H1-B and L-1 visas

[Patrick M]

Are they one of the reasons I can't find a job? I have to think they're not helping.

Lou Dobbs has been doing a series called Exporting America. Here's an excerpt from the transcript for last night.

ANNOUNCER: LOU DOBBS TONIGHT continues. Now, "Exporting America."

DOBBS: We've been reporting for weeks on this show about the massive loss of American jobs to foreign countries in our series of special reports, "Exporting America." What is less well known is how tens of thousands of foreigners take jobs in this country every year, under special visa programs. Incredibly, some American workers are training those foreigners to take their own jobs.

Kitty Pilgrim reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KITTY PILGRIM, CNNfn CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Mike Emmons was living a comfortable life in a suburb of Orlando until the company where he worked decided to bring in overseas workers on special visas to replace some of their workers. The worst part, -- the Americans were asked to train replacements before they were let go.

MIKE EMMONS: They held out a carrot for the Americans, a severance. Stay on and train your replacement workers, then you'll get this severance when you leave. I stayed on until November until I landed another job. But what I learned about these H1-B and L-1 visas is very discouraging for American workers.

PILGRIM: Mike's wife went to work. One of their big concerns -- uninterrupted health care coverage for their daughter, born with spinal bifida (sic). Mike found another job at considerably less pay. Lisa says it changed their outlook and their lifestyle.

LISA EMMONS: It's changed my views completely. Everything is different now than it used to be. We didn't have a financial worry really, ever. I can drive through my neighborhood today and there are more "for sale" signs than I have ever seen right now.

PILGRIM: After lobbying by the high-tech industry, Congress expanded the H1-B visa program to bring overseas skilled workers into the country. Workers are supposed to be paid at the same rate as Americans and the company must say that no American was available for the job, conditions experts say are not consistently enforced.

The quota of visas, normally set at 65,000, a year was raised by Congress during the high-tech boom to 115,000 in 1998, then 195,000 in 2000. Because of the high-tech bust, the numbers of visa applications have been dropping, and the quota is expected to drop back to 65,000 this year. But experts say, in this economy that is still too high.

PROF. NORM MATLOFF, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA - DAVIS: We've got hundreds of thousands of people in this field, American workers are out of work. We have no business allowing 65,000 people to come in from abroad and take their place.

PILGRIM: Another visa, the L-1, used within a company to transfer overseas managers to this country for temporary assignment, has also generated an influx of workers. Those who studied the issue carefully, like Michael Teitelbaum, say although visas have legitimate uses, loopholes are widely exploited.

MICHAEL TEITELBAUM, SLOAN FOUNDATION: There are some employers who use them responsibly and very parsimoniously and make a serious effort to hire domestic workers before they go abroad to hire. But those employers do not account for a very large fraction of 195,000 visas per year.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PILGRIM: Now the first solution is to enforce the rules of equal pay. And the second, and Congress is in the process of doing this, is to decide just how many so-called specialists are required from overseas. Perhaps it's not as many as the companies say they need -- Lou.

DOBBS: Kitty, thank you very much. Kitty Pilgrim.

In tonight's "Face Off": "Should foreign workers be allow allowed into the United States on those special visas?"

Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado says the visas destroy American jobs, and should be abolished.

Harris Miller is the President of the Information Technology Association of America and says U.S. companies need those foreign workers to remain competitive.

To you both, welcome. We appreciate you being here.

TOM TANCREDO (R), COLORADO: Thanks, Lou.

DOBBS: Congressman, if I may begin with you.

TANCREDO: Sure.

DOBBS: These visas, apparently, for years, were not given much notice. Congress approved the approach. How -- what are we -- what we to do here?

TANCREDO: Well, what happened -- you're absolutely right. We have had the H1-B visa program for many years. It just wasn't really used very much until -- until a couple of things happened. Of course, there was a high-tech boom, and at that time, employers started to figure out that they could actually displace American workers, higher-paid workers, by bringing cheaper labor into this country. And they saw a way to do it. It was called the H1-B visa. Someone on your program a minute ago, one of the experts, said that not all companies do it. That is true. Some are very judicious about it. But many, many -- in fact, I would say the majority abuse this dramatically and have actually brought in now about 800,000 people right here, right now, on H1-B visas.

DOBBS: And another 400,000 on the L-1 visa for...

TANCREDO: Which is growing dramatically.

DOBBS: And let me turn to you, Harris.

Can this really be allowed to stand when we're sitting here with 6 percent unemployment; we have technology workers without jobs and we're importing people to take their jobs?

HARRIS MILLER, PRES., INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA: Well, let me try to introduce some facts into discussion. It might be more useful for viewers. Number one, the number of...

DOBBS: Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Harris...

MILLER: Unfortunately, Kitty's report didn't report -- conclude the fact. The number of H1-B visas users that came into the country in computer in 2002, according to the Department of Homeland Security, dropped 25,000, the lowest number in seven years.

