ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Greg Siskind on Immigration Law and Policy

CLAIMS OF H-1B OPPONENTS JUST DON'T ADD UP

Rating: 8 votes, 5.00 average.

Do H-1B workers take jobs away from Americans. For all the claims of disgruntled (mostly IT) workers that they are unable to find work due to a foreign worker, the REAL numbers show a US economy facing dramatic shortages in a number of professional fields, including computer and information technology jobs.



Just review the latest unemployment data at the DOL's Bureau of Labor
Statistics at ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea30.txt
. The unemployment rate for professionals is just 1.7% (!).>>


>

The unemployment rates for professionals when broken down by industry are equally dramatic:

>



Computer and math occupations -
2.0%> >


Architecture and engineering
occupations - 1.7% >>




Life, physical, and social science
occupations - 1.7 >


Community and social services
occupations - 1.7% >>




Legal occupations - 1.4%
>


Education, training, and library
occupations - 1.2% >>




Arts, design, entertainment, sports,
and media occupations - 3.7% >


Healthcare practitioner and
technical occupations - 1.2%







For some reason, I didn't hear Lou Dobbs report these number. >>

Submit "CLAIMS OF H-1B OPPONENTS JUST DON'T ADD UP" to Facebook Submit "CLAIMS OF H-1B OPPONENTS JUST DON'T ADD UP" to Twitter Submit "CLAIMS OF H-1B OPPONENTS JUST DON'T ADD UP" to Google Submit "CLAIMS OF H-1B OPPONENTS JUST DON'T ADD UP" to StumbleUpon Submit "CLAIMS OF H-1B OPPONENTS JUST DON'T ADD UP" to Reddit Submit "CLAIMS OF H-1B OPPONENTS JUST DON'T ADD UP" to Digg Submit "CLAIMS OF H-1B OPPONENTS JUST DON'T ADD UP" to del.icio.us

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

  1. R. Lawson's Avatar
    Too bad you only scratch the surface. Look at the numbers more closely - there is a way to drill down into the jobs data. Software engineers and programmers are having a more difficult time. Could that have anything to do with the H-1b and offshoring?

    No, it couldn't possibly! Well, that's what you probably tell yourself.
  2. Greg Siskind's Avatar
    Hi Roy. No matter how you slice and dice it, H-1B caps = more offshoring. Prove to me that software engineers and programmers are having so much trouble that they deserve Congress interfering with the free market to give them special protections. Protectionism has never benefited American consumers whether it is imposing trade barriers on goods or services. And that's what we're talking about when we're talking about the H-1B cap. It has the same economic impact of a tariff or import quota. No economist worth her salt argues that trade barriers are good for an economy.
  3. R. Lawson's Avatar
    "H-1B caps = more offshoring."

    That is fear-mongering and you know it. The fact is that the Indian consulting firms USE the H-1b to offshore jobs. It is also a fact that the Indian firms have the lion's share of the applications. You don't work for these firms do you?

    "Prove to me that software engineers and programmers are having so much trouble that they deserve Congress interfering with the free market"

    What makes you think that a LABOR SUBSIDY is anything remotely related to a "free market"??? Do we have reciprocal rights in India? Absolutely NOT. Your "free market" argument is a sham because this program is based on artificially adjusting the supply of labor. Milton Friedman described the H-1b specifically as a "labor subsidy". Was he not worth his salt as an economist?

    My advice, since you are trying to pull the free market card, is to read "Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith one more time. His book is free online - I assume you don't own a copy. Please show me where he discusses the trade of humans.

    Finally, the H-1b is effectively an indentured servant program. Because the workers are tied to an employer and unable to transfer the visa without penalty (to say their GC application) the workers will eat dirt to remain in this country. You are supporting what I refer to as "slavery light" and you even want to expand this form of indentured servitude.

    How do you make such arguments in favor of a program that clearly benefits corporations and clearly harms workers of all nationalities? I couldn't sleep at night if I did that.
  4. Greg Siskind's Avatar
    I guess when you can't address my points, you can just ignore them. I provided statistics to show that unemployment in IT is an imagined problem. You asserted that this is not the case in your first reply and then just ignore me when pressed on the point.

    Companies in a global economy are free to locate where they like and if they are dissatisfied with their access to labor in one country, they will go to another. It's not fear mongering. Every major IT company in the US now has substantial operations overseas and lack of access to global talent in the US is accelerating this trend.

