers is completely unfounded and based on their fear of competition. They are behaving like cartels of Indian companies before globalization who wanted the rates that they desire for the inferior services they provide.


This article was recently edited to suggest that the locking in of an H-1B visa holder to a particular employer because of green card processing is a thing of the past. The person doing the edit correctly noted that PERM allows for fast labor certification, and AC21 allows a person to switch jobs after the I-485 has been pending for at least 180 days. However, this person neglects to mention that due to priority date retrogression, many people are ineligible to file I-485 at the current time. Thus, they may well still be stuck with their sponsoring employer for many years. There are also many old labor certification cases pending under pre-PERM rules. If those labor certifications are withdrawn and replaced with PERM applications, processing times will improve in a major way but the person will also lose their favorable priority date. Priority date has become a major issue in employment based green card cases in a way that it previously wasn't. Thus the employee often still remains locked in with a specific employer for an extended period, although the legal specifics as to why have changed a bit. Thus, the neutrality of the recent edit to this page is disputed.

--Dash77 07:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, but disagree on the scope. As I understand it, the latest USCIS memo on AC21 implementation and green card portability allows the H1B holder to change jobs once their I140 is approved and I485 is filed but unadjudicated for six months. The only persons ineligible to file I485 in the last few months (as you mentioned) are Indian and Chinese applicants for whom priority dates have retrogressed in the EB2 and EB3 categories. H1B's from other countries are generally unaffected. It's likely that this is only a short term issue as the Senate Judiciary Committee has already voted to take action to address the priority date retrogression for these cases. (see http://www.competeamerica.org/news/alliance_pr/20051020_visashort.html)

(above comment was unsigned, by an IP editor)

  • If "CompeteAmerica" (formerly known as American Business for Legal Immigration or ABLI, a lobbying coalition of hi-tech companies that promote expansion of the H-1B visa program) is as reliable with its prognostications about H-1B legislation as it is with the "factual" information on its website, then the issue may in fact be a longer-term issue after all and will need fixing.--Ray921 03:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed an appallingly opinionated paragraph from the "US policy on maximum duration" section, which effectively insinuated that H-1Bs were third-worlders looking for a shortcut to US permanent residency. Pretty typical paranoia, but extremely non-NPOV. Jmason 18:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

  • The removed text had a viewpoint, but a revision may have been preferable to deletion. Does anyone know the percentage of H1-B holders who apply for permanent residency? --Ray921 17:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know the % who apply for PR off hand. One thing to consider - it is not just developing world H-1B holders who apply for PR - those of the developed world do it too. Robert Brockway 21:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I know many persons from Canada, Germany, UK, and other "first world" nations that have used the H-1B as a stepping stone to permanent residence.Offshore1 00:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Are you uncomfortable with them. You are definitely concerned as you have taken the trouble of mentioning it.

statement by Dr. Gene Nelson[edit]

The retrogression issue and an attempt to "recapture" unused visa numbers from previous years was added to the Senate bill late in the process, so that the controversial changes were less likely to be detected. However, due to the House Majority leader, Rep. Tom DeLay being under indictment for violation of State of Texas election rules barring particular uses of corporate money, DeLay was unable (or unwilling) to push for passage in the House. Restrictionist groups such as http://www.NumbersUSA.com also played a role in having the immigration provisions stripped from the bill that emerged from the House - Senate Conference Committee that was signed by President Bush.

A general note regarding the lack of neutrality of this article: There is scant mention made of the huge direct and opportunity costs incurred by a trained U.S. technical professional when they are permanently displaced by a H-1B visa holder. As one of these professionals, who has twice testified in the U.S. House of Representatives, I view the article as extremely biased. We are neglected stakeholders. The article tone is closer to "Wikipedia endorses this visa program."

Here are some items to lend more balance:

http://www.AnAmericanScam.com My website documents some of the connections between corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff and corporations such as Microsoft that have procured expansions of the controversial H-1B visa program. ____________________________________________________________

Watch for my upcoming book: An American Scam - How Special Interests Undermine American Security with Endless "Techie" Gluts e-mail the author for a gratis 37 - page special Congressional Summary, updated in January, 2006 ____________________________________________________________

See my two published articles in The Social Contract. Please view the much more readable PDF version, whose link appears on the page.

Colleges have become Career Destruction Factories (Spring, 2005) http://www.thesocialcontract.com/cgi-bin/showarticle.pl?articleID=1313&terms=

How NOT to 'Solve' the Social Security Problem (Summer, 1999) http://www.thesocialcontract.com/cgi-bin/showarticle.pl?articleID=810&terms=

____________________________________________________________

Dr. Gene Nelson Dallas, Texas USA c0030180[at]airmail.net Please substitute "@" for "[at]"

Your site on "AnAmericanScam" is not functioning. I get the following:
The requested resource is currently locked. The lock must be released or proper identification given before the method can be applied.

random comments[edit]

_______

Given that most H-1Bs are from India or China, the program continues to look like indentured servitude.

-dave chapman

If you don't understand the visa is temporary permission for a company to hire a foreign worker for a short term need, then yes, from the perspective of someone who's misinterpretted it as an immigration visa, it may look that way. AmyInNH

I have added some of Dash77's remarks to the article. Does it now address your concerns? Mamawrites & listens 22:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

PS -- I have also added sections to the article, and generally wikified it according to WP:MOS. Mamawrites & listens 22:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

While I havn't met any Chinese on an H-1B visa, The Indians on H-1Bs I'm aware of are all IT workers and their salaries are competive. 168.166.196.40 21:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I do know chinese on H1B visas. I also know Indians who came to US for education and rely on H1B visa post-education for jobs [non-IT jobs] - electrical, civil, chemical, environmental, metallurgical and manufacturing engineers to name a few areas. Both these communities hate to hell the Indian H1B wasters - the IT companies that apply for H1B visas for a large number of their employees and do not even use them. Does anyone have statistics of H1B visas issued that are not used for entry to US? - cloud9ine

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.226.230.36 (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Not likely, given the sloppy, disconnected records kept on foreign visas. AmyInNH

All of the Indians on H-1Bs I'm aware of are working in IT for salaries equivalent to trainees. As they are being trained on the job, it is appropriate. Danarothrock 01:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no comments on foreigners who just come here on H1 and take up jobs. What about those who came here, spent 2 or more years in a US university, paying fees, contributing to society and economy. If they are as well or better qualified as someone else, shouldn't they be offered the opportunity. I agree that it should not be through H1B, but better means ought to be devised. Also, when H1 transfers are allowed, is it legal for a company to have its workers file a H1B visa filing fee repayment agreement if they leave the company within the first year? Doesn't this affect the Labor Conditions Application provisions?

Bizarre expectation that the US would owe a foreigner anything to attend universities here, please clarify. The visa program purpose is supposed to be if the company can't find qualified citizens, not because they think someone from another country is equal or better - hence the program being abused. No, it absolutely is not legal to have the worker pay the H-1B filing fee.

breakdown by nation[edit]

is there any data out there that breaks down the H1-B visa holders by nation of origin? Mokwella 23:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

  • yes, either dept of labor or immigration or homeland security has a stats page like this, i think. SchmuckyTheCat 07:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Mokwella, good question. I will add it to the main story. Danarothrock 01:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Since the effort to get this added has stalled, let me clarify here that the number of new work visas for citizens of each country is broken down by visa category in the annual "Handbook of Immigration Statistics" published by the Dept. of Homeland Security starting in 2002 or in the annual "Statistical Yearbook" published by INS. Table numbers vary by year, but the data you seek can be accessed by choosing "Temporary Admissions" and browsing for the desired table (stored in Excel format after FY1997), entitled something like "Nonimmigrants admitted as temporary workers, exchange visitors, and intracompany transferees by region and country of citizenship."

http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/yearbook/YrBk04TA.htm (select Table 25 for FY 2004) and either http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/archives/index.htm#yearbook or http://www.ailc.com/shared/statistics/archives/index.htm (for fiscal years prior to 2004):

FY2003, Table 25; FY2002, Table 27; FY2001, Table 38; FY2000, Table 38; FY1999, Table 38; FY1998, Table 40; FY1997, Table 40, p. 122 of pdf file, repeats the information for FY1996 (data for FY1997 have never been published, though in FY1998 there is a buried comment in the text suggesting that they were destroyed).