So the program is working as intended. Where there is a shortage of I.T. workers, the numbers go up. When there's not a shortage, the numbers go down. The cap that Congress imposed said that's the maximum number. That's not the actual number. And if Congressman Tancredo was correct, and the program were being used to bring in cheap labor, then why wouldn't the employers bring in every single one of the 195,000?

DOBBS: Well, Harris, I'm sorry to get involved, but Harris has been a little direct.

One, Miss Pilgrim did not report that those were I.T. workers but total visas extend.

MILLER: But the total number of visas was also down, Lou, with all due respect.

DOBBS: She reported they were down to 65,000

MILLER: No, that isn't what she reported. She reported the numbers inaccurately.

DOBBS: OK. Congressman, you have a run.

TANCREDO: OK. Somebody is certainly inaccurate about the numbers. One I'm looking at right here, the most recent numbers, given to me show the visas issued in 2002, 79,100, 2002. Now they are down this year to about -- well, there's 59,000 have been issued so far this year, another 15,000 in the pipeline. That's so far this year.

Now -- but the point is this, Lou. Yes, the visas numbers are down, and here's why. It's not because all of these corporations are doing it just by the book. It's because there are fewer jobs, number one. And number two, because they found another loophole, another visa category that they are using and the numbers are rising in. It's called L-1, where they can, by intracompany transfers, bring in the same people and oust American workers. That's what's happening. That's why the numbers in H1-B are going down.

MILLER: Again, with all due respect, Congressman, I think the numbers from the Department of Homeland Security show the L-1 visas dropped again from 2001, to 2002 projected to drop again in 2003. The other thing...-

(CROSSTALK)

MILLER: So the program is working as intended. When unemployment is going up, the number of visas is going down. If the congressman's objection were correct, that this is a cheap labor program, then again I ask why wouldn't employers use the maximum number the law allows? They would use all 195,000. The 79,000 the congressman referred to -- again, those include health care workers, those include fashion models, those include short order chefs. Of those 79,000, 25,000, according to the Department of Homeland Security are in I.T., which is down dramatically. It's the lowest number since the mid 90s.

TANCREDO: And what is happened to the L-1 category? It is up dramatically. The highest numbers that we have ever had. Why? Because they are -- that's the alternative loophole.

You're right. Congress has put pressure on them. It's absolutely true. There's a lot of heat that's been -- that's been applied here and so companies are saying, you know what? We better look at this a little more carefully, figure out a different way to do it. They have done that. It's called L-1s.

And, of course, it's also true that there are have fewer jobs available. That's actually another reason why it's going down. But that isn't because everybody in the corporate -- everyone in corporate America is just saying, let's live by and play by the rules. That's simply not the case.

DOBBS: Let me ask you this, Harris, following up on the congressman's point. How many people are in the United States on L-1 and H1-B visas right now?

MILLER: The best we can determine, about 200,000 on H1. It's hard to tell because, unfortunately, the immigration department doesn't do a very good job of tracking people (UNINTELLIGIBLE). But about 200,000 on H-1s. L-1s, it looks like it's about 100,000 to 125,000, the best we can tell.

TANCREDO: There have been over 800,000 H1-B visas, and reapplications. We have no idea -- are you telling me you believe that 600,000 have gone home over the course of the last six or eight years? I mean, that's simply impossible. You know as well as I do, that the numbers are much closer to 800,000 here than 200,000.

MILLER: Congressman, the numbers are impossible. The maximum number that came in in any one year under the H1-Bs, as you said yourself, was a little over 150,000. According to the Department of Homeland Security, over half the H1-Bs stay here less than three years.

TANCREDO: No, they don't. They stay here longer than three years. They just keep applying or some of them, of course, don't go home at all. And there's absolutely not one single thing that we have ever done to try to enforce the law. That's another problem.

Not one person who has been -- has been, to my knowledge, not one single person has been expelled from this country because they overstayed their H1-B visa.

DOBBS: Has anyone been expelled, Harris, in your knowledge?

MILLER: As far as I know, yes, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

(CROSSTALK)

TANCREDO: How many? How many?

MILLER: Congressman has the power...

(CROSSSTALK)

MILLER: I can't yell against the congressman.

TANCREDO: You're absolutely wrong on that and you know it. No one has been deported because they've extended their H1-B visas.

MILLER: The other thing that's important to realize, Lou, the H1-B Visa program is an interesting program. What Congressman Tancredo Callings crafted the program, then made it a program in a fish bowl. This is a program everybody, you, the Congressman, workers on the street, can find out exactly what H1-B workers are being paid. If somebody doesn't like that, they can file a complaint with the Department of Labor, which is required to enforce the law and take action against the employer community.

