riva2005
04-17-2009, 04:27 PM
According to anti-immigrants, US employers file H1B because they are greedy, unpatriotic, profit mongering, America hating, foreigner loving sons of *^(&^^&@#%^&*(.
They conclude the above based on the fact that for 65,000 slots for H1B, USCIS has been receiving more than 120,000 applications year after year. According to anti-immigrants, rampant greed and profit desire results in quest for CHEAP CHEAP labor, (think about profits, cheap labor. YIKES !!!!) that every year, employers shower the USCIS with over 100 thousand applications to hire that cheap labor and use them to replace expensive American workers.
So if that is true, then it means that if employers apply for only 42,000 H1B petitions out of the quota of 65,000 its a sign of how employers have given up their greed, lust for cheap labor and high profits. Correct?
I am sure that there is more than 42,000 people gainfully employed in United States. If the argument that every employer wants to replace every native with a foreign worker is true, then there should be more than 42,000 applications for H1B. Wouldn't it? Its should surpass the quota of 65,000. Shouldn't it?
Since employers didn't send more than 65,000 or even 65,000 applications, I think employers all over USA are no longer greedy and they no longer need cheap labor. Either they have too much money and can afford expensive labor, or they are just not really after profits anymore.
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/041609-hib-demand.html?t51hb
Fewer companies filed petitions for H-1B visas this year as the economic recession continues to threaten U.S. jobs and shrink the demand for foreign talent.
U.S. companies since April 1 have filed some 42,000 petitions with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency for 65,000 H-1B Specialty Occupation Visas available for 2010, a fraction of previous years' petitions. In 2007, the USCIS received some 150,000 petitions in a matter of days, and in 2008 the agency conducted a lottery after 163,000 petitions were filed in less than a week.
Because this year's cap hasn't been reached, the USCIS will continue to accept applications for the 65,000 general H-1B visas (as well as for the 20,000 visas made available to recipients of a graduate degree from a U.S. university; roughly 20,000 petitions for these advanced degree visas have been received so far in April, but the agency expects not all will be approved).
Industry watchers say the paltry number of petitions filed shows that despite U.S. lawmakers working to restrict the number of H-1B visas permitted, the market will dictate what the country needs in terms of hiring foreign talent.
"There is no need to do a lottery this year, and these numbers show that the market for H-1B is self-regulating. The cap mandated by Congress is artificial," says Eleanor Pelta, a partner at law firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius in Washington, D.C., and an official with the American Immigration Lawyers Association. "Congress should let the program regulate itself because this year proves that employers will apply for the numbers they need according to the dictates of the economy."
Nonetheless, restrictions in the economic stimulus package have proposed to limit those companies receiving government funds from hiring foreign nationals without first exhausting all other U.S. options. For instance, one provision would restrict H-1B hiring at companies that have received funds from the Trouble Assets Relief Program (TARP) and that have more than 15% of their workers on visas; these companies would be required to prove they have diligently recruited American workers for the position and that in hiring a foreign national they are not replacing a U.S. citizen.
But for the most part, the companies that might be eligible for money from the government under such programs aren't hugely dependent on H-1B visas for filling positions. According to the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP), less than 1% of the staff at some of the largest U.S. financial firms hold H-1B visas. For instance, Goldman Sachs and JPMorganChase filed for 227 and 236 new H-1B visas in 2007, which represented 0.74% and 0.14% of their total employees, respectively.
"The updated government restrictions have very little to do with the drop off in petitions," Pelta says. "But the senators and congressmen that really have problems with the H-1B program will not look at this year's petitions as an indicator that the program should be allowed to meet the needs of U.S. companies in good and bad economic times. There are restrictions in place and government agencies are equipped to enforce them without requiring an unrealistic cap."
Pelta says demand for H-1B visas follows the job market, and as more companies seek to hire foreign nationals, oftentimes that means an increase in jobs for U.S. citizens as well. A March 2008 NFAP brief reports that rather than displacing American workers, data showed for every one H-1B position requested, U.S. technology companies increased their employment by five workers.
"If the U.S. wants to participate in the global economy, it must shed some of its protectionist and outdated policies, and lawmakers must realize we need to view resources globally as well," Pelta says. "Short-sightedness on immigration programs could hurt our universities and businesses five years down the road."