I am unaware of electronic availability of the INS Statistical Yearbook prior to 1996, but would appreciate any reference.--Ray921 04:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

External Link Looking for a Home[edit]

Back in 1998, Dr. Norman Matloff of UC Davis testified to Congress about the Software Labor Shortage (or rather it's lack as he indicated). I always liked his argument and was wondering if this would be an appropriate addition to the 'External Links' section (I'd originally considered Outsourcing but this page seems like a better match). I was considering something like this:

Does this seem appropriate to everyone? --KNHaw 04:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI, since I did not hear any objections I added it to the article. --KNHaw 22:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Common Misconceptions[edit]

The common misconception section should be removed. If it isn't a copyvio, it's still a completely inappropriate format for Wikipedia. Any useful material should be integrated into the article proper. Superm401 - Talk 02:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I am removing it now. It doesn't belong and is extremely POV, biased in favor of H1B.

Anti-H-1B sites[edit]

I cannot see how a list of sites of dubious quality with little or no verifiable information such as that contained in under "Anti-H-1B sites" has any place in this article. I think that having this list of links violates the spirit of NPOV. -GLG

Or at least we should have a list of "pro H1B" sites, such as immigrant rights sites, but I do favor removing this list altogether. Quase 21:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Pro-H1B sites are not encyclopedic because the only ones I know of are commercial/spam "for a big fee, we'll help you navigate all the visa requirements and immigrate to the United States!!!" sites. Anti-H1B sites are encyclopedic because they provide sourced critical information on this program including firsthand testimonies from those American workers who have been directly harmed and displaced from their jobs.
White-washing by people who benifit from H-1B programs is unacceptable. the article must present both sides including research supporting contrary evidence to what the white-washers believe.
We do have a list of pro-h1b sites; they're listed in [[3]Advocacy efforts]. Where are the "anti" H1B visa sites you speak of? Does anyone care that (according to Google) 70% of all searches for "H1B" are from India? And what article do you think is at the top of the search results?



The Zazona site is run by Rob Sanchez, who probably knows more about the H-1B program than anyone. I think it's beneficial to keep that link. Though it is a good point that there be a pro-H1B link for balance. EB.


High-tech companies often cite a tech-worker shortage when asking Congress to raise the 65,000 annual cap on H-1B visas, but according to a study conducted by John Miano and the Center for Immigration Studies there is no empirical data to support that claim. 2

Citing studies done at Duke, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Georgetown University and others, critics have also argued that in some years, the number of foreign programmers and engineers imported outnumbered the number of jobs created by the industry. 3

Can you please be leave behind your POVs[edit]

I do not know if you understand this but Wikipedia is supposed to provide information, not viewpoint. Eg. in this article the first line is ' H1B is a controversial program.....' Compare that with

' H1B is a program...... There have been controversies about it....'

Maybe the extreme urge to pour in one's extreme personal vitriol / frustration leads people to not see the above. Please, this is not a blog or a discussion forum, this is an encyclopedia. Step back, look at what you just edited, and judge for yourself if that sounds like information or your personal rant. How on earth can a website titled 'he claims to have seen H1B fraud first hand' be encyclopedic? I am sorry but personal websites of unnamed people with random unsubstantiated rant is not encyclopedic.

The fact that there is so much polarized bickering *here* is documentation alone that it is "controversial". Web searches will verify that it is controversial. The controversy itself even made the cover of Information Week, if I am not mistaken (or was it Computer World?). Anyhow, here is an example from Computer World titled "H-1B Remains a Hot-Button Issue"[4]


I agree with the last comment. It would be incomplete to describe a partisan program without mentioning that it is partisan. In particular, the suggested use of the words "have been" in the first comment indicates incorrectly that the controversy is in the past. EB.

POV Assertions and Unformatted Data[edit]

I removed a paragraph I thought was POV (it included text such as "Immigration policies have Constitutional protections of American jobs, wages, and workplaces. Willful violation of these protections is a major fraud against the United States."). I also took out a large unformatted table, though that could possibly be wikified and and included. Before replacing this content, please discuss it here first. Superm401 - Talk 19:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


Superm401, I don't know the poster of the table you removed, but restoring the deleted table (with linearly interpolated values replacing his minimal values for missing data and perhaps inclusion of O-1 visas, together with a graph to let the reader judge the appropriateness of the interpolations) would add tremendously to the article for many reasons, not the least of which is to offset the bias in the selective treatment and minimization of the number of H-1B (and other) visas exhibited in the current text of "Quotas . . . ." That section admittedly concedes that there are "exceptions" to the cap for some workers, but conveys no information about how dramatic those exemptions from the cap actually are -- so that the number of H-1B visas actually granted in recent years with the progressively expanding exemptions, has been far more than the so-called cap, making the "exceptions" almost the rule. Thus in 2003, the "cap" for granting H1B visas reverted to 65,000 for FY 2004, but the government issued 386,821 H-1B visas for FY 2004, soaking up whatever growth in technical jobs there may have been. In addition, in FY 1999 and 2005, despite retroactive increases in the cap, INS/DHS still substantially violated the cap on the H-1Bs still subject to a cap. Does everyone understand why citing only the "cap" is misleading?


One of the problems in discussing these issues is that the US government has been lackadaisical in collecting the data -- e.g., their report for FY 1997 reported that the FY 1996 data for H-1Bs was unavailable at press time and in 1999 they finally announced without further explanation that reliable FY 1997 H-1B data were unavailable; I'm so far unable to find any published data for H-1Bs issued for fiscal years 1986-1988 and 1991-1994. The data required to make sound, intelligent judgments on the program and its effects without wading through reams of text, are often simply not collected.


I have also created some tabular information based on raw data from NSF that might I might be able to contribute, but would appreciate any guidance on how to "wikify" it if I can find the time. [I'm a newbie at this, so please be gentle when pointing out my Wikipedia policy transgressions.--Ray921 21:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC).

Degree requirements[edit]

I think that you should add to the introduction that a Bachelor's degree in a field related to the offered position is a minimum requirement for the visa category. -GG

  • The statement is generally true for applicants in science and engineering, who constitute about 90% of the H-1B recipients, but is not necessarily true -- the reality is far more confused than that because the H-1B is such a desirable visa.
  • H-1B visas are issued for fashion models, entertainers, artists, writers, workers in religion and theology, and officials, who do not necessarily require a bachelor's degree. Presumably the H-1B is sought rather than the P-1, P-2, P-3, Q-1, or R-1, (which are special work visas for athletes, entertainers, artists, writers, and religious occupations) because one can apply for permanent residence while working here under that visa; they may also be longer-term visas, but I have not checked on that.
  • In FY 2000, level of education was unknown for 10.1% of all approved new H-1B applicants; 2.4% of the remaining 89.9% of approved H-1B visa applicants lacked a bachelor's degree. If Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) approves that many H-1Bs without even knowing educational attainment, it's hard to call it an unqualified minimum requirement.
  • It should also be noted that the majority of H-1B visas granted in technical areas are granted to people with only a bachelor's degree; in FY 2000, ignoring the 8.5% whose education level is unknown, only 36% of new H-1Bs were given to holders of master's degrees or PhDs.