DOBBS: I have to share with you the e-mails we receive from our viewers laying out H1-B programs the stories that we have received from people and I mean lots of them. Talk about training people for jobs that they're supposedly bringing in because the skills weren't available to be replaced.

By the way, the numbers that we have, just to put it forward, let me give the source, University of California Davis. The estimated holders of H1-B Visa in this country right now is 856,000, L-1 Visa holders, 325,000.

MILLER: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) that's Norman Mattloff (ph) who has had a personal problem with immigration for a long time. I subjects that congressman believes those numbers.

(CROSSTALK)

TANCREDO: There's -- how many report dozen you want?

MILLER: He has the authority to ask the General Accounting Office as a member of Congress. I'd be glad to work with him.

DOBBS: If I man say something Congressmen, as we wrap up, one of the things that is maddeningly frustrating to us, in the special series in "Exporting America," is the federal government, the Commerce Department, the Labor Department, the Department of Homeland Security, none of them have figures that tell us who is crossing our borders, under what circumstances, who remains, who goes, who's deported. It is a remarkable situation. Whether one is to look at it from the issue of employment security, economic security, or national security itself. It is a remarkable.

(CROSSTALK)

TANCREDO: That is certainly true, Lou. If I went tomorrow to either the president of the United States, I'm afraid, or the leadership in the Congress, with the full proof plan to actually control our own borders and stop all illegal immigration into this country and significantly even reduce legal immigration so we can begin to get a handle on this problem that you've described, I'd be thrown out by the ear.

The reason, Lou, is because we have a cheap labor policy. We do not want to reduce it. We do not want to stop either illegal immigration or reduce even the legal ways in which people come in here and actually throw American workers out of work because it's less expensive to do so. It's a horrible thing to say. I wish I didn't have to, but it's the way it is.

DOBBS: I ask here on our own network if we had H1-B Visa holders and the answer is, yes. It's a remarkable situation in every respect.

Harris, you get the final word.

MILLER: One point, I hope your series would raise the United States runs a trade surplus with the rest of the world in two areas, airplane manufacturing, that's because we got only one of two companies in the world that makes them and I.T. We run $7.9 billion surplus with the rest of the world.

As you know, as you report every night, we run a trade deficit in everything else you can think of, automobiles, textiles, oil, et cetera. The reason we want to surplus the rest of the world is we have the best I.T. industry in the world and it's important that your viewers understand that.

DOBBS: I don't think anyone here -- any of our viewers of this broadcast will be surprised that this country is preeminent in technology. I think it's one of the reasons they're stunned to find we don't have the adequate skills and opinions of some corporations to put Americans into jobs rather than H1-B and L-1 Visa holders.

Harris, thank you much. Congressman we thank you very much for being with us.

Tomorrow here in "Exporting America," we will find out why thousands of jobs and new semiconductor plants were shipped overseas and what it will take to bring those jobs back to the United States.

"Tonight's Thought" is on unemployment.

"A man willing to work and unable to find work is perhaps the saddest sight that fortune's inequality exhibits under this sun."

That from author Thomas Carlyle.

[Patrick M]

Tonight's transcript

I know these are lengthy, but I think they're well worth reading.

Interesting that I agree with the Republican from the previous night, and would like to thrash the Democrat who was on tonight's show. Notice how Lou goes after him.

DOBBS: One of the great American success stories has been the semiconductor industry. From 1985 through 2000, the industry's share of manufacturing production rose dramatically, from half-a-percent to more than 6 percent. That huge growth created tens of thousands of new jobs. But now many of those jobs are being exported out of America.

Bill Tucker reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Fear and frustration are not hard to find in Silicon Valley these days. Just ask John Popescu, who has been unemployed for two years now.

JOHN POPESCU, UNEMPLOYED TECHNOLOGY WORKER: I'm completing with people who are offshore that are doing my job offshore for a 10th of the money that I'm making, and that, consequent of the fact that they're in places such as the Third World, it puts me at a high disadvantage. I can't compete on a cost basis with Third World labor. There's no way.

TUCKER: The industry that was at the heart of unprecedented productivity growth in the United States is being seduced to foreign shores.

GEORGE SCALISE, SEMICONDUCTOR INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION: There are a number of opportunities that are evolving around the world that are making it attractive to move wafer fabs into other areas outside the U.S. There are some in Europe. Certainly, China has been the most recent, Taiwan. But then you see places like Singapore, Malaysia. There are a number of countries where they're putting together incentive packages.

TUCKER: Incentive packages which include tax breaks on capital spending to an industry where one plant can cost $3 billion, tax-free periods of up to five years after profitability. And China is the most aggressive suitor. It's implemented a value-added tax, a tax that makes it much more attractive to make semis in China than to bring them in from out of the country.