    As for H-1Bs being a subsidy, plllleeeaaase. In a free economy, employers can hire workers without a government dictating to them how many must come from which country. Friedman also was the one who developed the concept of "full employment" and we now are in that situation. H-1Bs are a subsidy for companies when there are only a finite amount of them to go around and some companies get them and others don't. If there are no limits, then this argument is meaningless.

    Finally, obviously you are not an immigration lawyer since you fail to mention the fact that H-1Bs are portable and can be transferred easily from employer to employer. That's been the law for seven years now. Shame on you.
  5. R. Lawson's Avatar
    What you fail to mention as an immigration lawyer is that the transfer of H-1b visas results in going to the back of the line in the perm process. This is why H-1b holders allow themselves to be abused - as it can add years to their wait.

    "In a free economy, employers can hire workers without a government dictating to them how many must come from which country. "

    We don't have a free economy between our two nations. What visa shall I file in order to work in India? They don't have reciprocal agreements, thus no free labor market. If it were indeed a "free economy" we could work in either country without an employer sponsored visa. I wonder what caste or social stigma I would have in India...hmmm.

    Also, how can an "employer sponsored" visa be anything remotely "free". It is indentured servitude. It is an artificial link to a corporation. It defies all logic and a free labor market. Why aren't you out there demanding that immigrants can sponsor themselves? Why are you not opposing this tie to an employer? It's modern day bondage. Of all people, you should know how companies and corporations have a long and sordid history of exploiting immigrants.

    The reason we can't have a free economy with India is that they are corrupt. They cheat when it comes to their currency regime. Ask the people you are sponsoring for visas what they think of politics in their home country. My dark view of the country comes from Indian nationals themselves. Previously, I thought it was a relatively good place to live. The h-1b holders paint it as a hell hole.

    On the employment statistics, the BLS data can be drilled down. I don't release data willy-nilly without thorough analysis.

    I do have historical analysis that shows unemployment for programmers rising above 7% during the time the H-1b cap was at 195,000. When the cap went down, unemployment also went down. In fairness, I don't think I can prove the entire rise in unemployment is related to only the H-1b. I believe it was a combination of the high cap, offshoring, and the depression at the time (2001-2002).

    The fact that unemployment has leveled off with the historical 65,000 cap says allot. With the cap high, we were in pain. With the cap low again, the market is stabilizing.

    I have conducted extensive research into this market. Not just a cursory look at current BLS unemployment rates. What you need to also look at is employment trends. We are no longer producing (on an aggregate) new jobs. The market in IT has stagnated. It rises a couple points, then falls a couple points. There are pockets of growth, and pockets of job loss.

    Here is a chart I produced based on BLS data: http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger2/2795/2310/400/51904/Q3_2006_Software_Job_Growth.jpg

    That chart should answer any questions you may have. You can find more studies by me at www.freedomcast.com.
  6. Kim Berry's Avatar
    Greg, we are not asking "Congress to give software engineers special protection." On the contrary we are asking Congress to stop targeting our profession with a visa that undermines the free-market forces for IT professionals in the U.S.

    For example Congress has set $60,000 as the wage at which an employer is not deemed "H-1b dependent" if they have more than 15% (up to 100%) of their workforce on H-1b visas. This salary has not be adjusted for a decade. And reviewing LCAs we see disporportionately applications specifying a wage of $60k. These are supposed to be "best and brightest," correct?

    Last week Yoh published a wage study claiming that the average U.S. IT worker in several categories is earning between $100k and $160k salary. Why would any employer pay these "free market" wages if the H-1b cap is removed and employers can hire an unlimited number of H-1b for $60k?

    BTW we don't believe the Yoh study. I have asked Yoh HR why the positions they advertise on their site are about 50% of what they claim is an "average" wage. We see BS degree plus 5 years experience jobs paying $50k:

    http://programmersguild.blogspot.com/2007/04/yappy-headed-yoh-index-reveals-dramatic.html

    8 U.S.C. 1182(5)(A) provides that "Before a foreign worker can be admitted to the U.S. for permanent employment, the prospective employer must obtain a labor certification from the Secretary of Labor. The Secretary must certify that there are not sufficient U.S. workers who are able, willing, qualified and available..."

    Since most IT jobs last less than the six year duration of the H-1b visa, we believe that he same U.S. worker protection should apply for H-1b and for "permanent" employment.
  7. Weaver's Avatar
    The Unemployment numbers don't tell the economic story, your guestworker friends are displacing our laid-off domestic workers. The domestic workers are not in the unemployed category, they are NILFed.