(Data source available at http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/aboutus/repsstudies/h1b/index.htm , which must be accessed through http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/aboutus/repsstudies/index.htm )--Ray921 17:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


  • I wasn't cherry-picking the results above, but the results for FY2003 show the government has drastically reduced the number of H1Bs issued to new applicants not stating their educational attainment to less than 0.1% (down from 8.5% in FY2000). For those of known educational attainment, 2.2% stated less than a bachelor's degree. At least the bureacracy is now making a better effort to see that the boxes are filled in on their forms before issuing the visas. --Ray921 18:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hundreds of H-1B visas go to people without the equivalent of a US high school diploma, and thousands to those without the equivalent of a US bachelor's degree.

new H-1B visas by degree

year noHSdiploma HS <1yearcollege
2000 554 288 158
2001 247 895 284
2002 169 806 189
2003 148 822 122
2004 123 690 137
2005 107 440 77
year 1+yearscollege associate total<bachelor
2000 1290 696 4290
2001 1376 1181 4803
2002 849 642 4015
2003 623 534 3718
2004 421 432 3375
2005 5358 363 2987

source: USCIS annual report "Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-1B)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.20.55 (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

POV Assertions in "Taxation Status of H-1B Workers"[edit]

"H-1B workers are also not eligible to any Social Security or Medicare unless they retire in the US, which by the very definition of the temporary nature of the visa, is unlikely.[3]"


Those unfamiliar with this subject would think the cited POV sentence quite reasonable, perhaps supported by the fact that H-1B is classified as a "Non-Immigrant Visa."

The above-cited statement is at best a questionable POV and should be deleted. This article has somehow omitted mention of one of the great attractions of the H-1B visa -- the fact that the H-1B may legally be used as a steppingstone to US permanent residency ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Permanent_Resident_Card ) under the doctrine of dual intent. Therefore in view of my personal observation and in the absence of statistical evidence that few H-1B visa holders convert to permanent resident status, this statement is very dubious. Can anyone provide government data on the frequency of conversion of H-1B visa holders to permanent resident status? --Ray921 10:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The section "Taxation status of H-1B workers" reads:

"H-1B workers are legally required to pay the same taxes as any other US resident, including Social Security and Medicare.[2] Any person who spends more than 183 days in the US in a calendar year is a tax resident and is required to pay US taxes on their worldwide income. From the IRS perspective, it doesn't matter if that income is paid in the US or elsewhere. If an H-1B worker is given a living allowance, it is treated the same by the IRS as any other US resident. In some cases, H-1B workers pay higher taxes than a US citizen because they are not entitled to certain deductions (eg. head of household deduction amongst many others). H-1B workers are also not eligible to any Social Security or Medicare unless they retire in the US, which by the very definition of the temporary nature of the visa, is unlikely.[3]"

  • The preceding paragraph is as convincing as saying that America has no illegal immigrants since all who enter the country must do so with government permission. Side agreements, kickbacks, deposit of funds beyond a basic living allowance into foreign bank accounts, whose records are unavailable to the IRS, make it difficult or impossible for the IRS to audit.
  • Can the wife of an H-1B worker claim the head of household deduction?
  • Do H-1B workers really face the same risk for income tax evasion if they intend to leave the US less than seven years (the period over which the IRS can audit returns) after their filing date?
  • Anyway, I suggest a more objective reduction of the entire paragraph, something like this:

"Any person who spends more than 183 days in the US in a calendar year is considered a resident for tax purposes and by law must pay US income tax on his worldwide income (including living allowance) for that year in addition to Social Security and Medicare."

Does that seem NPOV? --Ray921 01:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

-=-=-= IMHO, this is one of the sections that should go or seriously be re-edited. It is obviously an advocacy piece that sound like it was written by an H-1B holder. In addition, it is not correct even beyond the reasons given above. Some countries have reciprocity treaties with the U.S. that allow their H-1B holders to get their SS payments. India is not one of those countries.

This is not an area of my expertise so I have not taken on the effort myself. Nor do I want to impose my personal bias by blowing the whole thing away (which would be reasonable considering it's accuracy and tenuous relationship with the topic at hand. --Bigjimslade 18:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


Indian H-1B workers do get their Social Security payments back:

http://www.indianexpress.com/story/332763.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.173.71 (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read the article before providing it as proof. It clearly says " If India succeeds in formalizing the pact, it will be only the second Asian country after South Korea to do so. Once signed, the US President will have to report the deal to the Congress with a report on the estimated number of individuals affected and its effect on the Social Security fund’s flows." which means its not yet signed by both countries. It is still under consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.251.83 (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Corrections[edit]

I just made a number of factual corrections to this article. I do not believe that any of these changes alter the tone/bias level but IMHO the numbers should be correct.

1. I have have spelled out the actual quota as 65,000 + 20,000 + unlimited 2. The first increase occurred in 1998 as more precision than late 90's 3. The increase was to 115,000 rather than 130,000 [Here I also took the liberty of removing some some commentary on these increases that was opinion rather than fact.] 4. I put down the actual increase contained as part of the "comprehensive immigration reform" and SKIL bill.

This article needs a bit of serious editing as it is starting to get repetitive.

The temporary increase to 115K was enacted as part of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998 between 1998 September : http://news.com.com/House+OKs+more+work+visas/2100-1001_3-215905.html http://www.kermitrose.com/econ1998.html#19980924

and 1998 October 13: http://news.com.com/H1-B+bill+could+get+reprieve/2100-1023_3-216639.html http://www.kermitrose.com/econ1998.html#19981013 http://www.asmenews.org/archives/backissues/june/columns/washington.html

And the temporary, 3-year, increase to 195k was enacted 2000 October between the 3rd and the 18th: http://news.com.com/Senate+votes+to+increase+high-tech+visas/2100-1033_3-246528.html http://www.kermitrose.com/econ2000.html#20001003 http://news.com.com/Short+Take++Clinton+signs+high-tech+visa+bill+into+law/2110-1033_3-247229.html http://www.kermitrose.com/econ2000.html#20001018 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.20.55 (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

2007 cap in one day[edit]

to be short just link

Top Ten US Technology Companies Receiving H1-B's???[edit]

What happened to Cognizant Technologies? I believe it is an US company.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.142.162 (talkcontribs)


I have updated the table to include the 2009 numbers and citing the eWeek and InformationWeek article.

It is obvious that the 2009 numbers are down because of the political ramifications of companies getting visas when they continue to lay off U.S. workers (i.e. Microsoft laying off 5,000 workers, yet continuing to employ Visa Holders). 1

H-1B artice biased?[edit]

There is a lot of text criticizing the H1-B program. I feel an encyclopedia should only report the facts and not subjective preferences.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.254.155 (talkcontribs)

When you bring in EIGHT MILLION people for a work area which has only four million jobs, yes there is going to be a lot of negative views from people who have seen their wages decimated and cant find work. It is essentially a genocidal program against american citizen technology workers based on lies, passed in the middle of the night and is nefarious all around. The three GAO studies all found rampant fraud and abuse. So why is criticism at all unexpected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.90.4.176 (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

contradictory claims in outsourcing section[edit]

The section on Indian outsourcing stated "Technically, an H1-B visa is an immigration visa. However, in defense to the critics the Indian industry has made clear that H1-B is not an immigration visa and the practice of using the visa to facilitate transferring of work from the US to lower paid workers in Indian is perfectly acceptable. 'The Indian IT industry and NASSCOM ...urge that work permits and intra-company transfers should not be intermingled and confused with immigration.'"

