Home » Posts tagged 'Green Card' (Page 3)
Tag Archives: Green Card
New York State’s Shortage of “Mid-Level” Skilled Workers: Can Immigrants Help Fill this Void?
I recently read an article in the Business Review addressing New York State’s shortage of some 350,000 mid-level skilled workers. According to the article,“mid-level” jobs are those that fall between a high-school diploma and a four-year degree. Robert Geer, Vice President for Academic Affairs for the University at Albany’s College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering (“CNSE”), said that of the 3,100 people employed at CNSE, most have two-year or four-year degrees, while only 1 in 14 holds a Ph.D. The article got me thinking about what Comprehensive Immigration Reform (“CIR”) will do to address this issue, if anything.
CIR, as proposed in the Gang of Eight’s “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act,” includes a provision for a new “merit-based” point system (Track 1 as it is known in the bill). This point system allows foreign nationals to obtain a Green Card by accumulating points primarily based on their skills, employment history, and educational credentials. The bill provides that 120,000 to 250,000 Green Cards would be made available each fiscal year based on the point system. (The actual number would apparently fluctuate based upon a formula that takes into account the number of Green Cards requested the previous year and the unemployment rate.)
According to the bill, Track 1 would have two (2) tiers: one for higher-skilled immigrants with advanced educational credentials and experience, and a second tier for less-skilled immigrants. Beginning in the 5th fiscal year after bill becomes a law, half of the Green Cards would be allocated to applicants with the highest number of points under tier 1, and the other half would be allocated to applicants with the highest number of points under tier 2.
According to the current iteration of the bill, the allocation of points in both tiers is based on a combination of factors, including education, employment, occupation, civic involvement, English language proficiency, family ties, age, and nationality. The system seems to prioritize foreign nationals who are young, educated, experienced, skilled, and fluent in English. Family ties and others factors are weighted lower.
There is also a Track 2 to the merit-based system, which is designed to clear, over a period of seven years (starting in 2015) the enormous backlog that currently exists in the family- and employment-based Green Card “preference” system. Track 2 is designed to eliminate these backlogs by 2021.
Under the bill, commencing October 1, 2014, family- or employment-based Green Card applicants who have had their Green Card applications pending five (5) years or more under our current system will become eligible for a Green Card. (The Track 2 merit-based system also makes Green Cards available to Registered Provisional Immigrants who have maintained that status for at least ten [10] years.)
It’s not entirely clear how much the Gang of Eight’s bill, as currently proposed, will completely solve the problems identified in the Business Review’s article. Both tier 1 and tier 2 potentially can make a dent. The tier 1 point system, however, seems to favor those foreign nationals with more advanced degrees as opposed to the types of degrees identified as needed in the Business Review’s article.
However, the tier 2 may have some potential. Under the bill, between 60,000 and 125,000 Green Cards would be made available in each fiscal year for foreign nationals in high-demand tier-2 occupations. According to the bill, these are occupations for which the highest numbers of positions were sought to become registered positions by employers during the previous fiscal year. Some Green Cards will be reserved for occupations that require little or no preparation too. Under tier 2, the number of Green Cards available can also increase by 5% each year if demand exceeds supply in any year where unemployment is under 8.5%.
This is significant as it potentially allows workers who currently do not have great chance to obtain a Green Card with an opportunity to obtain one. This is also important considering the United States (and NYS) needs immigrants at all skill levels, as noted in the Business Review’s article.
Immigrants in the U.S. Military: Sacrificing All for a Country that May Not Yet Be Theirs
On Memorial Day, we remember those men and women who have died in our nation’s service. Did you know that non-citizens have a long and proud tradition of serving in the U.S. military? In fact, there are thousands of men and women in uniform who were not born in the United States who are willing to sacrifice everything for our country.