The result? Intel now has two plants in China, as does Motorola, raising concern that, where the plans go, so do the jobs. At home, it's the states which are leading fight to keep the semis at home. IBM, for example, has opened a state-of-the-art plant in Fishkill, New York, working with the State Technology Development Program. The plant has a relationship with the state university in Albany, because, without the plants, there is little market for graduating engineers.

TOM HOWELL, INDUSTRY LAWYER: If we get to a point where our best graduates feel they've got to go somewhere else than the United States for their careers, for the benefit of their own careers, we have a real problem.

TUCKER: And these are the kinds of jobs which require skills, require education, and they pay.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TUCKER: And employees in the sector earn 50 percent more in real terms than they did 30 years ago. Compare to a decline of 6 percent in manufacturing wages during the same timeframe -- Lou.

DOBBS: Bill, thank you very much -- Bill Tucker.

This November, the investigative arm of Congress will launch a comprehensive study into the exporting of American jobs. This study will examine the costs and risks associated with massive outsourcing, especially in the area of information technology and its long-term impact on the American economy.

We will be talking about this new initiative to actually understand American trade policy in Washington. We'll be talking with Congressman Adam Smith, the driving force behind that study. He joins us next from Washington.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Congressman Adam Smith joins us. He's the Democrat of Washington state.

Congressman, good to have you with us.

REP. ADAM SMITH (D), WASHINGTON: Thanks for having me.

DOBBS: Normally, I'd say that another study isn't needed. But after our weeks and weeks of reporting on the exportation of American jobs overseas, the lack of information is remarkable. How quickly do you believe that the GAO, the U.S. government, can get better information?

SMITH: Well, hopefully, it will be a matter of months.

But I think you're right. We have a lot of anecdotes. We have a lot of stories, but actual hard facts aren't really there. I've read a number of studies that say they just don't know exactly what's happening. And it's important to know exactly which jobs are going overseas and what the future is for jobs here in the U.S. It has many, many policy implications in many, many areas, depending on exactly what jobs are going overseas and, more importantly, what jobs are likely to stay here.

DOBBS: And do you not find -- you represent a district in a state that has a technology leader, if not the technology leader, in Microsoft. Why in the world would we not know, once Congress approves such a thing as an H-1B visa, an L-1 visa, what in the world is going on with those people?

SMITH: Well, I think those are important issues.

The more important issue, to me, is the amount of money we spend on education and job training and the amount of money we spend on subsidies, either direct or through tax breaks for various corporations. We need to know, first of all, if the job training and education dollars are going to train people for jobs that are actually going to be here. And second of all, if the companies that were subsidizing are actually creating jobs here in the U.S. That's the information I want to know. That's over $600 billion that we spend each year.

DOBBS: Well, we have -- we have some information, Congressman. We know that we've got a $503 billion deficit in the current account. We know that we've lost almost 3 -- 3 million manufacturing jobs. We know that the technology is taking advantage -- the technology industry -- of the H-1B and L-1 visas. That's not to say that there are not positive and appropriate uses of those visas in certain cases. But in too many, it's a problem. What in the world are we going to do about it?

SMITH: Well, I -- you know, the visa programs we can talk about. Now I saw your program last night, and there's a few facts that were kind of left out of that.

The H-1B programs has a number of protections for it. am very concerned about the L-1, because it doesn't have those protections.

DOBBS: You're not concerned about the H-1B, Congressman?

SMITH: I think the H-1B is a positive program It brings in, I think, about 95,000 people. It requires that those people be in certain specialized field. It requires them...

DOBBS: Congressman, H-1B visas -- I can tell you -- we asked here in this network -- we have journalists working under H-1B visas. Did you know that? I mean...

(CROSSTALK)

SMITH: If you do, then you're violating the law.

DOBBS: Not me, sir. I'm not.

SMITH: Now, well, CNN is violating the law if there are American citizens who can do those jobs, then that does not meet the H-1B visa requirement.

DOBBS: Well that's why I was stunned when you said you were supporting the H-1B visa program, because we can give you case after case that has flowed into this broadcast showing abuses of the H-1B visa program.

SMITH: Well, those need to be enforced. But I can give you case after case of companies in my district that desperately need people with specialized knowledge that they can't find that they bring into the U.S. that help create jobs here in the U.S., companies like Microsoft, Inmunex before they were bought out by Amgen, Boeing -- a lot of different companies grow dependent upon those people. And there are specific requirements.

Now the L-1 visa program has a number of loopholes in it, doesn't have those same requirements, and I am concerned about that.

DOBBS: Well, when does concern translate to action?

SMITH: Well...

DOBBS: We have millions of people in this country, and a lot of them in the technology industry, who are being hammered as a result of misplaced policies, a lack of understanding of international trade. It's remarkable.

SMIIH: Right, and I think focusing on the H-1B visa program is an example of what you're talking about, a misplaced focus on the problem.