In fact, H1B visas are non-immigrant visas. Both the Wikipedia article and the US government [[5]] say so. Far from being an indication of some nefarious plan, the Indian IT quote simply states existing US visa policy.

Since the section was factually incorrect, contradicted the rest of the H1B article, and gave a quote that didn't contribute anything to the discussion, I just removed it.

Path to citizenship[edit]

This is ridiculous. Clearly they ARE a path to citizenship and clearly that is a large motivator for people to take them, besides the tax evasion. They havn't pubd it recently but the DOL used to have a chart on green card conversions by year and it was 40-50%. If it was 5% ok, its a non-immigrant visa, but I don't care what government double speak goes on, if half the people are using it to get into the US permanently then it is for immigration period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.90.4.176 (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

YouTube Video, Investigated by Sen. Chuck Grassley and Rep. Lamar Smith[edit]

  • Defrauding Americans to secure green cards: A video presentation by an HR Law Consultant Firm on how to Defraud the US government and make it appear as if there is a shortage of qualified US candidates to fill a job position.

This link has been inserted several times. I don't believe it qualifies as a reliable source. We don't know who compiled it. We don't know who the people talking are, or what the subject is. I'm sure there is visa abuse, but it'd be best if we stuck with reliable sources instead of anonymous Youtube videos. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a reliable source. Two state senators thought it was reliable enough to ask the Dept. of Labor to investigate.

Sen, Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, both proponents of immigration reform, requested Thursday that the U.S. Department of Labor investigate a law firm that published a YouTube video showing attorneys advising clients on how to avoid hiring U.S. workers InformationWeek.

I found a reliable source (Information Week) that has an article about this topic, so I've inserted that link instead. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

These links were removed because the video is about "Green card process". Although the employees who apply for green card are on H1B visa, they are not talking about abusing the H1B visa in this video.

The video was posted by the Cohen and Grigsby law firm, itself, of its 7th annual conference/seminar on employment and immigration law, as publicity for their firm. The conference covered both how to legally under-pay people sponsored on H-1B visas, and, in the most cited section, how to reject all US applicants when a firm wants to get a "change of status" from H-1B or L-1 to a green card. Links to excerpts, links to the entire video, and articles can be found here: http://www.kermitrose.com/econ200706.html#Best2007

Now, Cohen & Grigsby have to get all of their change of status applications overseen by DoL, and another major immigration law firm, Fragomen et al., is being audited: http://www.kermitrose.com/econ200807.html#20080708 http://www.kermitrose.com/econ200807.html#20080712 which lead to more sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.20.55 (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed[edit]

The sentence: "Fortunately, the H-1B visa is not the only means for U.S. employers to lawfully hire skilled foreign nationals" reflects the pro H1-B stance of parts of this article. The author should just assert the fact that there are other means. I view that as "unfortunate". I suggest the word "fortunately" be replaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.178.197 (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Soapboxing removed[edit]

I have removed some soapboxing about the high percentage of foreigners in science and engineering PhD programs being a disincentive to Americans studying those subjects. That isn't what the reference says, not at all. The OSEP (p. 25) puts the blame squarely on faulty policies and serious deficiencies in the U.S. educational and value systems. (And I find it surprising that in US high schools they usually manage to teach the kids all 26 letters.) 71.255.154.111 00:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

And yet, NSF, flatly states that the expansion of student visas and creation of the H-1B visa program would be a disincentive to US citizens and that it would suppress compensation for people with PhDs.

"A growing influx of foreign PhDs into U.S. labor markets will hold down the level of PhD salaries to the extent that foreign students are attracted to U.S. doctoral programs as a way of immigrating to the U.S.A. A related point is that for this group the PhD salary premium is much higher [than it is for Americans], because it is based on BS-level pay in students' home nations versus PhD-level pay in the U.S.A... [If] doctoral studies are failing to appeal to a large (or growing) percentage of the best citizen baccalaureates, then a key issue is pay... A number of [the Americans] will select alternative career paths... For these baccalaureates, the effective premium for acquiring a PhD may actually be negative." http://www.nber.org/~peat/PapersFolder/Papers/SG/NSF.html http://www.nber.org/~peat/ReadingsFolder/PrimarySources/TimeLine.html Policy and Research Analysis Division of the NSF http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/pres/comments/numbers.html

"A decade after lambasting the National Science Foundation (NSF) for botching a study of the science job market, Congress has asked the agency to once again take on the politically risky task of predicting how many high-tech workers the United States will need over the next decade... Nonetheless, such projections can spark a political fire-storm, as NSF learned after a 1987 study, led by Peter House, warned of a coming 'shortfall' of several hundred thousand scientists. After the forecast proved false, law-makers questioned the agency's reputation for dispassionate analysis (Science, 1992 February 14, p. 788)." http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol282/issue5395/s-scope.dtl 1998-12-04 vol 282 issue 5395

Gene Nelson http://psyche.uthct.edu/nes/wwwboard/messages/53.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.20.55 (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Large change to intro[edit]

This change [6] made a lot of changes to referenced data, but shortens the intro. It should be examined by people who more closely follow the article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I'm concerned too. The old version had about eight sources, while the new version has none. A number of issues covered in the old version appear to be omitted from the new version. OTOH, that was a marathon-length intro, and the body of the article appears to cover most of the ground. This topic tends to get involvement from either immigration law firms or those opposed to the visa. Soe neutral, yet informed, editors would be very helpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge H-1B article to here[edit]

I think H1b crisis needs to be merged into this article. My reasoning is as follows:

  • It doesn't deserve its own article since there's not enough info to justify one.
  • It's hyperbolic: the scant references provided to back up the article do not describe what happened as any kind of "crisis". It's newsworthy and worth mentioning on Wikipedia, sure, but the article overstates the severity of what appears to be little more than a story covering the fact that the H-1B quota is not able to meet the demand for visas, and that "something needs to be done".

-- Hux (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose merger. Each is a significant topic and merits own article. Tynetrekker (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree and have explained why in this edit. -- Hux (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
i concur with Hux. The main article is the visa, examples of specific cases and historical information fit well when the main article is properly structured. however, as this is really a "current news topic" with information changing "rapidly" this may need to wait until "the crisis" is over and a summary of the historical example can be made. Iggynelix (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Hux. Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Do not even display article. It presents something that is looks like "news" but only is political and only presents one side of the story. What is being called a "crisis" is actually a ploy to get more H1B Visas when American citizens are losing jobs. This is wrong. If you are going to write about the "crisis" as if it is one and not just a fact (which is all the H1B Visas were used up because we are importing armies of foreign nationals rather than giving jobs to US citizens) then report both sides and explain that there are Americans who cannot get jobs at companies where armies of foreign nationals are being employed - and then taking their knowledge back home. User:LostAJob (talk) 21:22, 08 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.126.123 (talk)

Lead is too long?[edit]

I think the lead is not very long now. What do you think? Kushal 01:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Matloff[edit]