Did you also know that one of the first U.S. service members to die in the U.S. – Iraq War was Lance Cpl. Jose Gutierrez, a non-citizen from Guatemala? He was killed in a tank battle in Iraq in March, 2003. According to CBS News, “The heroism and sacrifice of non-citizens was barely known — until Lance Cpl. Jose Gutierrez died in battle in Iraq. He came from Guatemala, and he came to the United States illegally. We can tell you how his story ended. He was killed in a tank battle in southern Iraq on March 21, [2003].”
Lance Cpl. Jose Gutierrez was granted U.S. citizenship posthumously. “No death of any soldier goes un-mourned. But the death of a man who died for a country that was not his — that proved especially poignant to many Americans, including President [George W.] Bush, who visited two wounded non-citizen soldiers and made them citizens on the spot.”
The presence of non-citizens in the U.S. military has deep historical roots. Non-citizens have fought in the U.S. Armed forces since the Revolutionary War. According to a report issued by the Immigration Policy Center, in August, 2009, there were 114,601 foreign-born individuals serving in the military; of that number, 12% of them were not U.S. citizens.
The military, and indeed our entire country, greatly benefits from the service of non-citizens in the U.S. military. Non-citizen recruits offer racial, ethnic, linguistic, and cultural diversity, something that is incredibly valuable given the U.S. military’s increasingly global agenda.
This has not gone unnoticed by Congress. Once again, according to the Immigration Policy Center, “[o]ver the [eight year period from 9/11], Congress has amended military related enlistment and naturalization rules to allow expanded benefits for immigrants and their families and encourage recruitment of immigrants into the U.S. Armed Forces. The U.S. military has also implemented new programs to encourage the enlistment and rapid naturalization of non-citizens who serve honorably during[.] Without the contributions of immigrants, the military could not meet its recruiting goals and could not fill its need for foreign-language translators, interpreters, and cultural experts.”
We are a nation of immigrants. The U.S. military is no exception. The U.S. military benefits (actually all of us benefit) from the presence of non-citizens within the ranks of the military. Today, as we remember the fallen, let us remember the importance of immigration and non-citizens to our nation and to our history. Let us also remember (and honor) the non-citizens that have made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our great country.
H-1B Visas for High-Tech Workers: Necessary to Industry or Cheap Labor?
The other day I read an Associated Press piece in the Saratogian called Influence Game: Tech, Labor Spar On Immigration. The article started out as follows:
“To the U.S. technology industry, there’s a dramatic shortfall in the number of Americans skilled in computer programming and engineering that is hampering business. To unions and some Democrats, it’s more sinister: The push by Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg to expand the number of visas for high-tech foreign workers is an attempt to dilute a lucrative job market with cheap, indentured labor. ”
The article went on to discuss the politics behind proposed changes to the H-1B nonimmigrant visa program in the Gang of Eight’s bill for Comprehensive Immigration Reform (“CIR”). What it did not explore, or explain very well, was the statement that somehow the H-1B program facilitates “cheap, indentured labor.” Please allow me to dispel this myth.
The H-1B nonimmigrant visa is granted to foreign national professionals who will perform services for a U.S. employer in a “specialty occupation.” Examples of specialty occupations include architecture, engineering, mathematics, physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and health, education, business specialties, accounting, law, theology, and the arts. Most employment-based nonimmigrant visas are tied to an employment relationship. That is, a U.S. employer is required to sponsor the foreign national so that the foreign national can work for that sponsoring U.S. employer. If the foreign national wishes to change jobs in the United States, a new employer must do the same thing. For individuals who are coming to the United States temporarily (which with few exceptions is what a nonimmigrant visa is supposed to be all about), I have no problem that the law requires the employers and employees to be tied at the proverbial hip (although I do agree that some not so nice employers probably do take advantage of this). Nevertheless, years ago Congress made it much easier for H-1B professionals to move from one employer to another. With a competitive labor market in the United States, H-1B professionals often do change employers in search of better opportunities (and I regularly work with both employers and employees where an H-1B professional is moving from one employer to another). H-1B employees are hardly indentured workers.