Look, we have had a 90 percent decrease in the last years of foreign investment in the U.S.

DOBBS: All right.

SMITH: Our economy is not perceived as a good place to invest money. That is a far larger problem....

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: Excuse me -- excuse me, Congressman. Say that again.

SMITH: I have -- we have -- the health of the U.S. economy is a far larger problem than the 95,000 people who were brought in last year on H-1B visa programs.

DOBBS: Congressman, did you say -- did you say that this economy is not perceived as a good place in which to invest?

SMITH: In the last three years, we've seen a 90 percent decrease in foreign investment in the U.S. I think there's a lot of concerns about the stability of this economy -- concerns that which we could address. We could build a better infrastructure. We could do a much better job of enforcing the corporate accountability laws.

I watch your tote board on the show and see that two people have gone to jail since those scandals. I mean, we should have laws that say, if you violate those laws, if you steal hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of dollars from people, that money should be taken away and you should be poor for the rest of your life. We haven't done that.

DOBBS: Congressman, I couldn't agree with you more. I'm just -- I have to tell you I'm fascinated with your version to the issue of L- 1s and H-1Bs as a significant part of that.

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: Let me finish. I listened to you, Congressman. Please let me finish the question. May I?

And the fact is that each one of these is a related issue. You want to put corporate criminals in jail and, frankly, Congressman, so do I. And that's why we've been pursuing this issue for now almost two years on this broadcast since the bankruptcy of Enron. What do you think should be done to corporations who make decisions based on pure, raw labor costs and then cut thousands, in some cases tens of thousands of jobs, and put them in low labor cost countries?

SMITH: Well I don't think we should subsidize them with tax breaks and various other accountabilities.

DOBBS: There's a beginning.

SMITH: But you're suggesting -- if you're suggesting that the U.S. government can go to a corporation and say, We're going to tell you you can't cut cost. We're going to tell you you can't cut these jobs, you can't move them. I mean, that's a degree of government involvement that's likely to backfire.

DOBBS: Oh, Congressman, believe me, the last thing...

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: The last thing I would ask for is that kind of regulation.

SMITH: OK.

DOBBS: However, I would be curious to understand what your view is of an appropriate trade policy that would put a premium on American labor, because effectively the trade policies in this country, Congressman, I think you would agree right now, mean that a person in this country has to work at almost slave wages in order to compete effectively with many of his or her overseas competitors in the labor market.

SMITH: Well, it depends on the type of job. I mean...

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: Oh, well, yes it does, Congressman. But in nearly every case, what I'm saying, would you not say is true?

SMITH: Yes, I've to get a couple of words out here in a row in order to get a thought together.

DOBBS: Be delighted to have you do so.

SMITH: OK.

Yes, I think, trade policy is a concern. But again, I don't see where you're going exactly with that in terms of what we do. I mean, should we have a protectionist policy that says, you know, as some have suggested, that we should not trade with countries that have lower labor standards than we do?

I don't think that's the answer. I think there are some places where we can do a much better job of enforcing trade rules. I don't think we've done enough to hold our trading partners accountable for violations of trade laws.

For instance, you know, I represent the area where Boeing's at. Airbus has been subsidized for a number of years. We have not filed a trade action against them. I think we need to be more aggressive on that.

DOBBS: But what are we going to do with Boeing's support from the import-export bank-- export-import bank?

I mean, there -- you know, these things work a number of ways. There are more complicated than simply saying Airbus is subsidized. Boeing enjoys some rather favored opportunities as well, does it not?

SMITH: Sure, but I thought -- I thought part of the goal here was to protect U.S. jobs. I thought that's what we're talking about. And as long as our foreign competitors are going after us. I mean, we had a major...

DOBBS: No, sir. Your word was protectionism. Mine was, what is the appropriate trade policy to insure that American labor is not reduced to slave wages in order to compete effectively?

SMITH: Well, I think we have to be realistic about how we approach this economic issue, and I think that's one of the things that I am concerned about.

You know, what are the options? It's easy to sort of decry the situation and say, You know, this is -- this is horrible. But what specifically can we do? And is it going to help? I think there are things that we could to improve our trade policy. But if the solution is -- you know, basically we have this problem and you're concerned about us having, you know, to work at the same wages as the rest of the world -- if the solution presented is, we are therefore going, you know, to not trade with those countries and not have that competition, I think the cure is worst than the disease.

And as I said at the start, I think there are things in terms of our economic policy that we could do that would help. I mean, we are wasting a lot of money on job training that's not going in the right areas. There are jobs here in the U.S. There continues to be right now in this economy jobs that are unfilled because we don't have people with the training to fill them. That seems to me like a simple problem to solve. Train them for those jobs.

DOBBS: It does, Congressman, and -- but it's somewhat more complicated when you think about those high-paying technology jobs that are being exported and some of those low-paying jobs for which we're thinking about educating and training those who have just lost those higher training jobs.