The Matloff paper doesn't seem to be in the links any more. Moreover, section V.A of it specifically points out flaws in the 2000 act, which the article here glosses over as "The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) and the U.S. Department of Labor's PERM system for labor certification erased most of the earlier claimed arguments for H-1B's as indentured servants during the green card process". Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Reference restored. It was deleted a number of months ago by an anon IP who didn't bother with an edit summary. The deletion of that reference is presumed vandalism, if not censorship. Dl2000 (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that this reference needs to be moved to another section (something like External Links or Further Reading), or better yet, directly cited in the text and included in footnotes. The entrire article is a bit of a mess and needs substantial restructuring. E.g. there are several sections (or what seems to be sections) after references and footnotes. I don't like having Matloff's references located where it is now because of WP:UNDUE concerns. His opinion represents one of the (fairly radical) point of views in the immigration battles, as they relate to H1B visa. There are just as many people (CEOs of tech companies, Bill Gates, etc) arguing exactly the opposite. However, at the moment, the "References" section includes just two items: an official USCIS ref and the Matloff ref. That is a problem in terms of balance and WP:UNDUE. I think that it is in fact better to remove the "References" section altogether, and to have both of its items directly cited in the articles and moved to the "Notes" section. Nsk92 (talk) 04:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I have added a link to Gates' congressional testimony to the References section, for balance purposes. Nsk92 (talk) 05:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Where is the USC cite???[edit]

There should be both a USC cite and link to the actual language at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode Jim Bowery (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Help Me Verify: Degree Quality of H-1B Visa Holders[edit]

Let me tell you guys my experiences, which I would like to translate into a verified part of this article, because I think it is a very important part of the reality of this program. I've worked in the biotech industry for 7+ years now, and I have worked next to a ton of visa holders. In one company more than half their people were visa holders. In that time, I came to realize that roughly 30-40% of these people have degrees and claim to have knowledge in areas that are completely untrue. The popular conception of these visa holders is that they are all brilliant and hard working people. Frankly I think this opinion is racist against Americans because I have seen this grossly untrue a number of times. I want to highlight this reality because few people mention it and I figure it is largely unknown. Anyone else have similar experiences or can help me find a solid resource to prove this? Thank you. Jason Parise (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Like in the US, there are good and not-so-good universities in other countries as well. Universities like Oxford, Imperial College London, Indian Institute of Technology, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (just to name a few off the top of my head) and others are as good or better than the best American universities. Then there are a bunch of middle-ranked universities, and, like the so-called party colleges in the US, there are of course mediocre universities abroad. But all these universities have to comply with the standards of their respective accreditation bodies. This is a) completely detached from what you may have experienced. Americans sometimes lie on their resumes. People from other countries sometimes lie on their resumes as well. Human nature. I have interviewed Americans and foreigners for positions. I have seen more "resume padding" from Americans. And b), popular conception is rather irrelevant. The immigration law states clearly what is required for an H1. The H1 is for positions that require at least the equivalent of a 4-year US bachelor degree. There are brilliant people who got an H1 (e.g., Linus Torvalds, the inventor of the Linux operating system), and there are probably also slackers who barely managed to get a college degree who got an H1. As always, reality is not black and white. --jfeise (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"Jfeise" vandalism[edit]

"Jfeise" is clearly a vandal. He has repeatedly remove the reference to Dr. Norman Matloff invited paper for the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, containing 300+ footnotes (http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/Mich.pdf ON THE NEED FOR REFORM OF THE H-1B NON-IMMIGRANT WORK VISA IN COMPUTER-RELATED OCCUPATIONS)calling it “non-academic” but offering no evidence as to why he considers it such. Dr. Matloff is a distinguish full professor at UCDavis (http://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/people/faculty/matloff.html), "Jfeise" is clearly a student using Wikipedia as a political forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.115.241 (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Yet another one of Mr. Matloff's "supporters"... Mr. Matloff is a Computer Science professor. That doesn't qualify him for his anti-H1 crusade. Academic papers are peer-reviewed papers. Mr. Matloff's paper for the journal mentioned doesn't qualify as that. It is what is known in the academic world as a position paper. It's title alone is a give-away. Mr. Matloff describes his "conclusion" in the title already. Footnotes in a paper don't have any academic value. References have academic value. Further, references to newspaper articles and the like don't qualify for an academic paper. And finally, if the paper was the result of an "exhaustive" research, the paper would not carry it's conclusion in the title. All these things are well-known to academics, including Mr. Matloff's collegues. Only unqualified subscribers to his mailing lists would call Mr. Matloff's position paper "academic". --jfeise (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I you really think Matloff is wrong, why don't you site some other research to show the other view, rather than removing the references to his paper. The only evidence for your claims cited here so far is the testimony of corporate CEOs with no data or facts to back up their case. If we going to accept the testimony on corporate CEOs over researchers, and not allow the researchers to be quoted, then perhaps Wikipedia should claim tobacco is safe and non-addictive as well.

For the record, I don't know Matloff or support him in any way; his papers are just the only real academic research I have been able to find on the H-1B labor shortage subject. I would welcome the opportunity to see other research, for or against.

More on Matloff and research[edit]

As I mentioned, Mr. Matloff's paper is not an academic paper. It is a position paper. I have a problem with you referring to it as an academic paper. Further, you talk about it being "exhaustive." There is no such thing as exhaustive research. Research is always a work in progress. That's the reason why I reverted your changes. There is lots of research into immigration in general and the H-1B in particular by economists like George Borjas, who is a professor of economics and social policy at Harvard University, and others. I have read some of Borjas' papers and books, and in my opinion, Mr. Matloff's paper is not even in the same hemisphere as Mr. Borjas' research. From http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~GBorjas/Short_Biography.html: "He is the author of several books, including Wage Policy in the Federal Bureaucracy (American Enterprise Institute, 1980), Friends or Strangers: The Impact of Immigrants on the U.S. Economy (Basic Books, 1990), Labor Economics (McGraw-Hill, 1996; 2nd Edition, 2000, 3rd edition, 2005), and Heaven’s Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy (Princeton University Press, 1999)." --jfeise (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

And another issue: Mr. Matloff is a Computer Science professor. His academic research is in computer science. He is not an economist nor a social scientist, so he lacks the basic academic education to do any serious academic research into the basically economic and social issue of the H-1B. His paper, just like his previous efforts since the mid-1990s are collections of what is called in academia "anecdotal evidence", i.e., taken out of newspaper articles and the like. Academia, however, relies on verifiable facts. Newspaper articles are rarely verifiable. They present a particular point of view, namely the POV the journalist wanted to present. --jfeise (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Jfeise wrote, "Mr. Matloff. . . lacks the basic academic education to do any serious academic research [sic!] into the basically economic and social issue of the H-1B." Jfeise is either unaware of Professor Matloff's polymath academic credentials (PhD in Math from UCLA in 1975 -- major in mathematical statistics, I believe -- and a founding faculty member of the UC-Davis Division of Statistics in 1980) or regards statistical understanding as irrelevant. Much of the published "academic" literature in business and social science journals that Jfeise celebrates, betrays a profound ignorance of the distinction between correlation and causality, and of lurking variables. True, Dr. Matloff engages in debates and policy discussions, but that hardly invalidates his research. Unlike convicted monopolist Mr. Gates, whom Jfeise places on an equal level of credibility, Dr. Matloff derives no financial (or professional) benefit from his research or writings on H-1B, and indeed is one of the few truly disinterested witnesses on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ray921 (talkcontribs) 00:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Basically, Ray, you validate what I said. Matloff does not have peer-reviewed academic publications on the H1. It is not his research topic. He publishes his papers as private citizen. And he of course has every right to do so. But policy decisions should not be made based on the personal opinion of some person. You seem to put emphasis on the fact that he is a professor. But that is completely irrelevant. Being a professor is a job, nothing more. His job has nothing to do with his publications on the H1. And he certainly is not disinterested. In fact, he has made quite a career out of criticizing the H1 program. So, please, next time, at least hide the fact that you are a fan-boy a bit better. Further, your dismissal of academic literature speaks for itself. Without academic literature, you would not even be able to post on the Internet. And finally, your loose grasp of facts is shown by calling Mr. Gates a "convicted monopolist." The company he is a major shareholder in was convicted of being a monopoly, not Mr. Gates personally. jfeise (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