I am also troubled, however, by this persistent myth that somehow this labor is “cheap.” Nothing could be further from the truth. The law requires employers to pay foreign nationals on H-1B visas the higher of the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment, or the actual wage (that is, the amount paid by that employer to “all other individuals with similar experience and qualifications for the specific employment in question” ). I regularly see in my practice where an employer wishes to hire an H-1B professional only to find out that the wage the employer must pay the foreign national is higher, sometimes substantially higher, than the wage the employer was going to offer (or the wage that the employer is currently paying other individuals at the employer’s business).
Another fact lost in the article is the hassle and expense for a U.S. employer to sponsor a foreign national for an H-1B. To hire a foreign national on an H-1B, a U.S. employer must incur legal fees, filing fees, training fees, fraud prevention and detection fees, and sometimes even “premium processing” fees (i.e., fees paid U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [“USCIS”] to expedite a petition). There are potentially more fees too. Filing fees alone to USCIS can be north of $5,000.00. And this does not include the additional expenses to the company associated with the extra paperwork and ongoing compliance involved in the hiring and employing of an H-1B professional.
Trust me when I say H-1B professionals are not cheap labor, for the H-1B professional or the employer.
Over 300 Amendments to the Gang of Eight’s Bill for Comprehensive Immigration Reform?
On May 7, 2013 several senators proposed, in total, more than 300 amendments to the Gang of Eight’s bill for Comprehensive Immigration Reform (“CIR”). That’s right, more than 300 amendments. If you’re interested in perusing them, they’re all available on the Senate Judiciary Committee’s website.
Some of the amendments are good (e.g., making sure that all families can be reunited with their loved ones including siblings of U.S. citizens, making sure that businesses have access to the workers they need, ensuring that both U.S. workers and foreign nationals are fairly paid and are fully protected, and restoring due process so that everyone who goes through our immigration system is treated fairly).
Some amendments are bad. For example, requiring largely ineffective and cost prohibitive measures as “triggers” before an undocumented alien could apply for legalization, barring aliens with minor convictions from being able to apply for Registered Provisional Immigrant (“RPI”) status, preventing RPI’s from being able to travel outside the United States to visit their families, and eliminating important legal protections such as access to legal counsel and the basic right of a detainee to have a custody hearing before detention.
According to at least one news outlet, thus far there has been a spirit of bipartisanship during the mark-up of the bill (e.g., an amendment by Republican senator Charles Grassley sought to require continuous surveillance of 100% of the U.S. States border and achieve 90% effectiveness of enforcement of the entire border was approved by a voice vote).
Of course, not everyone is embracing this bipartisan spirit. Sen. Ted Cruz from Texas, the freshman Senator who always seems to find a way to be in the news, filed an amendment to the bill last week that would ban anyone who has been in the U.S. without status from becoming a citizen at any point.
I’m not from Texas, but my sense is that it’s a fairly conservative state. I find it interesting, therefore, that The Houston Chronicle had some harsh words for its two Senators who both sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee. I quote: “Many of these amendment IEDs are being offered by such ardent opponents of the legislation as the Lone Star State’s Senate duo, tea-party true-believer Ted Cruz and his senior colleague John Cornyn, a tea-party target in 2014 if he doesn’t toe the line. Despite protestations to the contrary, Cruz, Cornyn and other hard-liners would be happy to hobble immigration reform. That’s why they have latched on to the border-security issue as a way to kill it.”
I think that most Democrats and Republicans would agree that realistic and cost effective border reform is a key goal for CIR to have any shot at passing. Let’s make sure, though, that it is both realistic and cost effective.
A Summary of the “Gang of Eight’s” Proposed Bill on Comprehensive Immigration Reform
On April 16, 2013, the Senate’s “Gang of Eight” introduced the “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act,” an 844 page piece of legislation which is the Senate’s starting point for Comprehensive Immigration Reform (“CIR”). So, what’s actually in the “Gang of Eight’s” 844 page bill?
Here’s a primer.