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: I would be delighted to have you back to discuss this.

SMITH: Absolutely.

DOBBS: You have been absolutely delightful in your consideration. We thank you very much, Congressman Adam Smith. Please come back soon.

SMITH: Absolutely. Thank you.

DOBBS: We're going to have a lot to talk about.

[lukpac]

Can't quite figure out why you watch that every night...everyone seems like a bunch of windbags. I saw a lot of numbers thrown out, along with plenty of theories, yet it's not clear what's right and what's wrong...

All I know is right now nobody cares about a CS degree unless you've got 3 years of specific experience under your belt.

[mikenycLI]

Windbagism is what makes it, credible, as a news source.

If it's dumbed-down and spoon-fed, like MOST news shows these days, it's a sure sign, the program is a pile of useless poop...with a news-crawl !

I still LOVE C-Span ! It's the best, overall, source of News, these days.

[Patrick M]

Can't quite figure out why you watch that every night...everyone seems like a bunch of windbags.

That's funny, cause I don't intend to watch it. I just happen to have CNN on, then I wander over to the computer and leave it on. If an interesting story comes on, I pay attention.

I know why a bunch of H1-B visas were issued in the mid 90s. Times were booming, jobs were plentiful, and there were signing bonuses galore. Those were the dark days of the Clinton administration, or what Ernie Fletcher likes to call, "taking the country in the wrong direction."

These days, jobs are s-c-a-r-c-e and it doesn't make sense to give preferential treatment for people outside the country (the only good one is Rod Stewart, anyway) to come in and work for less, just so the company can save a few bucks.

I don't have a lot of numbers myself, but anecdotally, I think this is a big problem. Remember how they moved jobs to India in Office Space? That's enough evidence for me right there.

All I know is right now nobody cares about a CS degree unless you've got 3 years of specific experience under your belt.

In my field, it's 3-5 years. Plus we both have bad attitudes.

[Patrick M]

US may eliminate H1-B visas

Aziz Haniffa in Washington DC | July 16, 2003 | 13:08 IST

The United States may do away with H1-B visas delivering a knockout punch to Indian IT professionals wanting to take up jobs in the US.

A bill moved by right-wing Republican lawmaker Tom Tancredo in the US Congress to eliminate H1-B visas has every chance of being enacted, said sources.

Tancredo, a right-wing Republican lawmaker from Colorado, is known for his vehemently anti-immigration views.

India and Outsourcing: Complete Coverage

The sluggish US economy, the uproar over outsourcing and the rising unemployment rate have fuelled the need for steps to keep American jobs from being lost to countries like India, said senior aides to Tancredo.

The aides, including one who drafted Tancredo's 15-line bill proposing the elimination of all visas allowed under the H1-B category, said that "the high-tech industry itself which fought so hard for the expansion of the number of IT professionals allowed into the country are projecting that the technology job outlook will remain soft and that more jobs will be outsourced overseas to countries like India, so why do we need this category at all."

"It is no secret that American workers in the technology industry are losing their jobs to the upsurge in outsourcing, so the Congressman strongly believes that this category (H1-B) has to be done away with to protect the few American jobs and American workers remaining in this industry," they said.

"You bet we are going to push like crazy to make sure this bill progresses and ensure that all those who are for it and against it are counted when we finally try and get a vote on it," one of the aides said.

Tancredo is also chairman of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus.

Other Congressional sources, belonging to the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans, believe that Tancredo's bill -- which follows those by Republican John Mica of Florida and Democrat DeLauro of Connecticut to restrict the intra-company L-1 visa category -- is a move to gain political mileage and to exploit the rising tide of anti-immigration fervour in the US.

But these sources acknowledge that it is tough to argue against the case made by the likes of Tancredo, Mica, DeLauro and others eager to jump on the bandwagon, when the IT industry itself is bemoaning a decline, first by the bursting of the Internet bubble and now due to massive outsourcing by American IT giants.

They acknowledged that US lawmakers are acquiescing to the intense lobbying by labour unions and anti-immigrant groups who argue that American workers are displaced by these imported workers and that this program has only benefited the vested interest of companies in the US bent on depressing wages paid to American workers by substituting foreign employees.

India traditionally has accounted for the bulk of H1-B visas issued over the years -- almost 50 per cent -- when the IT industry in the US was booming.

When the IT industry was in full bloom, thousands of Indian highly skilled IT professionals came to the US on this visa, initially issued for three years and extended to a maximum of six years, during which time, the workers usually would be sponsored for their immigrant visa (green card) by their employers.

In the last two years, many Indian and other foreign workers had been laid off, with many of them returning home, but the few living for months on their savings have begun to compete resolutely for permanent jobs.