And, Ray, I indeed do know that Mr. Matloff's academic credentials, which have been well-known to me, btw., are irrelevant for any H1 discussion. The H1 has to do with economics and labor issues. Mr. Matloff's academic credentials do not show any training in these fields. He is as qualified to discuss these things as any other person on the street. To his credit, he doesn't try to use his academic position to further his H1 agenda. It is his followers like you who don't understand this and who, by emphasizing his job as a professor try to imply some credibility that he simply does not have. Again, he is a computer science professor, not a social sciences professor who works on these topics professionally. His PhD also has no relevance to this topic. jfeise (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Further down the page Borjas is referenced --A paper by Harvard Professor George J. Borjas for the National Bureau of Economic Research found that "a 10 percent immigration-induced increase in the supply of doctorates lowers the wage of competing workers by about 3 to 4 percent.”. I see Borgas research on H1-B as very limited in scope, but basically consistent with the prevailing overall view of Friedman and Matloff that the H-1B program is a corporate subsidy. Borgas differs in that he thinks corporate subsidies are a good thing, but that issue is not really part of the paragraph in question. If you can find a reference in his papers that show a different view on H1-B being a corporate subsidy, include it here. Please stop deleting all the reference to all views that don't support your personal visa plans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.115.241 (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems you haven't really read Borjas. Unlike Matloff, who is just a crusader against anything H-1B, Borjas has a much more differentiated view. As I have mentioned before, Matloff's paper is not an academic paper, and it doesn't have "exhaustive" research. I'll continue to remove such false claims. Further, Milton Friedman's point is rather mis-understood by the anti-H1 crusaders. Mr. Friedman was a libertarian, he just didn't want any government meddling with business. If it were for Mr. Friedman, wages in the US would probably be way below the current wage level in the US, since a pure libertarian view doesn't allow for any worker protection. And I am not sure what "visa plans" you are talking about. As a US citizen, I am not personally affected by the so-called H1 controversy, which I see only as a lack of education about the topic. --jfeise (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the central question here is this -- will you allow any reference to Matloff’s papers in the “Criticisms of the program” section, or will you continue to delete the edits by anyone who attempts to include this? Matloff has written extensively on the subject and he was invited to testify before Congress on the subject so I think it is logical to include him in the “Criticisms of the program” section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.115.241 (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Matloff's views on the H-1B are well known. The fact that he testified before Congress is also well known. Others, e.g., Bill Gates, also testified before Congress. So, both Mr. Matloff's and Mr. Gates (and others) testimony should be cited. Further, you continue to mis-characterize the GAO report. For one, it doesn't "support" Mr. Friedman's view. It came out well before Mr. Friedman's comment. Second, it's full title is "H-1B Foreign Workers: Better Controls Needed to Help Employers and Protect Workers." It made recommendations to improve the program, which were subsequently implemented. --jfeise (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Jfeise, You seem to hold the view that only if one's Ph.D. is in a particular field are they qualified to do research into that field. That view is inconstant with Dr. Matloff's alma-mater - the University of California. Their point of view is that a Ph.D. recipient has mastered and demonstrated an ability to do independent academic research (regardless of field). That is why the University of California will not bestow a second Ph.D. to anyone - they've already demonstrated they know how to "operate" as a researcher.[*] One can only get second master degrees if they will to formally demonstrate skill in another field. Thus your view that Dr. Matloff cannot do quality research in a non-CS field (which isn't even the field of his Ph.D. - thus showing my point), is a flawed point of view. [*] http://www-cse.ucsd.edu/graduate-education/admissions.html, http://grad.berkeley.edu/admissions/admis_require.shtml, http://www.graddiv.ucr.edu/GenAcadInfoTest.html Dr UNIX (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. One's research is shown by peer-reviewed academic publications. Mr. Matloff has not published peer-reviewed academic papers on the H-1B, or on any immigration-related topics. Anybody can write anything about any topic, but for it to be considered research it has to be peer-reviewed, which ensures quality and validity. jfeise (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Emotional, Illogical and Biased[edit]

This article is bizarrely not anywhere close to the wikipedia standards of fact and tangent issues. It contains illogical and emotionally biased information in addressing the many perceived problems associated with H-1B visas.

1) A great deal of this article is spent on detail of difficulties encountered by H-1Bs because of expectations beyond what the visa intended. Examples include:

- H-1Bs originally/supposedly for the purpose of a temp employee of a temp position for a critically needed skill but then the associated drama of visa portability and lengthy green card applications? If it's purpose is filling the critical skill need at the sponsoring company, it shouldn't be portable. Conditions are bad at a company? This indicates the reason the employer is unable to staff it is not likely because the skills are unavailable in the local labor market but because of working conditions. And the answer is not feeding these bad employers an endless supply of new H-1B victims, the answer is improve the company's work conditions.

- Spouses can't work is a drawback to accepting the position just as it would be for any forest ranger's spouse taking a job in Yosemite. They are the terms of accepting the position and the only agreement the US has made for the visa holder.

- In-state versus out-of-state resident tuition contention is the most bizarrely illogical. State funding should go to a non-resident/non-citizen education who is supposedly here temporarily due to a unique skill for one employer? An H-1B is not a resident any more than a tourist is a resident. They are guests on a temporary visa.

- Unrealistic Departure Requirement on Job Loss actually is realistic. The visa was given to the employer, not the employee. This seems to be a common misconception. The candidate is present because of the employer need, not the employee desire to immigrate here.

- An H-1B worker faces additional obstacles at his/her workplace citing it being a problem that the visa is tied to the employer represents again another misunderstanding of the intent of the visa, to supply a unique skill to one employer claiming to need it. H-1B is not an immigration visa for a worker, it is a temporary labor visa for the employer.

2) Missing is the corresponding criticisms of the program regarding impact on the native labor pool. For example - Displaced workers have no genuine recourse. Any time the resident or citizen is required to train their H-1B replacement it's a clear case of the H-1B not being uniquely qualified for a position a citizen or resident can not do. It is also backwards from a logical standpoint, the uniquely skilled H-1B should be training the resident/citizens if they actually were so uniquely skilled.

- Profession glut. Today's headlines, "7.9 million jobs lost, many forever" at Yahoo News supports the premise of the point of H-1B and other visas, "We've got the wrong people in the wrong place with the wrong skills". And yet we have 483,203 H-1B visas approved in 2009 alone according to the FLC database at Foreign Labor Certification. The visas' original intent, can't find citizen/residents to staff the position, is no longer criteria for receiving a visa even in a time of widespread unemployment.

Congressional yearly numerical cap section is misleading as it severely under represents the actual numbers. It doesn't reflect a total rollup of the many exempt from the cap nor does it list all the exemptions from the cap such as renewals - typically a huge portion of the total given for any given year.

This article is in bad shape. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.58.201 (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

While you are certainly right that the article is a mess, you show the reasons yourself. You post a whole bunch of advocacy and factually wrong things here. For example, you say something about "the visa's original intent", as if you were one of the members of Congress who created the H-1B visa. Who are you to know the "original intent"? You apparently can't even be bothered to sign up to Wikipedia. Or you oppose in-state tuition, apparently not knowing that there is a Supreme Court decision (Toll v. Moreno) that made clear that foreign students in a status that doesn't prohibit establishing residence (G-4 in the court decision, but also H-1B, H-4, L-1, L-2) qualify for in-state tuition.