    Okay, you want some proof.
    Source: ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat2.txt

    2,571,031 [2000-2005 (H-1B, L-1, EB2, EB3)My Totals]
    5,105,000 [Non-Farm Job Growth 2000-2005]

    Immigrant share of U.S. Job Growth 2000-2005 = 50.36%

    Avg. Job Growth Per Capita: Men .... Women
    1971 - 2000 ....................... 1.390% .... 2.546%
    2001 - 2006 ....................... 0.964% .... 0.862%

    Avg. Growth in NILF: Per Capita: Men .... Women
    1971 - 2000 .......................... 0.252% .... (-2.201%)
    2001 - 2006 .......................... 0.408% .... 0.271%

    Now why would these numbers deviate so drastically from the 29 year trend? I'll tell you why, because in the four year period, 2000-2003, the U.S. economy only created 192,000 jobs for men, but we still imported several million immigrants.

    BTW: Mr Siskind, your clients are protecting their market-share by depriving third-world countries of their educated workforce and postponing capital investment abroad. The U.S. government is running scared and authorizing unprecedented numbers of NIV employment waivers as labor subsidies -- exactly whom is practicing protectionism here?

    Guestworker impact study:
    http://immigration-weaver.blogspot.com/2007/04/project-guestworker-impact-on-us.html
  8. Greg Siskind's Avatar
    Weaver - Please explain to the readers how you come up with the figure 2,571,031 as the 2000-2005 total of H-1Bs, L-1s, EB-2s, and EB-3s. This should be good.
  9. Weaver's Avatar
    Okay, as long as you're interested...

    My project displays the over-subscription of the Computer-related occupations category. Here are the totals without applying the Computer-related occupation petition approval ratings.


    If anybody has better resources for data, I'd appreciate a link.

    H-1B visas & continuances:

    H-1B 2000-2005 Visas Issued = 783,546
    Non-Continuing Employment (H-1B factor)(2.48%): = (-19,432)
    H-1B 2000-2005 Continuing Employment Approvals = 764,084
    Total H-1B 6 year accumulation = 1,528,198

    L-1 (Intracompany) visas & continuances:

    L-1 2000-2005 Visas Issued = 356,471
    The Non-Continuing Employment (H-1B factor): = (-8,854)
    Continuing Employment (H-1B factor): = 347,617
    Total L-1 6 year accumulation = 695,234

    Employment Based Preference visas(Priority 2 & Priority 3):

    Total visas issued 2000 - 2005 = 131,875
    L-2 Spouses/Children factor: (49.07%)= (-64,704)
    Total six year accumulation of EB-2 & EB-3 = 67,171

    Legal Permanent Residence EB-2 & EB-3 with non EB entrance visa:

    Total LPR granted EB2 & EB3 (2000-2005) = 682,550
    Subtract EB2 & EB3 visas granted (2000-2005) = (-131,875)

    Subtotal: EB category LPRs granted to other than EB entrance visas = 550,675
    L-2 Spouses/Children factor: (49.07%) = (-270,216)
    EB-2 & EB-3 LPR workers (non EB entrance visa) = 280,459

    *********************************************
    2000-2005
    Total H-1B 6 year accumulation = 1,528,198
    Total L-1 6 year accumulation = 695,234
    Total six year accumulation of EB-2 & EB-3 (visas) = 67,171
    EB-2 & EB-3 LPR workers (non EB entrance visa) = 280,459

    Sorry, that total is actually 2,571,062 workers.

    The median wage for H1B workers was $55k in 2005, assuming that the H1B figure is now the fair market wage for degreed immigrants the impact is $141,408,410,000.00 in annual salaries - unavailable to domestic workers.

    *********************************************

    Methodology here:
    http://immigration-weaver.blogspot.com/2007/04/project-guestworker-impact-on-us.html

    *********************************************

    I gave the BLS NILF category a little more inspection this morning.

    ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat2.txt

    (NILF) Not In the Labor Force:

    The BLS NILF category, as some may know is where discouraged workers go when the unemployment checks stop coming in. I remember reading that passive job hunting, such as using a job-board or job applications submitted through email does not count as active job-seeking; therefore, many of us are not counted as "Unemployed" in the BLS Household Labor survey.

    Looking at the NILF category as a whole doesn't explain the recent Unemployment/NILF trends, conversely examining Male/Female NILF trend is very revealing.