Currently, the number of H-1 B visas allowed has been reverted to the original 65,000 annually, from the peak of 195,000 a year, which was approved by Congress three years ago when the industry successfully lobbied for this increase following an acute shortage for technically skilled professionals.

A new study by the Information Technology Association of America predicted that the technology job outlook would remain soft in 2003 and said that the demand for IT professionals is at a historic low as more and more positions are outsourced overseas.

The ITAA study said that failing a dramatic turnaround in the national economy, a recovery in the tech sector in 2003 will most likely continue to be a 'jobless' one.

It said a survey it had undertaken after contacting 400 hiring managers from IT and non-IT companies nationwide showed that demand for hiring IT workers is at a historic low of only 493,000 positions over the next 12 months. This is down from 1.6 million at the start of 2000 and less than half of the predicted 1.1 million positions needed at the start of 2002.

The ITAA said that 67 per cent of those interviewed said they thought the hiring demand would stay the same or decline over the next 12 months.

It said companies were also moving more positions overseas, with 12 per cent of IT companies and 3 per cent of non-IT companies saying they have already opened up overseas operations.

The ITAA said large IT companies were most likely to say they have made this move. Twenty-two per cent have already moved work offshore and another 15 per cent of IT firms say they will move jobs overseas in the next 12 months. Four per cent on non-IT firms say the same.

In terms of supply of H1-B workers to the US, the latest report by the National Association of Software and Service Companies said that India, which accounted for 77,000 H1-B visas in 2001, provided only 33,000 in 2002, and the total was expected to drop to 30,000 or less in 2003.

The US immigration authorities have said that this year, despite non-technical professions like nursing and teaching also being issued H1-B visas, the quota is yet to be filled and is unlikely to top the quota limit when the fiscal year ends.

The aides to Tancredo said the ITAA study and a recent Gallup poll which indicated that nearly half of the American population wants reduced immigration levels 'vindicate our efforts to do away with this category and sharply curtail immigration.'

The Gallup poll that was conducted from June 12 to June 18 found that 47 per cent Americans believe immigration levels should be reduced, with only 13 per cent wanting them increased. Thirty-seven per cent have said they should be maintained at current levels.

Tancredo aides said, "We will shortly call for a hearing in the Judiciary Committee and then we hope to push for a vote both in the Committee and in the full House."

But as of now, they said, they did not have any co-sponsors, and refused to disclose whether Tancredo's bill would be married with the bills to restrict L visas introduced by Mica and DeLauro.

[chrischross]

Patrick: thanks for starting this thread. This is one of my hot button issues as I'm in the IT industry.

All of my large clients have their cubicles stocked full with H1-B IT workers. My father in law is an IT manager for a company and he just loves the H1-B as it allows him to lock in a staffer for cheap and they have to stay for the full period of the visa. Native born workers are simply not even looked at for hiring, which in this economic environment, is unexcusable. Lou Dobbs bandied about the 6% unemployment rate, but in the IT industry, I would say it is easily double that rate.

I'm very concerned that the Democrats are on the wrong side of this issue, having been so compromised from software industry PAC money, that they can't see clear to do what is right for labor policy. From the Adam Smith comments, they try to obfuscate the issue by coupling this issue with protectionism. That's completely bogus -- name one Euro-zone country that has this liberal of an immigration policy for professional workers. What benefits does US citizenship confer if my tax dollars fund administration of the H1-B and L-1 visa programs? Why is our Congress so hell bent on aiding the race to the bottom?

Again, thanks for the reminder of why I'm so pissed off about this issue.

[Patrick M]

All of my large clients have their cubicles stocked full with H1-B IT workers. My father in law is an IT manager for a company and he just loves the H1-B as it allows him to lock in a staffer for cheap and they have to stay for the full period of the visa.

According to the letter of the law, aren't you supposed to pay the H1-B an equivalent wage, *and* demonstrate that you couldn't find a qualified American to do the work?

If so, are all these comapnies in violation of the law?

Again, thanks for the reminder of why I'm so pissed off about this issue.

I'm very irritated by this issue as well, for a number of reasons. While I am far from a xenophobic, Paul Revere Society type, the notion that you can come to this country to work and receive preferential treatment is completely insane. Would I expect to go to India and receive preferential treatment over a native? No, that's laughable.

As for these poor, poor IT companies who just can't afford to pay the salaries Americans demand - maybe if the guys who had been there a while weren't drawing stratospheric salaries, they could afford more hiring.

I was thinking about this the other day: if you can really hire 10 software engineers in China for the price of 1 in the U.S., then a software engineer just starting out would have to earn about $4k in the U.S. to be competitive, salary-wise. Where can you live in the U.S. on $4k/year?

[Patrick M]

Bush against eliminating H1-B visas
By: PTI
September 24, 2003

New York: Observing that the H-1B visa programme is "important" to the US, President George W Bush has said that he is opposed to the efforts to scrap the programme, under which thousands of Indian Information Technology experts have been brought to the United States.