So, the main problem with this article is that too many people think they are qualified to participate on this article but just push their particular brand of opinion and advocacy. You can have your opinions, but keep it out of Wikipedia. jfeise (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Joachim, I think you have inadvertently proven the point of your last sentence by your assertion that Toll v. Moreno applies to H-1Bs as well as to G-4s. If it were indeed law settled by Toll, why did [Google and -- my mistake, corrected below Ray921 (talk) 02:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)] Microsoft spend so much money two years ago campaigning for passage of the Washington state referendum to give H-1Bs in-state tuition? Ray921 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ray921 (talkcontribs) 23:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Chiming in with Ray...
With respect to Toll v. Moreno, it seems that there is some confusion as to the meaning of the term ``capable of becoming domiciled.`` As used in the Toll, it means that the alien may choose to become a domicile of a state as easily as could a citizen. Just so we`re on the same page, the term `domicile` means to be legally capable of remaining permanently. I am aware of no cases that extend the `capability of becoming a domicilary` to the holder of a statutorily temporary visa. Domicile means permanent. Temporary, on the other hand, inherently means not permanent.
The key question with respect to Toll v. Moreno deals with not only the capability of being domiciled (i.e. endowed with the right to remain permanently) within a state as some possible future outcome involving a change in status, but the actual fact of becoming legally domiciled. U.S. citizens must also meet this requirement to receive in-state tuition rates. Mere possibility is of no consequence, since it is theoretically possible for an illegal alien to be *capable* of one day becoming domiciled within a state as a citizen of the United States. Here, the *temporary* visas such as the H-1b are forever distinguished, since the very fabric of the statutory definition gives these visas a rigorous time limit. In other words, anyone on a temporary visa is inherently NOT capable of becoming domiciled in a state. No domicile, no in-state tuition, even for natural born citizens.
In this vein, it is tempting to be misled by a state`s own `published` requirements for becoming domiciled, which usually involves remaining in the state for six months to a year, varying by state. However, the key element of domicile is that the person seeking resident status must reside in the state with the intent to remain permanently. This may be overlooked when perusing publications since those publications were likely intended for persons who were capable of becoming domiciled. It may be obscured by the fact that permanence is presumed in favor of a citizen or resident alien. HOWEVER, anyone holding an explicitly statutorily TEMPORARY visa is, in contrast, inherently incapable of meeting this permanent intent requirement, since the temporary nature of the visa itself inherently precludes the possibility. Thus, what is presumed in favor of a citizen or permanent resident (i.e. the intent to remain permanently), is impossible for a temporary visa holder.
Furthermore, although the G-4 visa contemplated in Toll v. Moreno was not implicitly a permanent visa, the court in Toll recognized that the immigration act of 1952 stated that they were capable of being permanent visas.
TaxiDriver@helotry.org

A lot of states haven't bothered to change their laws, despite Toll v. Moreno. They probably argue that it applies to G-4 only. That's what a good lawyer would do. But my (admittedly non-lawyerly) reading of the decision is that it applies to situations where the alien is not prohibited from establishing domicile. And the H-1B, H-4, L-1, L-2 (and a few others) are statuses that allow the alien to establish domicile.

Dude, the definition of domicile includes the intent to remain permanently. How can a holder of a strictly temporary (which the G-4 was not) visa remain permanently? He or she cant. Thats what temporary means.
TaxiDriver@helotry.org

As for your particular question, first, I don't think Google spent money on some law in Washington State. They are located in California, after all. Microsoft may have spent money, I don't know, I haven't checked. Please provide a source for your allegation. All I have found in a quick search is that the sponsor of that law used to work at Microsoft at some point. Second, the other way to get the states to implement the decision of Toll v. Moreno is to sue them. I think that this has happened in some states.jfeise (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The IP's post is itself a fine example of "Emotional, Illogical and Biased" advocacy and WP:OR. However, the article is indeed a mess and could do with a major rewrite and restructuring. The current structure of the article seems to be pretty chaotic and disorganized. Some parts are too detailed and almost read as "how to" manual or something more suitable for WikiBooks. H-1B visa#Recent Changes to U.S. Policy is a good example of such a section; in fact I am rather tempted to remove it. The section H-1B visa#Income taxation status of H-1B workers seems to be in the same category. There is also quite a bit of WP:OR scattered through the entire article. Nsk92 (talk) 05:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

75.234.128.56, common courtesy would be to a) not intersperse your comments in the middle of other comments, and b) to sign your comments. Your comments now look as if they come from other people. You continue to push your POV. You claim, without sources, that the term "capable of becoming domiciled" means something that you want it to mean. Provide a source for your assertion. If you can't, your definition is just your opinion, nothing more. In particular, according to Webster[5], "domicile" is synonymous with "residence", and INA 101(a)(33) defines residence as "The term "residence" means the place of general abode; the place of general abode of a person means his principal, actual dwelling place in fact, without regard to intent."jfeise (talk) 05:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Joachim, my mistake. Microsoft and Amazonwere the biggest beneficiaries in that their employee tuition reimbursement costs were cut -- I don't know whether Amazon actively lobbied for the HB1487, as Microsoft did -- and it was an act of the state legislature rather than a referendum. Undoubtedly any competent lawyer would advance your position that Toll v. Moreno applies to H-1Bs. But the fact that so many state universities have not changed their rules in over 30 years since the Toll decision seems to justify skepticism that it is settled law applicable to H-1B, though admittedly during most of that period the permanent-residence-abroad requirement of H-1B was still in force. A cursory reading of the decision (see p. 435 US662ff http://supreme.justia.com/us/647/case.html ) suggests that the ruling hinged on the interaction of Federal law with Maryland common law interpretations. I'm sure others will resolve this before I have time to do so.

Webster's is good, but the meaning of US legal terms of art (like "domicile") should be settled with an American law dictionary, which may be why you fail to understand taxidriver's distinction of "domicile" from "residence." See for example http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/domicile/.

A purported internal Microsoft newsletter reproduced at http://blog.washtech.org/?p=92 attributed the idea for the bill to employees in an immigration issues webcast of 10Jan2008, and ". . .through the strong support of Microsoft's State Government Relations Team, this bill was drafted and introduced in the state legislature in January 2008." It was passed in the following session.

My comments at this point do not resolve the issues but should spur further investigation. Ray921 (talk) 06:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Public universities are bound by state law. They can not on their own decide to give in-state tuition to a certain group of people. California state law, for example, says in section 68062(h) [6]: "(h) An alien, including an unmarried minor alien, may establish his or her residence, unless precluded by the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101, et seq.) from establishing domicile in the United States." All public universities in California have to follow that.

washtech.org is a known to have an anti-H-1B stance, so I wouldn't put too much faith in what they report on that. And the URL you provided doesn't work. It is blog..., not blogs. jfeise (talk) 07:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Who I am is someone who actually reads the laws (SB 358/original intent "who is coming temporarily " with "degree, and (ii) recognition of expertise in the specialty through progressively responsible positions relating to the specialty" and "will provide working conditions for such aliens that will not adversely affect the working conditions of workers similarly employed.", etc.). At least go read the laws if you're going to keep posing as an authority. The odd Criticism sections' content is a big dogpile of anything from active legislation to misconstrued expectations - which is opinion, which is advocacy. Whether valid complaints or not, I can't get in-state tuition and my spouse can't work is as appropriate in an encyclopedia as having complaints about hard chairs in the terminals in the articles on O'Hare or Logan.

