Category: Immigration reform


Decreasing American Unemployment by Hiring Foreign Workers

June 23rd, 2015 — 2:49pm

In the U.S., the topic of employing foreign-born workers can cause a bit of a divide, with some leaning more for it and others against it. For those who may oppose employing these workers, it often comes down to the belief that they are taking jobs away from U.S.-born citizens. Recent research, however, finds that this is not necessarily the case.

The H-1B visa program aims to offer employment to foreign professionals whose occupations call for highly-educated candidates. Each year, the U.S. makes 65,000 visas available to foreign-born workers, with an additional 20,000 for those who hold a Master’s or Doctorate from a U.S. university.

This may seem like enough visas, especially considering the recent high levels of unemployment in the U.S., but research shows that increasing the number of visas for foreign-born workers would actually increase the total number of jobs. In fact, estimates show more than 230,000 jobs could have been created for U.S. born workers between 2007 and 2008 had the hundreds of thousands of visas that were to be put in a lottery not been rejected. Looking ahead, it is estimated that 1.3 million new jobs may be created by 2045 if the numbers of H-1B visas per year is increased.

The reason for this? Many of these jobs are in the fields of Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM). Not only is unemployment is extremely low in STEM occupations, showing an unmet need for labor, but the economic impact of these knowledge jobs increases both the overall number of jobs and the GDP. According to a report prepared by Regional Economic Models, Inc., an increase in H-1B visas could create an estimated 1.3 million new jobs and add around $158 billion to the GDP by 2045.

It is not solely STEM jobs that are calling for H-1B employees. Along with research universities, many companies across the country have a demand for these workers — companies like Caterpillar Inc., Bank of America and the Mayo Clinic to name a few. And with more H-1B petitions comes more wage growth. According to the American Immigration Council, the Computer Systems Design and Related Services category saw a “5.5 percent wage growth since 1990” and a “7.0 percent wage growth since 2009.”

With issues such as unemployment at the forefront of many Americans’ minds, perhaps its time to change how we look at foreign-born workers. Allowing for more H-1B visas isn’t a complete solution, but it would definitely create more positive effects for all involved.

Comment » | H-1B, Immigration reform

Where The Candidates Stand on Immigration

June 12th, 2015 — 9:07am

Immigration has become a hot topic in the 2016 presidential campaign, thanks to the presidential executive actions on immigration. But as you look at both parties, there is a clear divide.

Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State, defends Obama’s executive actions and wants to take them further, citing “sympathetic cases” of illegal immigrants should be considered for citizenship. Former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley, who’s expected to run, views mirror Clinton’s, recently saying, “I’m glad Secretary Clinton’s come around to the right positions on these issues.”

Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has long supported a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, but remains skeptical of guest-worker programs and their impact on native workers.

After the 2012 GOP defeat, party officials pushed for immigration policy changes to appeal to more Hispanics. Ironically, GOP immigration views have shifted to the right. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal are the original GOP “purists” on immigration—remaining steadfast in anti-amnesty beliefs.

Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Wisconsin governor Scott Walker have done an about-face on past views that supported granting legal status to illegal immigrants. Walker said his views have changed and he no longer believes in amnesty. Rubio says he would support some, but not all, of the executive actions. He would remove protections for undocumented parents of U.S. Citizens and permanent resident, (DAPA), but keep protections in place for recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

Texas governor Rick Perry was criticized in 2012 for being soft on immigration. Recently, Perry voiced support for stronger border security and said illegal immigration is a “clear and present danger to the health and safety of all Americans.”

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, was previously a supporter of the DREAM Act that provides immigrants a path to citizenship if they were children brought into the country illegally. But earlier this year, Huckabee signed a pledge that opposes citizenship to anyone in the U.S. illegally.

Like Huckabee, business executive Carly Fiorina supported the DREAM Act in the past. Since entering the presidential race, her views have changed to be more about “enforcement first,” saying a path to citizenship for undocumented youths would encourage more illegal immigration.