    Formula: (NILF(CivLaborForce + NILF))

    (Non-AG) Not In the Labor Force (Per Capita) Avg. 1971 - 1999:

    Men = 23.368% Women = 46.540%

    Not In the Labor Force (Per Capita) Avg. 2000 - 2006:

    Men = 26.146% Women = 40.480%

    The 2006 percent changes in the NILF represent the following, above and beyond the 1971 - 1999 average:

    Men = 3,073,047 Women = (-7,162,693)

    Again, the BLS job growth figures for men for the four year period 2000-2003 was a total of 192,000 jobs.

    As far as a guestworker estimate, 2,571,062 immigrant workers were added to the U.S. Economy 2000-2005. Adding a year (2006) would put the immigrant worker (H1B, L1, EB2,EB3) near 3 million workers.

    Note: Many H1B and L1 visa-holders are granted extensions while applying for EB status. (Interesting how the H1B and L1 visa-holders aren't qualified for EB status for the initial visa.) The vast majority of EB Legal Permanent Resident status awards did not enter the U.S. on an EB visa.


    My subjective conclusion is that 3million highly skilled domestic (Men) workers were replaced by 3 million, lower paid, highly skilled foriegn workers, and 7 million Domestic Godesses (Women) left the comfort of family and home in the NILF category to pick up the slack for their now worthless male counter-parts.






  10. Greg Siskind's Avatar
    Several comments. You made the H-1B numbers sound like you were just looking at six years of visas (2000-2005), but you're also adding in all the people still in H-1B status from years prior. So you've inflated those numbers.

    Also, since H-1B visas are only valid for three years, presumably a sizable portion of those issued are for people already in H-1B status.

    Same story on the L-1s. They are only valid for one to three years so you're very possibly overstating the numbers by two or three.

    Also on the L-1s, the group presumably of concern to you are the L-1Bs as opposed to the intracompany transferring of executives and management personnel in the L-1A category. The L-1B specialized knowledge employees have been the controversial group as far as the ones accused of being the workaround for the H-1B. The L-1B number is not broken out from the L-1A in the survey you site.

    You also assume that the EB-2 and EB-3 green card workers are separate from the H-1Bs and the L-1Bs. But a huge percentage (probably 95% of the EB-2s) are in the US on non-immigrant visas already - most often the H-1B.

    So you're basically double, possible triple or even quadruple dipping.

    You have no way to tell how many actual separate people you're talking about and your assertion that you're accounting for 2,571,062 individuals is simply a wild guess. I'll chalk this up to your not being an immigration lawyer and having the frame of reference to realize how people often apply for and receive multiple visas and statuses over the course of their time in the US.

  11. weaver's Avatar
    Mr Siskind wrote:
    "You made the H-1B numbers sound like you were just looking at six years of visas (2000-2005), but you're also adding in all the people still in H-1B status from years prior. So you've inflated those numbers."

    Weaver writes:

    How am I adding years prior? Are these folks getting continuing employment approvals so they can leave the country? I think not.

    I've taken six years of entrance visas issued from State.travel.gov and subtracted the presumed departures for all six years and added the approved continuing employment petitions from USCIS.

    There is no inflation here, this is representative of the impact. This is an impact that you've probably never considered before.

    Every year we get new guestworkers to replace the departing guestworkers, the seventh year incoming guestworker replaces the first year departure.

    Mr Siskind wrote:
    Also, since H-1B visas are only valid for three years, presumably a sizable portion of those issued are for people already in H-1B status.

    Weaver writes:

    Initial H1B Petitions Approved
    2000 136,787
    2001 201,079
    2002 103,584
    2003 105,314
    2004 130,497
    2005 116,927
    Total 794,188

    H-1B Visas (state.travel.gov)
    2000 133,290
    2001 161,643
    2002 118,352
    2003 107,196
    2004 138,965
    2005 124,100
    Total 783,546

    The data would indicate that "State" doesn't concern itself with continuing employment approvals, only entrance visas.
    H-1B continuances equaled 764,084 for the years 2000 - 2005.

    H-1B is a 3 year program with a single 3 year continuance. L-1A 3 year program with two, 2 year continuances, L-1B 3 year program with a single 2 year continuance. When citizenship is applied for, the L-1 and H-1B visa-holders can obtain unlimited single year continuances.

    My project doesn't consider the single year continuances.

    Mr Siskind wrote:
    Also on the L-1s, the group presumably of concern to you are the L-1Bs as opposed to the intracompany transferring of executives and management personnel in the L-1A category. The L-1B specialized knowledge employees have been the controversial group as far as the ones accused of being the workaround for the H-1B. The L-1B number is not broken out from the L-1A in the survey you site.

