Talk:H-1B visa/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Where is the USC cite???

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

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

"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

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 (talk • contribs) 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)

Recent Changes to U.S. Policy

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 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Emotional, Illogical and Biased

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 (talk • contribs) 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, "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) : "(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)

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

"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)

Friedman quote

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: . 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)

Non-availability of U.S. citizens requirement

"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)

Acronyms

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

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)

Abuse by employers

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)

Recent edits

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)

Path to citizenship

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)

H-1B artice biased?

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 (talk • contribs)

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)

Abuse of Funds Paid for Retraining

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)

Recent edits

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)

Added Numbers Issued from FY 2013 Report to Congress

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)