In his 2012 book, Dr. Ben Carson questioned the morality of exploiting “cheap labor from illegal immigrants while denying them citizenship.” In 2014, he said illegal immigrants should “apply for guest-worker status from outside the country. This means they would have to leave first.” This mean people complying would have to stay outside the U.S. for 3 to 10 years, under current laws.

 In February, former Florida governor, Jeb Bush remained supportive of a path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants—making him the only Republican candidate to support some form of amnesty.

Regardless of the candidate, expect immigration to play a part in their campaign. There’s still a long time to the election, so keep an eye on your candidate’s immigration stance before casting your ballot next year.

Comment » | Immigration reform

Legislators Look to Highly Skilled Immigrants to Revive Startup Activity

February 23rd, 2015 — 5:49pm

Despite the buzz surrounding Silicon Valley, startup activity in the U.S. has been in decline. In fact, business “deaths” have been outpacing business “births” for several years. That’s bad news for the U.S. economy, which depends on the large share of jobs created by new businesses every year.

However, highly skilled immigrant workers could help reverse this trend. And the latest version of the Startup Act, if passed, might help open some doors.

Proposed by Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), the Act is intended to revive America’s entrepreneurial economy. The Act would create an “entrepreneur visa” that would allow up to 75,000 non-citizens to start and grow a business in the U.S., meeting certain benchmarks over a three-year period. The Act also includes a new visa category for up to 50,000 foreign-born students who graduate from U.S. universities with degrees in science, technology, engineering or math (known as STEM skills). Currently, these students—the world’s best and brightest—are required to leave after completing their studies here. The Act would also eliminate caps on the number of work visas that can be granted to individuals from each country.

Critics say the U.S. is already saturated with high-skilled STEM workers who could siphon off jobs or lower wage scales and salary expectations. However, even in the current system, visas designed for foreign workers with STEM expertise are portable; these are often highly skilled professionals, well compensated and free to move on to other positions. A study from the Harvard Business School found that the program for foreign workers “has played an important role in U.S. innovation patterns” over the past 15 years. In fact, patents increase when visa caps are higher. And of course, it’s worth keeping in mind that even immigrants who have earned degrees in non-STEM areas are vital to creating new businesses. The founders of PayPal, YouTube and Skype are just a few examples.

With the current immigration climate in Washington, the Start-Up Act has had trouble gaining traction—even after three iterations since 2011. But the fourth time may be the charm. And if it passes, the U.S. economy and its workers stand to reap the benefits.

Comment » | Immigration reform

National League Versus American? The Disconnect Between Federal and Local Attitudes on Immigration.

January 25th, 2015 — 4:24pm

Between President Obama’s Executive Action on immigration and the upcoming presidential election, there has been a great deal of rhetoric about immigration at the federal level. Positive actions, however, are almost entirely taking place at the local and state level.

What is happening – and why is there such a disconnect?

Cities are almost overwhelmingly in favor of a more welcoming attitude towards immigrants. From the Cities for Citizenship campaign, a national initiative working to increase citizenship among eligible permanent residents, to Welcoming America’s Welcoming Cities and Counties initiative, city leaders are looking to community partnerships and other collaborative strategies to drive immigrant integration.

And while half of the states have joined a lawsuit challenging President Obama’s executive action on immigration, many local leaders in those states have come out in support of it. In early December, Cities United for Immigration Action was launched by a coalition of almost 50 mayors of cities spanning the country.

Not all news at the state and federal level is negative, though. Three years ago, Florida almost passed a bill that would have required law enforcement to check the status of anyone  believed to be in the country without legal status. This May, it became one of 15 states to pass DREAM Act legislation allowing young undocumented immigrants to pay the same in-state college tuition rates as other Florida residents.

And as of January 1, 2015, California and Connecticut became the latest states to allow undocumented immigrants to apply for driver’s licenses. Response was unprecedented – California had 17,000 applicants by the end of opening day and the California Department of Motor Vehicles projects some 1.4 million immigrants will seek licenses over the next three years. In Connecticut more than 6,500 undocumented residents obtained testing appointments online the first day they were available.