Senate intent/Durbin on the Senate floor: http://www.brightfuturejobs.com/more/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Durbins_Comment&section=more_809171.168.85.77 (talk) 14:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Friedman quote[edit]

The computerworld article cited explicitly says, "But Nobel economist Milton Friedman scoffs at the idea of the government stocking a farm system for the likes of Microsoft and Intel. "There is no doubt," he says, "that the [H-1B] program is a benefit to their employers, enabling them to get workers at a lower wage, and to that extent, it is a subsidy."". That directly supports the information in the article. We either have two choices: remove the comment entirely (I'm not sure why we'd do that, but we could possibly rephrase it). Or we can leave it in entirely. We cannot, per WP:NPOV, "spin" the quote by providing an opinion about it. Furthermore, we cannot conduct original research and imply that Friedman never said the quote. The quote is in the article. The article is a reliable source. Thus, we can add it to the article (assuming it meets WP:DUE; my opinion is that the comments of Friedman on economic issues are generally of due weight given his prominence as an economist). But that sentence Jfiese is trying to keep in the article is an unambiguous policy violation. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

My problem with the quote is that a) Mr. Donnelly, who wrote the article, is a well-known H-1B critic, which may suggest "spin" in the article, and b) if Mr. Friedman really said what was quoted, it is very likely that it would have shown up in other places. Also, see this discussion from some time back in the talk page: [7]. Apparently, somebody tried to find the origin of the quote. The best way forward may be to say something like "Mr. Friedman as quoted by Paul Donnelly in ..." jfeise (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That would be an improvement. Let me try rewriting the sentence in the article and see what you think. However, if you believe that Donnelly literally altered the quote, and you have evidence of this, it should be removed entirely. Not that a lack of confirmation of the quote in other sources does not qualify as confirmation that Friedman didn't say it (you can't prove something doesn't exist simply by showing a lack of evidence for it, unless you show an awful lot of evidence; here, that would mean an extensive review of every public speech Friedman has made, along with all written public documents, and even that wouldn't really meet a serious burden of proof). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I like your rewrite. I have no evidence that Mr. Donnelly altered the quote, but I believe that it may have come out of a more extensive interview with Mr. Friedman, and that we may lack some of the context surrounding that quote. In the early 2000s, Mr. Donnelly was public relations officer for IEEE-USA, among other things lobbying against the H-1B. His goal, if I remember correctly, was to get rid of the H-1B in favor of making it easier for skilled foreigners to get Greencards. The article in Computerworld may have been part of that effort, and having a soundbite from Mr. Friedman fit quite nicely into that. jfeise (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. It's true, context is a concern. Essentially, we have to rely on Computerworld as having done their due diligence in editing to not have allowed Donnelly to take the quote out of confidence; that's essentially what we do with reliable sources. However, if you ever see anything Friedman wrote about the H-1B program that seems to contradict this, definitely raise it here and we can either eliminate the current quote or provide both as competing points (heck, Friedman may even have changed his mind over time). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Good solution, guys. – Smyth\talk 17:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Acronyms[edit]

There are a lot of unexpanded acronyms in this article. I would fix them, but I don't know what they are and\ or don't know the best way to format expansions. Please fix this problem.

Secarrie (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

I just wanted to say that I believe that the IP's recent edits (24.162.197.205, on 29 May), were a definite improvement to the article. I didn't check every single detail, but it looked like a lot of phrasing was cleaned up, the article was re-ordered in a better way, and extraneous details were removed. Thanks for the extensive edits. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I focused only on the organization and tried to avoid adding or removing content, except for a couple of short pieces that were unverified. I tried to keep the tone neutral. I am only attempting to improve the readability and style. I believe my proficiency in English is high enough to enable me to do that well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.162.197.205 (talk) 03:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

There was formerly a chart labeled "H-1B Applications Approved by USCIS, by Level of Education" which only listed the numbers for accepted applicants lacking an equivalent of a high school diploma or lacking an equivalent of a bachelor diploma. However if you click through to the source, you can plainly see that the table the information is from also includes accepted applicants with master/doctoral/profession/etc. degrees and they make up the overwhelming majority of the accepted applicants. Only providing the information on the relatively under-educated applicants while ignoring the higher education applicants is plainly biased. As is, this table should not be in the article. If someone wants to recreate the table with the full information, feel free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.122.13.129 (talk) 02:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


Why are the USCIS numbers so low compared to the FLC and DOL numbers? The table in Wikipedia claim they include visas exempt from the cap but the FLC and DOL databases total numbers certified including cap exempt are: 2002, 253866 2003, 414804 2004, 541327 2005, 666864 2006, 628746 2007, 748205 2008, 706660 2009, 483203 2010, 499218 2011, 671837 2012, 820431 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.244.18 (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

I tried to fix some of the incorrect numbers. I linked directly to the DOL sources. People were reporting the number at the point a "cap was hit" announcement, but this is not the total for the year.

I tried to add a section on abuses but it got cut. Please take a look at that recent edit and let me know if its worthwhile to re-add.

I'm not so good at doing the refs so if someone wants to fix the refs I did please do

Also, maybe move the numbers for 2012-2014 to the numbers section.

I also removed some entries which had refs which were the wrong year (and also the numbers data was wrong, I believe it was 2010 pointing to 2004 data)

It's really shocking to see the numbers now up to almost 800,000 a year in a program that is supposed to be held to 85,000.

I also take issue with the "non-immigrant visa" language which I think should be removed from the article. That is what the government designates it but they are liars, almost 50% actually use it as a pathway to a green card making it CLEARLY an immigrant visa. Someone should address that point.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.90.4.176 (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC) 
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. Your personal opinions don't belong in article in an encyclopedia. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP. Thank you. jfeise (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Abuse by employers[edit]

I think the details uncovered in http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/silicon-valley-h1b-visas-hurt-tech-workers should be added to this article because they show abuses which are not already documented here.

EllenCT (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing new in that article that hasn't been covered already. The Wedel case has nothing to do with the H-1B, anyway, since Mr. Wedel has been offered jobs, he just couldn't take the out-of-state jobs offered to him because of his personal situation wrt child support. jfeise (talk) 05:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok. EllenCT (talk) 07:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Abuse of Funds Paid for Retraining[edit]

I would argue that this article should cover the huge abuses in the funds that are SUPPOSED to retrain the displaced american engineers yet go to assistant nurse and sheet metal worker programs and none go to legitimate core skills and engineer needs. That is a massive part of its fraud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.90.4.176 (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Added Numbers Issued from FY 2013 Report to Congress[edit]

The numbers were off, first I mistakingly added LCA numbers but finally I found the correct numbers in the report to congress so FY 2010 - 2012 were added and 2009 looked correct already. No numbers for 2013 yet available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.90.4.176 (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Marianne Kolbasuk McGee (May 17, 2007). "Who Gets H-1B Visas? Check Out This List". InformationWeek. Retrieved 06/02/2007.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  2. ^ Peter Elstrom (June 7, 2007). "Immigration: Google Makes Its Case". BusinessWeek. Retrieved 04/02/2010.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  3. ^ Peter Elstrom (June 7, 2007). "Immigration: Who Gets Temp Work Visas?". BusinessWeek. Retrieved 04/02/2010.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  4. ^ cite web url=http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B Employer-Employee Memo010810.pdf accessdate=04/04/2010
  5. ^ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/domicile
  6. ^ http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=68001-69000&file=68060-68062
  7. ^ https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AH-1B_visa&action=historysubmit&diff=431903161&oldid=425497712#Milton_Friedman_quotation