1. Legalization. This is perhaps the most controversial provision of the bill. The bill provides that non-citizens who are in the United States unlawfully, and who entered the U.S. before December 31, 2011, may apply to become a Registered Provisional Immigrant (“RPI”). Those who are eligible would be required to pay a penalty along with any and all back taxes due and owing. They would also receive permission to work (and they would be permitted to travel abroad). They would also become eligible to apply for their Green Card after ten (10) years. Three (3) years after that, they can apply for naturalization (i.e., citizenship).
2. H-1B Nonimmigrants. The H-1B nonimmigrant visa / status is granted to a foreign national who will perform services in a specialty occupation. The bill will increase the available yearly quota to a minimum of 110,000 nonimmigrant visas, and a maximum of 180,000. The bill will also increase the U.S. advanced degree exemption to 25,000, but will limit the issuance of visas under this exemption to “STEM” graduates (i.e., science, technology, engineering, and math graduates).
The bill also proposes to add a recruitment requirement for all H-1B labor condition applications (which are required to be certified by the U.S. Department of Labor as part of the H-1B process). With respect to the H-1B category, this is (for the most part) very new (and I suspect will not be very popular with employers who use the H-1B program).
On the positive side, the bill also proposes to provide employment authorization for spouses and, on a technical point, adds a 60-day grace period after an H-1B worker has been terminated from his or her job.
3. Employment-Based Green Cards. Employment-based immigration is organized in what is called a “preference” system which has annual quotas. The total number of employment-based “Green Cards” available in the U.S. government’s fiscal year is 140,000. The bill proposes to exempt the following categories from the annual quota: aliens of extraordinary ability, outstanding researchers and professors, multinational executives and managers, doctoral degree holders, physicians who have completed their foreign residency requirement, and with respect to all of them, their spouses and children. The bill also adds a new employment-based Green Card category for certain entrepreneurs.
4. Family-Based Green Cards. Family-based immigration is also organized in a “preference” system which also has annual quotas. The total number of family-based “Green Cards” available in the U.S. government’s fiscal year is 226,000. The bill proposes to merge the FB-2A preference category (related to spouses and children of Green Card holders) into the immediate relative classification (where there is no quota), allow for derivatives of immediate relatives, eliminate the FB-4 category (related to siblings of U.S. citizens), cap the age of eligibility of married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens at thirty one (31), and reinstate the V nonimmigrant visa (related to spouses and children of Green Card holders).
5. Nonimmigrant (Temporary) Workers: Temporary workers typically are in the United States on “nonimmigrant” visas (like the H-1B). The bill proposes to create a “W-1” nonimmigrant visa for lesser-skilled workers, a “W-2” nonimmigrant visa for foreign nationals coming to the U.S. temporarily to perform agricultural services or labor under a written contract, and a “W-3” nonimmigrant visa for “at-will” workers with an offer of full-time employment in an agricultural occupation. (The W-2 and W-3 visas would replace the current H-2A agricultural worker program.)
6. Political Asylum: Political asylum may be granted by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) or an Immigration Judge to foreign nationals who have been persecuted or fear they will be persecuted on account of their race, religion, nationality, and/or their membership in a particular social group or their political opinion. The bill proposes to eliminate the current one-year filing deadline for applying for political asylum. It also proposes to authorize asylum officers to grant political asylum during “credible fear interviews” (i.e., interviews of foreign nationals who affirmatively apply for political asylum upon entering the United States). These would both be welcomed changes.
7. E-Verify: E-Verify is an Internet-based system that allows businesses to determine the eligibility of their employees to work in the United States. The bill proposes to require all employers to use the system after five (5) years.
8. Fraud: The bill proposes to make it a crime to knowingly defraud an immigrant or hold oneself out as an attorney or Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) accredited representative when one is not authorized to do so. This is another very welcome change. The bill also proposes to require the identification of individuals who assist aliens with the completion of forms.
There’s more… a LOT more, actually. These are the “big ticket” items, and at least some of them will create a lot of discussion within the halls of Congress over the coming weeks (and perhaps months). The bill is not perfect, but it is a very good start.
INSIGHT INTO IMMIGRATION 