And in the courts, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction barring workplace raids targeting suspected illegal immigrants by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The judge said it was likely the advocates seeking the injunction would prevail in their U.S. District Court lawsuit claiming that the raids are unconstitutional and that federal law trumps two state statutes used to back them. Courts also have struck down Arizona’s human smuggling law and ban on driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants.

Two explanations immediately come to mind for the difference between local and national political attitudes towards immigration. The first is purely political – elected officials supporting or proposing legislation or other acts that they believe will boost their standings in the polls, particularly with their base. This certainly explains politicians who vocally endorse laws that have almost no chance of being either passed or brought to a vote.

The second explanation is of greater concern. Perhaps elected officials on the ground in our cities and towns see the real impact of immigrants and immigration policies on our communities. According to a report from the Pew Charitable Trusts, immigrants contribute to growth in many counties, particularly in growing regions of the country such as Sun Belt South, Mountain West, and Pacific Northwest regions. City officials in those regions can see how immigrants contribute – and how policies discouraging immigrants from fully participating in the local economy inhibit growth.

As states pursue lawsuits spurred by Obama’s executive action, and federal policymakers seek to block its enactment, we can only hope that pressure from our cities offsets and ultimately overwhelms national-level anti-immigration bias.

 

Comment » | Immigration reform

The Benefits of Obama’s Executive Action

December 5th, 2014 — 5:43pm

What’s the Plan?

On November 20th, 2014, President Obama finally announced his plans for executive action on immigration reform. While it’s only a temporary solution to a long-term problem, it will help almost half of all undocumented immigrants gain official status — nearly five million people.

President Obama’s plan extends the temporary relief from deportation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) to undocumented parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. In order to temporarily stay in the U.S. for 3 years, qualified individuals will have pass a background test and pay any back taxes. The plan also moves the window to include even more DREAMERs.

Who Benefits

The most obvious benefit will be improved quality of life for many undocumented immigrants. Moving from the shadows and into a fully recognized status can mean more opportunities, more work, and greater stability for their families. Also, many currently working in the gray economy will see an increase in wages.

That will also result in increased tax revenue for the U.S. Previously, only a third of undocumented workers and the people that employed them paid payroll taxes. Now, with official status, we can expect to see an increase in the gross domestic product up to .9% (nearly $210 billion over 10 years). The first year alone will net the federal government $3 billion.

But what about the “increased competition” for low-wage work? Many experts believe that the plan will lead to an increased average wage of about .3%. While not much, it’s certainly not the fall in wages that most opponents of immigration reform expect. And now that nearly one half of undocumented immigrants will compete on an even playing field with citizens, there won’t be such a large potential source of below-minimum-wage labor. Many companies have been asking for reform like this for quite a while.

Who Doesn’t Benefit

President Obama’s plan leaves some immigrants undocumented and negatively impacts at least one industry.

First, undocumented immigrants who arrived within the last five years don’t qualify. This means that over 10,000 Central Americans who have fled the violence in their countries since 2010 will remain undocumented for the time being.

Second, the private prison industry will lose out on the massive amounts of detainees awaiting deportation. While it’s unfortunate that an industry will take a hit as a result of the president’s actions, fewer detainees is generally a good thing.

Why It’s Good For Us

The President’s plan is certainly the temporary help that many both citizens and undocumented immigrants need — it’s just not the overarching reform that the U.S. desperately needs. While critics have found way to admonish the President, ImmigrationPolicy.org notes that every president since Eisenhower has executed similar executive actions for certain groups on immigrants. With nearly 39 examples, executive action for immigrants is essentially a Presidential precedent at this point.

Hopefully this plan will push Congress to finally bring meaningful reform when they see how much it helps immigrants, citizens and businesses all over the U.S.

 

Comment » | Immigration Policy Center, Immigration reform

Back to top