    Weaver writes:

    The B visa is supposed to cover this function, there is no reason to allow a NIV to languish for 5 to 7 years.

    Without the unlimited L-1 program, the foriegn based corporation would simply be required to hire an American counterpart. I've never heard of China or India offering 5 and 7 year employment visa programs -- both the L-1A and L-1B directly impact domestic workers.

    Eliminating the L program would raise production costs for foriegn competitors, helping to level the playing field.
    Some 90% of L1 visas are computer related and originate from China or India according to the OIG.

    Mr. Siskind wrote:
    You also assume that the EB-2 and EB-3 green card workers are separate from the H-1Bs and the L-1Bs. But a huge percentage (probably 95% of the EB-2s) are in the US on non-immigrant visas already - most often the H-1B.

    Weaver writes:
    That's funny, I was just reading that the EB3 is the oversubscribed category.

    I guess that depends upon when USCIS approves the EB visa, from the accounts I am reading, the guestworkers are usually on multiple single year extensions, well beyond the limits of H-1B or L-1 before the EB is granted. In effect, the MSM is reporting that the H-1Bs are tired of waiting ten years for an answer on the EB. A lot of us would like the answer to be no.

    Of the 480,000 (2000-2005) available EB2 and EB3 visas available "State" only reported 131,875 EB entrance visas.

    My statement is: Why do we need bonded-labor programs like L-1 and H-1B when we have the under-utilized EB path to citizenship program? If the EB is already flooded with H-1Bs, how did the 131,875 people get visas?


    Mr Siskind wrote:

    So you're basically double, possible triple or even quadruple dipping.

    Weaver writes:

    Wrong.

    I would be extremely happy if all of these guestworker programs began in 2000 and ended in 2005, which is your argument. The fact is, that there were already H1Bs and L-1s in country well before 2000 and well after 2005.

    Again, I'm counting visas and continuing approvals, there may be a little overlap on the EB conversions, but these are the numbers.

    Think about it, I'm not counting any visas from 1995 that were still valid in 2000, or 1996 visas still valid in 2000-2001 etc...

    Mr. Siskind wrote:
    You have no way to tell how many actual separate people you're talking about and your assertion that you're accounting for 2,571,062 individuals is simply a wild guess. I'll chalk this up to your not being an immigration lawyer and having the frame of reference to realize how people often apply for and receive multiple visas and statuses over the course of their time in the US.

    Weaver writes:

    Since the L1 and H1B are the only NIVs that allow overlap, and the backlog has generally required extensive wait-times, I don't think that your argument holds much weight here.

    We haven't even considered H2A, H2B, EB1, EB4, EB5, O, Diversity, Lottery, overstays and the undocumented. These folks need jobs and usually don't have relatives here to stay with.

    Incedentally, a Harvard strudy indicates that the U.S. only builds a net of 200,000 apartments per year, the hyper-inflation of U.S. housing is caused by immigration and inflates U.S. salary requirements beyond global demand. Thus, the more we immigrate, the more offshoring becomes more desirable.

    I seem to recall that you import Doctors, here's the hard data for 2005 -- no statistics involved. I'm sure you'll still say the computer sector isn't over-subscribed.

    Initial and Continuing H1B approvals 2005
    Occupations in Systems Analysis and Programming = 99,976
    Physicians and Surgeons = 7,218

    We are in a new economy now, the old immigration practices are no longer benificial.

  12. Greg Siskind's Avatar
    The whole point of your analysis was to compare the number of people coming in to the US to the number of jobs created during the period 2000 to 2005. That means you need to know the actual number of new people coming in and your numbers don't do that despite what you purport.

    Your numbers include admissions for up to six years before that because many of the people in your H-1B totals began their six year H-1B stay prior to 2000. If you're going to expand the numerator, you need to have a corresponding increase in the denominator to account for the years you've added.

    You have also not addressed my point that many of the numbers are issued to the same person. A person may have multiple H-1B visa stamps during their time in the US. You count them each as a separate person.

    You have not addressed the point that the EB-2s and EB-3s are quite often H-1B and L-1B visa holders. How are you subtracting out those numbers to avoid overcounting?