"The H-1B programme is important to the US. I understand the current cap is approximately 200,000, and I will seek to maintain a strong H-1B programme," Bush was quoted as saying by the 'India Abroad' newspaper in New York.

The President's comments came during an interaction with Indian-Americans on the occasion of a Bush-Cheney fund-raiser reception recently.

When asked about H-1B bills on the floor of the House of Representatives, especially the Resolution 2688 moved by Republican Congressman Thomas Tancredo seeking to terminate the H-1B programme, Bush said "Tancredo and me are at opposite ends of the pole. I fully do not support Congressman Tancredo's bill against H-1Bs."

Paresh Shah, a participant, raised the issue with Bush on behalf of an eight-member Indian delegation at Jackson, Mississippi, at the reception attended by top contributors who donated 10,000 USD each.

[Patrick M]

Should We Put a Cap on the Number of L-1 Visas?

After years of high-volume complaints, critics of H-1B visas are quieter now. That's largely because the annual cap on H-1Bs, which allow highly-skilled foreign workers to work for U.S. firms, will automatically drop from 195,000 to 65,000 in October.

But it's a safe bet that those critics, many of them unemployed American technology workers, will not be quiet for long. Another battle is brewing over another type of visa: the L-1, which allows companies to transfer workers based in other countries to facilities based in the United States.

In some ways, the L-1 visas are more threatening to U.S. workers than the H-1Bs are. Unlike H-1Bs, L-1s do not require that workers be paid in accordance with the prevailing wage, which means that foreign workers coming here under the protection of L-1s offer greater savings to employers. And unlike workers with H-1Bs, workers with L-1s don't have to pay a $1,000 fee that goes toward the training of American workers. Perhaps most troubling, the government has not capped the number of L-1 visas issued. And that number is growing. In 1999, the government issued 41,739 L-1s. Last year, it issued 57,700.

That increase (40 percent) is substantial, but it pales in comparison to the growth in L-1s used by Indian companies to whom U.S. enterprises outsource labor. In the last two years, for example, the number of L-1 visas used by Wipro workers climbed from 510 to 1,157, and the number issued to Infosys workers jumped from 292 to 1,760. (To read more about outsourcing and the use of offshore workers at home, read "Inside Outsourcing in India" in the June 1 issue of CIO.)

According to a recent story in The San Francisco Chronicle, it is becoming standard operating procedure for an Indian outsourcing firm to take over a project for an American client, send in a team of visa holders to learn the company's procedures, and transfer much of the work back to India. But even if the work remains in this country, observers point out, it is assigned to L-1 workers, who often replace higher-paid American workers.

John Mica, a U.S. Representative from Florida, where a group of Siemens workers were let go after a project was outsourced to India-based Tata Consultancy Services, has filed legislation that would put some restrictions on L-1 visa use. Mica's bill would require that companies hiring L-1 workers employ only those workers who had worked directly for their subsidiaries, not for third party outsourcers like Wipro, Infosys and Tata. Many U.S. workers regard Mica's effort as a good start, but some say it doesn't go far enough: They would like see the L-1 visa eliminated, or at least capped, like its cousin, the H-1B. What do you think? What should be done with the L-1?

Sound Off is a weekly column about current IT-related issues. Web Editorial Director Art Jahnke (ajahnke@cio.com) always welcomes feedback.

---------------------------------
Here's a follup comment to the previous article.

L1/H1B visas

With respect to the issue of L1/H1B visas, unfortunately I believe it is too late. The gate is open and the horse is fixin' to leave the barn. Oracle, HP, Microsoft, Bank of America (nee India), etc. are now firmly entrenched in their shiny new technology parks in Bangalore. Most, if not all of the IT departments of these corporations is _alreay_ in India. What is left of the U.S. portion of the IT departments of these companies is _already_ populated by primarly Indian H1B engineers.

Meanwhile my eight years in college and two degrees stagnates under the weight of two years of unemployment. Another six months or so of waiting around for the H1B cap to sunset and I will be, for the most part, unemployable as a software engineer.

To that individual that posted that quality, and not cost, is part of the motivating factor for hiring Indians to replace American engineers I have one response. Hogwash!.

To those that think that Mica's bill is anything more than a gut level response to Mike Emmon's 'outing' of his greed for Siemens campaign contributions I have another another response. Hogwash!

I for one will compete with _any_ software engineer from _any_ country at _any_ price, given that I am presented with a level playing field. Sadly the playing field is not now, nor has it ever been, level.

One final comment. I find it amusing that companies like Microsoft and Oracle move to India, as they would say, 'to remain competitive'. I for one would love to ask both Bill Gates and Larry Ellison who it is that Microsoft and Oracle are competing with.