They conclude the above based on the fact that for 65,000 slots for H1B, USCIS has been receiving more than 120,000 applications year after year. According to anti-immigrants, rampant greed and profit desire results in quest for CHEAP CHEAP labor, (think about profits, cheap labor. YIKES !!!!) that every year, employers shower the USCIS with over 100 thousand applications to hire that cheap labor and use them to replace expensive American workers.
So if that is true, then it means that if employers apply for only 42,000 H1B petitions out of the quota of 65,000 its a sign of how employers have given up their greed, lust for cheap labor and high profits. Correct?
I am sure that there is more than 42,000 people gainfully employed in United States. If the argument that every employer wants to replace every native with a foreign worker is true, then there should be more than 42,000 applications for H1B. Wouldn't it? Its should surpass the quota of 65,000. Shouldn't it?
Since employers didn't send more than 65,000 or even 65,000 applications, I think employers all over USA are no longer greedy and they no longer need cheap labor. Either they have too much money and can afford expensive labor, or they are just not really after profits anymore.
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/041609-hib-demand.html?t51hb
Fewer companies filed petitions for H-1B visas this year as the economic recession continues to threaten U.S. jobs and shrink the demand for foreign talent.
U.S. companies since April 1 have filed some 42,000 petitions with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency for 65,000 H-1B Specialty Occupation Visas available for 2010, a fraction of previous years' petitions. In 2007, the USCIS received some 150,000 petitions in a matter of days, and in 2008 the agency conducted a lottery after 163,000 petitions were filed in less than a week.
Because this year's cap hasn't been reached, the USCIS will continue to accept applications for the 65,000 general H-1B visas (as well as for the 20,000 visas made available to recipients of a graduate degree from a U.S. university; roughly 20,000 petitions for these advanced degree visas have been received so far in April, but the agency expects not all will be approved).
Industry watchers say the paltry number of petitions filed shows that despite U.S. lawmakers working to restrict the number of H-1B visas permitted, the market will dictate what the country needs in terms of hiring foreign talent.
"There is no need to do a lottery this year, and these numbers show that the market for H-1B is self-regulating. The cap mandated by Congress is artificial," says Eleanor Pelta, a partner at law firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius in Washington, D.C., and an official with the American Immigration Lawyers Association. "Congress should let the program regulate itself because this year proves that employers will apply for the numbers they need according to the dictates of the economy."
Nonetheless, restrictions in the economic stimulus package have proposed to limit those companies receiving government funds from hiring foreign nationals without first exhausting all other U.S. options. For instance, one provision would restrict H-1B hiring at companies that have received funds from the Trouble Assets Relief Program (TARP) and that have more than 15% of their workers on visas; these companies would be required to prove they have diligently recruited American workers for the position and that in hiring a foreign national they are not replacing a U.S. citizen.
But for the most part, the companies that might be eligible for money from the government under such programs aren't hugely dependent on H-1B visas for filling positions. According to the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP), less than 1% of the staff at some of the largest U.S. financial firms hold H-1B visas. For instance, Goldman Sachs and JPMorganChase filed for 227 and 236 new H-1B visas in 2007, which represented 0.74% and 0.14% of their total employees, respectively.
"The updated government restrictions have very little to do with the drop off in petitions," Pelta says. "But the senators and congressmen that really have problems with the H-1B program will not look at this year's petitions as an indicator that the program should be allowed to meet the needs of U.S. companies in good and bad economic times. There are restrictions in place and government agencies are equipped to enforce them without requiring an unrealistic cap."
Pelta says demand for H-1B visas follows the job market, and as more companies seek to hire foreign nationals, oftentimes that means an increase in jobs for U.S. citizens as well. A March 2008 NFAP brief reports that rather than displacing American workers, data showed for every one H-1B position requested, U.S. technology companies increased their employment by five workers.
"If the U.S. wants to participate in the global economy, it must shed some of its protectionist and outdated policies, and lawmakers must realize we need to view resources globally as well," Pelta says. "Short-sightedness on immigration programs could hurt our universities and businesses five years down the road."