    On the L-1A question, you are just showing your lack of understanding of global business. If you're Nissan and opening a plant in Tennessee, you don't send the VP in charge of US operations on a B visa to oversea the automaker's investment in the US. You use the L-1A. American companies routinely use the same visa when we send out senior executives overseas to set up distribution operations for American manufactured products. The B visa is intended for quickie business trips to the US, not to overseas US operations. It looks like you've read a quick reference card on what the various visa categories cover and lack an actual understanding of immigration law. Do you have any evidence that the jobs you think have been lost to L-1 workers were for L-1As? Doubt it. L-1Bs are the category in question.

    I'm not sure where to even begin on the green card question. The State Department only handles part of the workload on those visas. USCIS can issue green cards through adjustment of status. Workers have a choice of processing either overseas or in the US. The bulk of the green cards issued in the EB-3 visas at consulates are going to nurses who do not have a non-immigrant visa category that allows them to be in the US. My point - which you still don't seem to grasp - is that you are putting the EB-2 and EB-3 numbers in like they're different people than the H-1Bs and L-1Bs you're counting in your two million figure. They're the same people.

    I can't really continue this conversation because, to be honest, you're trying to prove a point based on incomplete data. We only know the number of non-immigrant visas issued and the numbers of green cards issued. But the number of those approvals don't equate to the actual number of people coming to the US to offset the job growth. Also, you "subtracted the presumed departures" though you have no idea what those numbers are.

    Finally, every time I raise the point, I'm ignored. Show me the unemployment numbers in your field. And before you say that the good workers gave up and left the work force, be prepared to document it because aside from a few anecdotes, I don't believe you can prove it.

  13. weaver's Avatar
    Mr Siskind wrote:

    The whole point of your analysis was to compare the number of people coming in to the US to the number of jobs created during the period 2000 to 2005. That means you need to know the actual number of new people coming in and your numbers don't do that despite what you purport.

    Weaver writes:

    It's obvious that you are attempting to argue your point witout even reading my presentation on blogspot.

    The point of my analysis, is to display the portion of "Computer related occupations" market-share held by economic-immigrants.

    Any mention I made to "job growth" was in support of BLS NILF figures not my market-share analysis. Additionally, this is your first mention of "job growth" that I'm aware of.

    Mr. Siskind wrote:
    You have also not addressed my point that many of the numbers are issued to the same person. A person may have multiple H-1B visa stamps during their time in the US. You count them each as a separate person.

    Weaver writes:

    I've displayed here that the number of H-1B initial employment approvals are relevant to the H-1B entrance visas issued from state -- it's rather obvious that the minor differences in these two figures are due to F visas.

    Mr Siskind wrote:
    You have not addressed the point that the EB-2s and EB-3s are quite often H-1B and L-1B visa holders. How are you subtracting out those numbers to avoid overcounting?

    Weaver writes:
    Your point that the H-1Bs and L-1s converting to EB are recounts also does not hold water because these persons immigrated (2000 - 2005) prior to the sampling period -- I.e. these people are not recounts they are more akin to continuing employment approvals during the five year LPR period of the EB.

    There is no reason to believe that adjustment of status generally occurs when the L-1 or H1B expires. Thus, the impact to the market-share is relevant.

    If you can prove otherwise, I'll be happy to consider the data.

    Mr. Siskind wrote:
    Also, you "subtracted the presumed departures" though you have no idea what those numbers are.

    Weaver writes:

    The "presumed departures" is the remainder of the H-1B entrance visas subtracted from the H-1B continuing employment petition approvals which is 97.52%. The persumed departures is 2.48% of entrance visas.

    Mr. Siskind wrote:
    You have also not addressed my point that many of the numbers are issued to the same person. A person may have multiple H-1B visa stamps during their time in the US. You count them each as a separate person.

    Weaver writes:

    The multiple stamps your speak of are published in "NONIMMIGRANT ADMISSIONS (I-94 ONLY) BY CLASS OF ADMISSION:" in the OIS "2005 Yearbook of
    Immigration Statistics." I don't use the numbers from this table at all because of re-entries and re-stamping of the initial visa.

    Mr Siskind wrote:
    Show me the unemployment numbers in your field.

    Weaver writes:

    This would be quite an accomplishment because NIVs that replace domestic workers are added to the Civilian Labor Force totals and the "Unemployment" category is not representative of the problem at hand.

    The first step is to determine how many economic immigrants are in country.

    B'sides, we don't really have to prove anything, just change public sentiment -- which will grow stronger with each coming recession.

    Later,
    Weaver








  14. fornetti's Avatar
    I do not believe this
  15. fornetti's Avatar
    I do not believe this
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: