Dream (not DREAM) Act

Senators Cruz and Sessions have introduced a new H-1B reform bill, and lo and behold, it really would bring genuine reform. This bill is even better than the Nelson-Sessions bill that came out last week. In the words of an old, old song, “A drunkard’s dream, if I ever did see one.” 🙂 This is indeed a nearly ideal piece of legislation for those of us who have been critical of H-1B and other tech worker programs for years.

Of course, for that very reason, the bill may not have any chance of even reaching committee, let alone being enacted. And as I pointed out regarding the Nelson-Sessions bill, if “staple a green card” legislation were to pass (automatic green cards awarded to STEM foreign students at U.S. universities), all bets are off; the bill applies almost entirely to H-1B, which would become largely irrelevant under staple-a-green.

Here are what I consider the major features (I won’t list the Infosyses-specific provisions, e.g. anti-benching):

  • $110,000 salary floor: Actually, the required pay would be the higher of $110K and “the annual wage that was paid to the United States citizen or lawful permanent resident employee who did identical or similar work during the 2 years before…”
  • Goodbye, OPT: The Optional Practical Training program, added years ago by executive fiat to the F-1 student visa program, is an abomination, key to the hiring of foreign students instead of Americans. This provision disbands the program, and says if such a program is to exist, it must be properly implemented, i.e. enacted by the legislative branch.
  • Anti-layoff provision: The language here could be a little tighter, but basically it would ban hiring of H-1Bs in time proximity of a layoff for workers in the same occupation.
  • H-1Bs must have a PhD or 10+ years of work experience: The tech industry has always claimed it hires H-1Bs because not enough Americans pursue doctoral degrees. This is egregiously misleading — most of the H-1B they hire don’t have PhDs — but this provision calls the industry on that claim. Ditto for the industry claim that it hires people who are world leaders in their field — fresh out of school? And paid at Level I or II on the 4-level scale?
  • Recruit Americans first:  Other than for the H-1B dependent category of employers, H-1B has no such requirement. Employer-sponsored green cards do have such a provision, but it is easily circumvented. Nevertheless, in combination with the OPT disbandment and this bill’s provisions for public posting of jobs, more complaint rights and so on, this is worthwhile.
  • Whistleblower freedom: If an employee reports abuse of H-1B, the employer cannot consider that to be a violation of the Nondisclosure Agreement the worker signed.

It’s odd that the first press reports I’ve seen on the bill, such as those in Computerworld, Breitbart and CIS, don’t mention the most draconian provision of all, requiring a PhD or 10+ years of work experience. This will be the first one the industry will shoot down, citing examples of “brilliant” foreign workers who don’t have a PhD.

Some have wondered whether that $110K salary floor is high enough in high-cost areas like Silicon Valley, and the answer is mostly yes, I believe. I’ve stressed over the years that a core ingredient of H-1B is age; younger workers are cheaper, so employers hire young foreign workers instead of older (35+) Americans, with new graduates being the main group of interest to employers.

The majority of new graduates in computer science get nowhere near that $110K figure, so this provision would quash most of the abuse. Even Stanford grads, who I found in 2010 were getting offers 37% above graduates of “ordinary” schools, are averaging “only” $90K.

That figure is presumably at the Bachelor’s level. Carnegie-Mellon University, another very top CS program (Rank 2 in the U.S. by some surveys), reports a mean of $104,000 for new Master’s degree grads in Silicon Valley; again, the figures for most schools will be well below those for CMU.

Note that the bill actually requires that the H-1B be paid the higher of $110K and the American worker who last held the position filled by the H-1B. This is very poor phrasing, nonsense really. It clearly is aimed at the “Infosyses” setting in which Americans were directly replaced by H-1Bs.

So, though the bill would be “safer” with a higher floor than $110K, this figure would do a lot of good. There would still be many foreign workers hired in place of qualified Americans, but the number of such instances would be greatly diminished.

Note carefully that these figures are for CS. For most fields, such as statistics/data science (a very rapidly increasing field for H-1Bs) and non-CS branches of engineering,  that $110K floor would stem almost all of the abuse.

The bill is not perfect, of course. For example, consider the second core reason why employers love to hire H-1Bs: If they sponsor the worker for a green card, the worker is trapped, for fear of having to start the very lengthy green card process all over again with another employer. As I’ve explained before, this is hugely important to employers, even more than saving on salary. The bill does not address this problem, even though it does ban employers from penalizing foreign workers who leave for another employer.

As another example of what the bill is lacking, the bill enables American worker to file a complaint if they are replaced by H-1Bs, but NOT if an H-1B is hired instead of them.

Both of these shortcomings reflect an obsession with the Infosyses. But that is to be forgiven, as the bill does plenty to stem abuse by the Intels, and those firms will howl.

Advertisements

88 thoughts on “Dream (not DREAM) Act

  1. Succinctly put about the second core reason. That can only be addressed with HR 213.

    Few observations:

    1) This bill does *nothing* to address the L-1/EB-1C reform/abuse. Don’t get why L-1 was left out. L-1 could be worse than H-1s (given that there is no min.wage for L-1s and that there is no DOL records for L-1s and that for EB-1Cs, there is no PERM/labor certification required)

    2) Diversity Visa eliminatio. It’s a good thing, but makes this bill a DOA – Black caucus/Democrats will *not* let DV go away at any cost (regardless of how employers/other lobbyists approve/reject this)

    3)110k min wage level (or the selection based on wage levels, if there are more applications) – No where in the bill does it talk about MSA. 110k may be Level 4 for some remote town in S Dakota, but it’s a level I/II for NY. Would this leave an open ‘loophole’ or let administration in power to interpret it in via APA ? Unless I have grossly misunderstood the wage related reform, Mr Sessions and his team , of all, should know better about DOL wage levels etc.

    4) Mr Cruz is in this just for kicks. IMO Sessions/Grassley are SMEs when it comes to immigration.

    Like

  2. Amazing! Just glanced at the text and there’s a ton more stuff in there. But it’s a close race which of the points you list is the most important. I’d say it’s the $110k! That will eliminate 90% of the Indian H-1Bs, and frankly those are the most egregious. Of course the number will be negotiated down and adjusted by region, but if it stays at $100k for California I’d be giddy with delight.

    The PhD requirement is the “doghouse” of the bill, of course that will be dropped, after meaningful debate.

    Most important for me is that it shows Cruz is not a hopeless reprobate on the issue – and in general. Although he says some stuff I like, I was unable to consider him a serious candidate – until now.

    Let’s see what kind of press this gets over the next week.

    Like

      • Let’s see if Cruz brings it up on the campaign trail. I doubt it will get through Congress – unless maybe Cruz is elected president and takes office in 2017. If it becomes a campaign issue this year, that would be plenty.

        Like

    • Obama promised Change but never delivered.
      I am a Texan.
      I have written cruz numerous times begging for help in getting back to work and he has done nothing.

      My point is this, Cruz is promising change but will not deliver if elected.

      Of course I wish he would prove me wrong, but I doubt it based on what he has done so far.

      If my story were to show up on national news tomorrow showing what has happened and the lack of representation by Cruz and Cornyn tomorrow, I would be working within days.

      But my story will never show up, and he knows it.

      Like

  3. […] he favored increasing the number of H–1B visas issued each year by a factor of five. Today Cruz and Jeff Sessions introduced a bill that significantly reforms the H–1B visa program. The bill requires companies to recruit Americans first, it requires companies to pay competitive […]

    Like

  4. “H-1Bs must have a PhD or 10+ years of work experience.” Even I think this is unreasonable. If some 20-something has hot-shot skills, even as a new graduate, they should be eligible for H-1b for above the floor wage.

    I understand all the “a DBA is more costly than a C# coder but cheaper than a Chemical Engineer … and wages are higher in Silicon Valley than in North Dakota.” But i prefer a universal floor wage for it’s simplicity. An employer knows what an H-1b will cost them. If it’s still worth it, in general their will first be an incentive to try to find the services at a lower wage among skilled U.S. workers.

    Like

  5. > Both of these shortcomings reflect an obsession with the Infosyses. But that is to be forgiven, as the bill does plenty to stem abuse by the Intels, and those firms will howl.

    Yes, I’m curious to hear the nature of their howling. Regardless of how successful this bill is, it does very much contradict the argument put forth by many H-1B proponents that nearly all economists and politicians agree that the H-1B program is beneficial. The only point of debate is how much it should be increased. I’m curious to see whether those proponents howl in public or only in private through their lobbyists.

    Speaking of proponents, I ran across an interesting article while googling for recent occurrences of Zavodny’s magic numbers of 183 and 262 (or 2.62). The article is at http://conservativenewager.com/2015/12/09/immigration-and-jobs/ and is titled Immigration and Jobs, similar to Zavodny’s working paper that contains the numbers. It contains a clip of Zavodny’s talking about her study and, even though it’s just 1:32 in length, she mentions Giovanni Peri during it. The article contains several other clips which, in my view, get more simplistic and condescending as seems common with those who insist that their views are so obvious that they are likewise held by all reasonable people. I posted a polite comment rebutting the 183 number that the article repeated but the author chose not to approve it. He didn’t want to sully the article with any opposing views, I guess!

    Like

  6. @Despicable Congress

    How can Cruz become president given he was not born in US? I have already seen Dems threating to sue if he wins the nomination. He was a Canadian citizen then became a US citizen. American mother and Cuban father.

    Like

  7. No Way this bill is going to pass. “Ban OPT totally”? I know you hate OPT to guts but without OPT, international students will never come to US to study. How about the US high education system? How about the US domestic students who receive financial aid from US Universities which rely on tuition payment from international students?

    “H-1Bs must have a PhD or 10+ years of work experience”: this is going to cut off the bloodline to Wall Street, Silicon Valley and Indian Consulting firms. Industry lobbyists will never allow it to pass.

    By the way, Do you really believe Ted Cruz and Jeff Sessions’s true intention is to protect US workers?

    Jeff Session is a long time anti immigration hawk who will never miss a chance to promote his hatred towards immigration. Ted Cruz wants to appeal to Right Wing Base and steal votes from Trump.

    And Ted Cruz’s wife is a manager in Wall Street. That tells you every thing.

    Final point: I agree there are serious problems in OPT and H1b and I support common-sense provisions to make it better. However, when you say “prohibit” and “ban” and “send them home”. You are using the rhetoric as those anti immigration groups dominated by racists and white supremacists.

    If you really think it is a movement of justice to protect US workers. There is no chance for you to win by appealing to negative emotions and unbounded nationalism. Throughout history, there is no movement of justice that can win by appealing to xenophobia.

    There are always two sides of the coin. Despite problems, H1b and OPT do bring prosperity to Silicon Valley, Wall Street and US high education and then US economy, Imagine what will happen if these programs are all repealed and thus drive all Indian and Chinese students away. I do not see you taking about the positive side of this issue.

    Finally, the underlying reason for those OPT/h1b and other things is that there is indeed a shortage of skilled workers in US. I know you will say there is no shortage of US domestic workers. I know you get this information probably from numbersUSA, centers for immigration studies or the book “sold out”,

    These claims ignore the diversity and complexity of STEM fields and here is the link that explains why there can be both shortage and “surplus” at the same time: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2015/article/stem-crisis-or-stem-surplus-yes-and-yes.htm

    Like

    • I don’t “hate” OPT, but I do hate hypocrisy. OPT was designed for what it’s name implies, training. Yet even the DHS admits that the main role of OPT is as an end-run around the H-1B cap. You seem to acknowledge this too.

      If H-1B and the employer-sponsored green card programs were properly reformed, the H-1B would never come close to filling. Thus there would be no need for a workaround to the H-1B caps, i.e. no need for OPT.

      You are unfortunately quite uninformed about the issue of foreign students in the U.S. university system. The huge influx of international students in the last 25 years has badly suppressed STEM wage growth at the graduate level, thus making graduate study unattractive to domestic students. This was forecast in an internal paper at the NSF back in 1989, which predicted that domestic students would stop going to graduate school — and as we all know, the NSF document’s prediction turned out to be true.

      I will assume that you think it’s undesirable for U.S. policy to discourage domestic students from pursuing graduate work. If so, then you should support measures to fix the problem at its root — policies that swell the labor market with large numbers of mediocre foreign workers. Proper reform of the H-1B and GC programs, placing emphasis on attracting the world’s “best and brightest” to the U.S. universities and labor markets, is imperative.

      If you believe that “H1b and OPT do bring prosperity to Silicon Valley, Wall Street and US high education and then US economy,” support your argument with facts, not industry claims.

      I’ve never advocated “sending them home.” If I were king, I’d grandfather those currently on OPT.

      As to your link to the Monthly Labor Review article, actually I reviewed it, here and here.

      Like

      • Thanks for your response. At least you are better than those people who shout “all foreign students go away” and I want to thank you for that.

        Let me first talk about your comments on the report of Monthly Labor Review article.

        1)You think that one of the authors is an international student who worked in Palantir and therefore this paper is biased? We never know the true intentions of the authors. However, if you think the authors’ affiliation matters, then the study from the opposing side is never better. You should know the book “sold out”. The authors of the book “sold out” are affiliated with Centers For Immigration Study which is a long time anti-immigration group. Even worse, this group was established by white supremacist John Tanton.

        2) Quote from your comment: “As I’ve mentioned, a big issue is age; the recruiter knows that the given job is open only to young programmers, either new grads or up to 5-10 years out of school, and thus his/her statement “I can’t find enough programmers” really means, “I can’t find enough YOUNG programmers.”

        Age is indeed a factor. But does it have anything to do with H1b or OPT or the whole immigration? If there are zero foreign students in US, some companies will still prefer to hire younger professionals at 30-35 than older one at above 50. I say some because it is not always true. In many other cases, aged professionals will have an advantage especially for manager positions.

        3) You said “The biggest problem with this paper is that the authors ignore “the elephant in the room” — wages in the IT field aren’t rising.”

        I can use your own logic to explain why that wages in the IT field aren’t rising as you said in the earlier paragraph that “there are lots of confounding factors there.”.

        Wage level depends a lot on specific positions and specific locations and specific companies which are further compounded by economic crisis in 2001 and 2008. if you ignore all these confounding factors, of course you may see a flat wage on an average level.

        I did read the Salzman/Kuehn/Lowell, their study does not differentiate locations, specific positions(they all generalize as programmers which is totally wrong) and specific companies. Therefore, just like you cast doubt on the paper in Monthly Labor Review, I also cast strong doubt on Salzman/Kuehn/Lowell’s paper.

        Like

        • What I tell my students and my consulting clients is that one should never rely on just one study. You were the one who brought up the EPI study, not me, so your criticism of that study shouldn’t be directed at me. I know all three authors of that study and they are excellent, unbiased researchers, but I too have criticisms of that work, and have stated them. But Wages in tech ARE flat, including in Silicon Valley. Even the industry lobbyists and supporters have basically admitted that. And I’m not talking about 2008 or 2001; I’m talking about the last 3-4 years.

          I like to look at things both quantitatively and qualitatively. For the latter, I often rely on what I see personally. In many cases, I see a student from China, newly graduated from a U.S. school, get interviews and sometimes jobs from the SAME companies that don’t even grant interviews to older Americans I know with the SAME degrees, and YES, all the modern skills. There have been a number of cases in which tech CEOs have stated publicly that they mainly hire new graduates, and in some of those cases they have explicitly stated that it is because the new grads are cheaper. I’ve served as an expert witness in a number of lawsuits on age discrimination. There I get to see some of the secret data, and hear the frank deposition testimony of how the firms hire. This is confidential information, but my point is that again the issue is that younger people are cheaper.

          And young foreign workers are even cheaper still. One doesn’t need data to show that (though I do have such data), because basic economic theory shows it, at least for those foreign workers who are being sponsored for a green card, due to the high value of the latter.

          Statistically, the vast majority of the H-1B workers are young, as shown by government data. We all know that younger is cheaper. So of course the fact that the presence of the H-1Bs swells the young labor pool will have an adverse impact on the older American workers. Here is a new English phrase for you, if you haven’t heard it before: “Put 2 and 2 together,” or if you prefer, “Connect the dots.”

          I have never met John Tanton; my impression is that he is largely the victim of a smear campaign. But I know the people at CIS very well, and I can assure you that they are very decent, caring people.

          The book “Sold Out” is openly partial, as one can see from the outlandish title. But it is extensively footnoted, so anyone can check out the facts, and call out the authors for errors on those facts. So far, I haven’t seen ANYONE from the tech industry refute anything in the book.

          More than anything else, the book is about corruption in the U.S. government. As such, I highly recommend it to you for education on American civics.

          Without knowing you at all, I am sure that you do not support an open-borders policy, in which anyone in the world can come live and work here, no limitations whatsoever. So, are you “anti-immigration” too? The only difference between you and CIS is where to draw the line.

          I asked you to back up your claim that “H-1B/OPT have made Silicon Valley and Wall Street prosperous” (and implicitly, not via cheap labor). Do you plan to do so?

          On the other hand,

          Like

          • H-1B/OPT have made Silicon Valley and Wall Street prosperous” (and implicitly, not via cheap labor).

            If I cite some studies, you will probably point out some flaws in some studies and probably question about the affiliation of the authors.

            Are you using your smart phone to read my comments and posts? If yes(if no, I assume you have a smart phone in Android or IOS), do you know how much contributions H1b holders and people on OPT in Silicon Valley have made to the creation of Android and IOS? I know because I am part of the team. Without these people, where are ipad, where are iphone and where are all these innovations? Of course this is a collaboration between US domestic engineers and international engineers in H1b or OPT. However, there is no way the same products can be created without such collective efforts

            Like

          • Ah, now we are getting to the real core of the matter.

            So, you are claiming that no American could have been hired instead of you, and done an equal or better job. Do you really believe that?

            This is a perfect example of the sense of entitlement I often mention in this blog, prevalent among H-1B/OPT workers. It’s not that they are conceited, just that they are like the blind boys who “only see touch part of the elephant.”

            Among other things, I urge you to read what I said earlier today about the prescient NSF forecast of 1989.

            Like

          • “So, you are claiming that no American could have been hired instead of you, and done an equal or better job. Do you really believe that?”

            You really think this line is a “killing blow” to my argument? Unfortunately I think this again shows your argument is so invalid

            You try to accuse me of “sense of entitlement” but are you holding the same sense of “entitlemen for your side? Did you ever have any knowledge about how companies recruit people?

            Everyone needs to pass strict interview process to get recruited especially in case of Silicon Valley and Wall Street Companies. Do you really believe because of the OPT and H1b visa, companies will favor foreign students? NO, H1b sponsorship is not free and is a very consuming process. Any international students in US in search of Jobs face the problem that only a few companies will recruit foreign students because of H1b cap and the sponsorship.

            H1b and OPT holders get the jobs because they pass the interview and get the jobs and they have made huge contributions. You seemed to suggest that there are some US domestic people who could have been hired and make the same contribution. First of all, these “unknown” US domestic people lost merit based competition because they were not hired. There is no reason to complain(otherwise, every job applicant who get rejection could have sued a company and you know this is ridiculous).

            Secondly, the real work is done by H1b and OPT holders and they deserve good reputation and credits.

            Discrediting them by saying somehow other people could have done equally well is as stupid as saying you could have won the Nobel Prize because somehow if you were born in a different age, in a different family and in a different location and underwent a different life experience, you could have done the same work

            the Democratic politicians were in the forefront of criticizing the H-1B program. But they suddenly stopped. Here is a test for you on current events: Why did they stop?

            Firstly, Bernie Sanders did not support H1b and Hillary Clinton’s last position was on 2007. I suppose because pro immigration groups are the base for democratic candidates just like some republican candidates appeal to anti immigration groups. This is how politics plays out. You are American and You should know it and this has nothing to do with my argument

            Like

          • You can’t just say people are pro-immigration or anti-immigration. You yourself are “anit-immigration” to some extent, you admit. Generally, the Republicans have been much more pro-H-1B than the Democrats.

            I suggest that you go to the Web site of David Swaim, an immigration attorney who designed the immigration policy for Texas Instruments, http://hiref-1students.com/ It explains very well why many employers — including all the major tech firms — prefer to hire foreign students. The employers love the immobility of the foreign students. Many immigration attorneys have said the same thing publicly, and several of the most famous firms have told me so privately. It was also stated in the congressional testimony of Immigrant Voice, the organization of H-1B workers. I’m sure this is not news to you.

            I am not discrediting the H-1Bs. It’s not their fault, and one can’t blame them. But the industry would have done just fine without them, actually better.

            Like

          • In my understanding, “anti immigration” is those people who only want to ban and prohibit foreigners and they do not want to propose good reforms.

            Establishing a good merit based immigration system is not anti immigration and I fully support it,

            However I do not think the American Jobs First Act is a realistic solution to the problems. Of course you disagree because you support the notion that “ban all these programs will solve all problems”

            “It explains very well why many employers — including all the major tech firms — prefer to hire foreign students. The employers love the immobility of the foreign students. Many immigration attorneys have said the same thing publicly, and several of the most famous firms have told me so privately. It was also stated in the congressional testimony of Immigrant Voice, the organization of H-1B workers. I’m sure this is not news to you.

            I am not discrediting the H-1Bs. It’s not their fault, and one can’t blame them. But the industry would have done just fine without them, actually better.”

            Yes, I agree that there are some advantages that cause tech companies to search for foreign students and I did know the report.

            It seems that you did not capture the core of what I said: I support a fair environment where foreign students and domestic students can compete based on merit only. However, I did not see meaningful proposals from the opposing side. All the current proposals are saying “ban” and “prohibit”
            That is what I think is very wrong.

            Regarding contributions of H1b and OPT programs, we discuss from two perspectives: one is reality and one is theory. From reality, given the fact that H1b and OPT holders have already dominated STEM industry and Wall Street and Silicon Valley. banning OPT and H1b will be only harmful to US economy and the only way is through piecemeal provisions to improve these programs (again Not “ban” or “prohibit”)

            The one is from theory as you said “the industry would have done just fine without them, actually better”

            This is not the reality in which Wall Street and Silicon Valley consist entirely of domestic workers so this cannot be proved(no one knows individual abilities of individuals). In fact, while Wall Street and Silicon Valley did have a large number of H1b and OPT holders, there are also a lot of talented domestic employees and I never see they are going to replaced.

            Finally NO Foreigner is entitled to stay in US but you cannot deprive foreign students’ freedom to pursue dreams based on merit simply because of problems in some immigration programs which are out of control of foreign students.

            Like

          • The problem with a “merit-based” immigration policy is that “merit” is in the eyes of the beholder. You think passing a “strict interview process” proves merit, while I say that that interview process is invalid when the employer screens out the Americans due to preference for foreign students, which even you agree does occur.

            As I’ve said many times over the years, the key to reform of H-1B is to fix the awful definition of prevailing wage. The Cruz/Sessions bill does that better than any other bill ever to be introduced in Congress. Even you agree that the bill’s wage floor would not have affected your being hired.

            In fact, you would have benefited if this bill had been law a few years ago. You would have had no trouble getting an H-1B visa immediately, thus obviating need for OPT, and your wait for a green card would be much shorter. Interesting point, eh?

            If you knew anything at all about my writings (which it seems you don’t), you’d know that I hate the word “replace” in the H-1B context. The major problem is that employers hire H-1Bs INSTEAD OF hiring Americans, rather than using H-1Bs to REPLACE Americans. And even you agree that the “instead of” situation is common. So, PLEASE stop talking about the “strict interview process,” which the Americans are excluded from.

            And this is related to a point I’ve asked you more than once to address (which, unfortunately, you have not): The NSF report forecast that the huge influx of foreign students would result in the domestic students deciding not to pursue graduate work. So, looking at things in the long-term, i.e. the last 25 years, we see that it is no accident that there are so many foreign tech workers.

            This has HURT the economy, not helped it as you think, because of the disparity in talent between the two groups. America’s tech fields has lost large amounts of talent due to H-1B.

            Thanks for reminding me that I hadn’t replied to your claim that without H-1B, the U.S. firms would move the work overseas, where the labor is much cheaper. That is a standard industry argument, and the flaw in it is obvious: Since labor is so cheap overseas (which it is), why aren’t they moving ALL their work overseas NOW? The answer is that it just isn’t feasible. Face-to-face interaction is crucial.

            Like

          • You raised so many issues so i probably omit the NSF report. I am perfectly willing to talk about it:

            1″The NSF report forecast that the huge influx of foreign students would result in the domestic students deciding not to pursue graduate work. So, looking at things in the long-term, i.e. the last 25 years, we see that it is no accident that there are so many foreign tech workers.”

            I did look at the NSF report. However, this is one sided argument. It seems unfortunately you did not look at my previous post: international students come to US(except some PhD students) with self funding. In UC Berkeley which is public university, The tuition of international students is 2-3 times that of domestic students. Without influx of foreign students, how could US high education system be supported? If US high education system cannot be supported, what will happen to US domestic students.

            Here is the link about how International students contribute to US economy http://www.nafsa.org/_/file/_/eis2014/usa.pdf

            The underlying motivation of influx of foreign students is US domestic education funding is not enough and US universities have to search for external funds by expanding foreign students admission.

            2)You think passing a “strict interview process” proves merit, while I say that that interview process is invalid when the employer screens out the Americans due to preference for foreign students, which even you agree does occur.

            Again, you are suggesting the advantages such as immobility of foreign students and willingness of foreign students to accept lower wage in exchange of green card sponsorship?

            In response to that, I certainly hope common sense reform about wage requirement for H1b and or OPT holders to eliminate this discrimination. But it does not mean “ban all these programs”.

            If the NSF report you cited is correct, then the reality is that there are shortage of skilled US domestic workers because of influx of foreign students. It is wrong to think that this reality can be reversed by banning all these H1b and OPT programs. Where do you get the money to reeducate US domestic students?

            Final point: You are using your own experience to make this argument. In the same way, I can also use my own observation to argue in the opposite way. During my personal interview experience(>=20)

            I saw a lot of US domestic students who got the job offer over international students because they performed better in interview and they do not need to undergo the consuming h1b visa.

            3)The Cruz/Sessions bill does that better than any other bill ever to be introduced in Congress.

            No it does not do better, An arbitrary income at 110K does not reflect difference in geography, company size and positions. And this bill again bans OPT which is both unrealistic and wrong.

            4)This has HURT the economy, not helped it as you think, because of the disparity in talent between the two groups.

            Again you are going back to your accusation of sense of entitlement for H1b and or OPT holders.

            I have already refuted this position.

            “Disparity in talent”? I consider this as a discrimination and I never agree with that.

            You are again using your own observation and I can also use my observation : I have a lot of US domestic peers who are also enrolled in STEM education when I studied in US university. I never see they complain that there are too many foreign students and there is no space for them. And they all get high pay jobs in Silicon Valley and Wall Street while they are US citizens,

            I do not see how they are hurt by H1b visa.

            5)That is a standard industry argument, and the flaw in it is obvious: Since labor is so cheap overseas (which it is), why aren’t they moving ALL their work overseas NOW? The answer is that it just isn’t feasible. Face-to-face interaction is crucial.

            I can tell you numerous examples about how US companies move their offices overseas. The case of Pifizer, amazon, Microsoft and Apple and other Giants in Silicon Valley all have overseas branches in which they place employees who did not get the lottery of H1b visa. Therefore, it is easy to move overseas especially in such an interconnected world where human and financial capital can flow freely.

            why aren’t they moving ALL their work overseas NOW?

            Because the current system does not need them to do that. If the OPT / H1b programs are indeed totally banned, they will.

            6)America’s tech fields has lost large amounts of talent due to H-1B.

            True talents will never be lost as I know many talented US IT workers. H1b has problem of course, but banning it will be disastrous because the reality is H1b holders and OPT holders are playing an important role in US economy.

            7)
            You talk about you do not want to use “replace”, I commend you for being precise. I can tell you the other way also happens at very frequent basis: international students are excluded from hiring simply because issue about work authorization. I myself have been excluded simply because I am not a US citizen.

            Therefore, these are the two sides of coin and Your argument is flawed because you only focus on one side.

            Like

          • Thanks for responding regarding the NSF report.

            Concerning Americans benefiting from the extra tuition the foreign students pay: Most Americans would rather have higher tuition than to have more university slots go to foreign students. When UC and CSU announced they would take more foreign students in order to increase revenue, there was a huge public outcry, and UC recently backed down somewhat.

            When you questioned whether the swelling of the labor pool by foreign workers suppresses wages, I replied that even a 10-year-old understands the economic principle of supply and demand, and your response is that 10-year-olds don’t have sophistication in economics. Well, actually in this case they do, because the National Research Council report, commissioned by Congress and including several prominent labor economists as authors, said the same thing. And of course the above-mentioned NSF report said this too.

            You then make a U-turn and say that suppressed wages is a good thing, because it means firms can hire more workers. Funny, the industry lobbyists are not making this argument (I wonder why!), and the companies most stridently calling for expansion of H-1B, e.g. Facebook, have tons of money and can hire all the workers they want.

            I mentioned that Cisco had been exposed as running fake “Americans only” job ads as part of the green card process, but now you dismiss that as only one data point. Fine, but Fragomen, the one posting those ads, is the largest and most prestigious immigration law firm in the nation, so this would seem to be standard practice. Watch that YouTube video I mentioned, filmed by another prominent law firm, and you’ll understand this. These big tech firms are no angels, as a number of court cases have shown.

            I said that many big Silicon Valley firms PREFER to hire foreign students instead of Americans. I said I know this both from my own experience and also because of public information, such as the “hire F-1s” slide show and the congressional testimony of Immigrant Voice, an H-1B advocacy group. You then ignored the public part and dismissed my statement as being only my experience.You then say that in your experience there are firms that do not hire foreign students; I don’t know why you mention this, because I already agreed that there are some. Same for your comment now that H-1Bs do have mobility, when I stated that the immobility stems from the green card sponsorship. AGAIN, please be more careful, and don’t waste your and my time. I’m happy to discuss this with you, but let’s make it productive, not wasteful.

            You linked to an NAFSA analysis of the economic benefits of foreign students. You may not realize that “NAFSA” stands for National Association of Foreign Student Advisers, clearly an organization with a keen vested interest — no foreign students means no jobs for NAFSA members. And concerning their claimed benefits to the U.S. economy, except for tuition these same benefits would accrue if American students were in those university slots.

            You say that the NSF report implies that we now have a shortage of domestic students in these fields. No, it does not imply that, and again, even a bright 10-year-old would see that.

            You complain about the Cruz/Sessions bill disbanding OPT, yet you ignore my point that with proper reform we’d have plenty of H-1B visas and thus no need for OPT. I’ve stated this twice now. Same concerning your point that your American classmates had no trouble getting jobs, ignoring my emphasis on age as a core H-1B issue. Again, you’re behavior is not conducive to a productive discussion.

            You think that an immediate ban on H-1B and OPT would have a huge economic shock. Well, I’ve never called for a ban on H-1B, and I said to you that I would grandfather the current OPTs.

            You raised the standard industry lobbyist argument that without H-1Bs, firms would move the jobs overseas. I said that they would move all their work overseas NOW if they could, since labor is far cheaper there; why don’t they? I pointed out that they can’t do so, because face-to-face interaction is crucial for most projects. You now reply that they don’t do so now because they don’t have to — you’re begging the question. And you made my point by noting that they “park” foreign workers who can’t get H-1B visas at overseas branches for a year, then bring them back on L-1 visas — BECAUSE the face-to-face interaction is so vital.

            I had stated regarding the foreign worker programs, “This has HURT the economy, not helped it as you think, because of the disparity in talent between the two groups.” You now call this “discrimination,” but I ask you to look at my EPI paper and its references.

            Like

          • First of all, it is interesting that you say “AGAIN, please be more careful, and don’t waste your and my time. I’m happy to discuss this with you, but let’s make it productive, not wasteful.”

            I will be careful and I encourage you to be careful as well. It seems you did not really read my previous posts so again I have to repeat what I said(a wasteful as well in my case)

            1)You refute me by examples of UC and CSU. I never say influx of international students brings only benefits. What I say is ask you to look at both sides of the issue and therefore encourage meaningful reforms to make the system better.

            2)You said “Most Americans would rather have higher tuition than to have more university slots go to foreign students.” Of course, US universities should admit US students and even with the current system, US domestic students still hold the majority of slots. Give you an example: University of South California which is widely considered as a university which is very open to international students, have a population of international students counting for 24% this means for every four students in USC, only one of them is international(http://about.usc.edu/facts/). Do not refute me by saying the statistic is false because if you do that, there is no way to forward a productive conversation.

            And remeber it is University of South California who is widely recognized as one of the universities which have the largest population of international students. This figure will definitely be lower if we talk about other schools.

            3) I can sense you think US high education system is important to US citizens. Again I mentioned in my previous post about underlying motivation of US universities recruiting international students: the domestic funding is not enough. Without funding from international students, how can US high education system function at the current funding level? And will it mean reduced opportunities for US domestic students?

            4) In response to “the swelling of the labor pool by foreign workers suppresses wages,”

            As you did not refute me, I assume you agree with me that the simple law of supply and demand cannot be applied by simply saying “No foreign workers = raise in wage for US citizens”.

            “National Research Council report, commissioned by Congress and including several prominent labor economists as authors, said the same thing. And of course the above-mentioned NSF report said this too.”

            I am not going to debate about the merits of these studies and I believe they have reasoning.

            Once again, I never deny the negative side and I only ask you to focus on both sides. That is my point through the whole conversation

            But I want to say this swelling effect is overly exaggerated. In the reports you mentioned, the authors seem to believe the population of international students = the population of foreign workers who finally stay. That is totally. Only a very limited number of international students can finally stay and find a job. You are delusional to think that somehow it is really easy for international students to find a job in US.

            Finding a H1b job is not so easy as you think. There is a cap of H1b and only big Silicon Valley firms can afford the risk in addition to all these implicit and explicit costs regarding the petition process.

            5)”You then make a U-turn and say that suppressed wages is a good thing, because it means firms can hire more workers. Funny, the industry lobbyists are not making this argument (I wonder why!), and the companies most stridently calling for expansion of H-1B, e.g. Facebook, have tons of money and can hire all the workers they want.”

            No, I do not believe the U turn logic because this is simply a qualitative theory and this is not what happened in reality. “banning foreign workers” is not happening now so this is indeed an unfounded theory.

            I want to show how invalid it is for you to talk about some assumed qualitative theoris(ie: your previous claim that “no foreign workers, US domestic workers can do equally good or even better jobs which have no supporting reality). If you want some hypothetical theory to frame your message, you can always draw any conclusion depending on which side you choose.

            6) It is also quite interesting that you specify facebook. How many companies have financial strength in comparable to facebook? In US, I believe only no more than 50 companies. The number will be even lower because in some other industries, large companies will never consider international students as hireing(ie: Procter Gamble and Shell). And you yourself admit “they hire all the workers as they want”

            Therefore, only Facebook and other a few large companies can hire as many as they want because only these companies can afford hiring of H1b holders(that does not mean they do not hire domestic people).

            Therefore, that creates the illusion that somehow H1b holders are so prevalent but in reality that is not true.

            Continue on next post, I hope you can read carefully before proceeding

            Like

          • A lot of this conversation has become repetitive, a situation I do not wish to worsen, so I’ll make just a few select comments.

            You’ve asked me several times to see both sides of the issue. I contend that I do exactly that. I have no personal stake in the H-1B issue. If it were disbanded tomorrow, it would have no impact on me. Obviously I have strong opinions on the issue — of course I do, after studying it for more than 20 years — but that doesn’t mean that I don’t weigh both sides. I’ve stated clearly here that I strongly support using H-1B for bringing in “the best and the brightest,” and have personally acted on that conviction.

            You brought up the high tuition paid by the foreign students (though often funded by the U.S. government, a fact you failed to mention) as a “benefit.” I replied that most Americans don’t see it that way; they would rather pay higher tuition.

            I know USC very well, having grown up nearby. It’s funny that you think I’d dispute the 24% foreign-student figure as too low; actually, I’m surprised that it’s that high, even though I’m well aware of the fact that USC’s percentage is one of the highest in the nation. But what you didn’t mention is that that the 24% is not uniformly distributed; instead, it’s concentrated mainly in the STEM fields, so the impact there is high. The same is true for H-1Bs; according to the Salzman research, 50% of software jobs are now going to foreign nationals.

            You still seem to be skeptical that the presence of the foreign workers lowers wages. Indeed, this is the aspect of our exchange that seems to bother you the most. If you are truly interested, I urge you to look at the NRC report that I mentioned. NRC is part of the National Academy of Science, the nation’s oldest scientific organization, extremely prestigious, and is typically the body that Congress turns to when it wants major research done on a certain topic. Congress ordered this study in one of its H-1B related bills. The authors of this study included economists from Princeton, NYU, MIT and Bank Boston, and they found that H-1B does suppress wages. And yes, if H-1B were disbanded (which I do NOT advocate), wages WOULD go up; any economist will tell you that.

            You say that it is hard for foreign tech students to find a job in the U.S. Maybe hard to get the type of job that you want, but certainly not hard in general. In all the time I have been dealing with foreign students, and Chinese students in particular, I have NEVER seen a case of a student having to return home who really wanted to stay and work in the U.S. in the end.

            I know that all this has an impact, not only because of the NRC study etc., but also from my decades of personal observation, in which I have repeatedly seen foreign students hired by companies that won’t even give interviews to Americans I know who are just as qualified. I see this happening over and over again. So it’s not just speculation.

            You question why the Cruz/Sessions bill places a flat floor on H-1B salaries, not related to the size of the company. But it should NOT be related to the size of the company, because H-1B should not be used for cheap labor. Please note carefully that current law doesn’t give a “price discount” on H-1Bs for smaller firms either.

            Actually, it is not common practice for tech firms to send much work overseas. As you said, all the big firms do have branches overseas, but these are for building relationships with the local economies and cultures. No major tech firm sends more than a tiny minority of its engineering work abroad.

            You (understandably) did not like my statement that on average the American workers are more talented than the foreign ones, and you called it discrimination. I then referred you to my EPI paper. You now say “I say it is discrimination because you arbitrarily claim there is a disparity of talents between US domestic workers and foreign workers. That is wrong. People’s talents are assessed individually based on assessment.” But of course I was talking about averages, not individuals.

            Concerning NAFSA, I said their data is irrelevant, and explained why. I didn’t address the question of whether their data itself is accurate.

            Like

          • ” conversation has become repetitive,”: it also sounds funny and ironical to me that you do not want to repeat yourself while you are repeating issues that I have already addressed.

            1)”You brought up the high tuition paid by the foreign students (though often funded by the U.S. government, a fact you failed to mention) as a “benefit.” I replied that most Americans don’t see it that way; they would rather pay higher tuition.”

            That is totally wrong and this does not reflect you claim that “you study for more than 20 years on the issue”.

            Only a handful PhD students are funded and most of students come on self-fund. This is the fact and you should not dispute. Otherwise, where Can US universities find money?

            2)”I replied that most Americans don’t see it that way; they would rather pay higher tuition.”:

            Who are the “most American” you talk about. I think people will be happy because lots of funding from international students are used to finance domestic students. I personally know US domestic students who receive financial aid from endowments financed internationally.

            Of course the concerns about international students taking away slots of US domestic students. But US domestic students still hold majority of sits as I mentioned about USC.

            3) You think “24%” is too high, well I think it is a little high but it is not out of boundaries. The reasonable range is 10%-15% and this is the standard norm.

            So you think “this 24%” is unevenly distributed because they are concentrated on STEM fields? There are a lot of sub-categories in STEM fields and I can tell you those people who study STEM fields other than computer science have really little chance to get a job in US market.

            4) “In all the time I have been dealing with foreign students, and Chinese students in particular, I have NEVER seen a case of a student having to return home who really wanted to stay and work in the U.S. in the end.”

            Again you are repeating yourself and I have addressed this point(you do not want a repetitive conversation but you are repeating yourself again).

            You use your observation which may be correct in your case. I am using my observation which is also correct in my case. Therefore, we cannot just judge based on our own observations. The type of work I have found is merely software engineer, nothing special.

            There is no ground for you to say “Foreign students get jobs easily” simply citing your observation. I cannot say
            “Domestic students get jobs more easily” either because both cases exist and this shows how complicated this issue is.

            It again is related to my bottom line argument: I just ask for a fair environment and I support common sense reform but I did not see these voices from the opposing side.

            5) Respond to “You question why the Cruz/Sessions bill places a flat floor on H-1B salaries, not related to the size of the company. But it should NOT be related to the size of the company,, because H-1B should not be used for cheap labor. ”

            So you do not want to question about my second point that it does not reflect region difference? So I assume you agree with me that this arbitrary level does not reflect region difference.

            I agree that H1b should be reformed but it amazes me that you think an arbitrary level is a good reform. If you want H1b to be used for its purpose, there are many better ways to do that: for example, H1b can only be issued for people with US bachelor degrees or above from accredited colleges. Set up a clear wage requirement that reflects at least tirer-2 wage requirement in that specific region, These are much better measures that can at least have a positive impact(I do not say “totally solve the problem”).

            6)”You still seem to be skeptical that the presence of the foreign workers lowers wages”

            It again shows you did not read what I said in previous post, Yes, depressing wage happens in case of addition of H1b labor into the pool. I never deny the negative impact. What I am saying is very clear(based on the link I gave earlier about average wage level in IT industry): even with the “depressing wage”, the average wage level is still at around 100k. You said it is an absolute figure but you cannot deny it is still a good salary level. (In your previous blog post, you mentioned about how only graduates from Stanford and CMU can get salaries at around 100k average). Therefore, the so called “depressing wage” is not as disastrous as people think

            7) I know about NRC and I do believe the merits(at least some) from their study. However, after looking at the report of NRC, their conclusion is h1b holders have effects in depressing wage as they look at the past data. I did not find anything about “if H1b disbanded, wages would go up”? because any prediction based on hypothesis should always be treated with caution(you are a professor and I am shocked that you did not realize that)

            And even if wages would go up with zero foreign worker, what will happen to the total number of jobs? I do not have data to prove it but you should see there are so many uncertainties if there are no foreign workers.

            8)There are also studies showing how H1b brings positive impacts to wage level:
            http://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/just-facts/h-1b-program%E2%80%99s-impact-wages-jobs-and-economy

            I know you will question the merits of this study and you will again claim this study is done by pro immigration groups and should not be trusted(if this logic applies, I also have the ground to say I do not trust studies from the opposing groups because by nature, they will not say a good word)

            But it again shows how complicated this issue is and use your own word in your earlier post, we cannot rely on single study.

            9)”You (understandably) did not like my statement that on average the American workers are more talented than the foreign ones, and you called it discrimination. I then referred you to my EPI paper. You now say “I say it is discrimination because you arbitrarily claim there is a disparity of talents between US domestic workers and foreign workers. That is wrong. People’s talents are assessed individually based on assessment.” But of course I was talking about averages, not individuals.”

            I admit the reputation of H1b holders is spoiled by some bad horses.

            However I did not see average in your previous statement: this is your said “disparity of talents” you did not say average and you are conveying a sense of generalization,

            However, let us stop plating the game of words because this is again related to my bottom line that I do support good reforms to make the system better.

            10)In response to your claim “Concerning NAFSA, I said their data is irrelevant, and explained why. I didn’t address the question of whether their data itself is accurate.”

            Again you did not read my response and again I have to repeat what I said.

            You said “their data is irrelevant” by using your favorite line of “sense of entitlement” which I have refuted(To be honest, I am quite confused that you somehow think this is an excellent refute to my position because if I were you, I would think this “sense of entitlement” argument only shows how unrealistic I am).

            your logic of “sense of entitlement” is saying “without foreign students, US domestic students can bring the same benefits and US domestic employees can perform equally better,

            First of all, this is out of reality, Secondly, using your same logic, I can say I shall be rewarded with the Nobel Prize because if I follow a different path of fate, I can do the same.

            Thirdly, there is a line in the bible “judge people by fruits” and you are judging people by hypothesis.

            11) “Actually, it is not common practice for tech firms to send much work overseas. As you said, all the big firms do have branches overseas, but these are for building relationships with the local economies and cultures. No major tech firm sends more than a tiny minority of its engineering work abroad.”

            Again you are using your own observation which I have already refuted in point No,4

            There is a news report saying Pifizer is going to relocate their headquater to Ireland, So this shows it is possible to move work overseas.

            You may say this is not the IT industry, I can tell you Both Microsoft and Google and Apple have large offices overseas because I worked there. I also recommend you search about aoi apple on google.

            This is again my observation which is contrary to your observation but you should realize it is absolutely possible and practical.

            You may say this only applies to large companies? Well only large companies can afford H1b sponsorship. Most small companies will not bother the tedious and consuming process of h1b petition.

            12) Finally you claim you see both sides of the issue, I do not see this message after I read through your blog posts and It is very clear that your dear followers do not hold this comprehensive viewpoint.

            If I can hear enough reasonable voice from the opposing side, I will not bother arguing with you.

            Unfortunately, it seems I am considered as “arrogant” or “naive” or “ignorant” by your followers and you seem to agree with that. If speaking for the truth from the other side of the issue is “arrogance” or “ignorance”, that clearly shows how misguided people are on the opposing side

            Like

          • Again, I’ll make only a few comments.

            You say, “Only a handful PhD students are funded and most of students come on self-fund. This is the fact and you should not dispute. Otherwise, where Can US
            universities find money?” You are confusing state and federal government. UC Berkeley, which you mentioned, is a California state entity. The federal government funds research, which pays for the tuition of the grad students on the research projects. UC, of course, is delighted with that revenue.There is plenty of data on the number of foreign students funded in that manner. I can refer you to papers on this.

            You asked how I know that Americans don’t like it that the UCs increased the number of foreign students, to bring in more tuition money. I already answered that: when UC decided to increase the number of foreign students, there was a public outcry, and UC later reduced the number in response.

            You misunderstood me regarding the 24% figure at USC. Please read it again.

            I wrote, “In all the time I have been dealing with foreign students, and Chinese students in particular, I have NEVER seen a case of a student having to return home who really wanted to stay and work in the U.S. in the end.” You reply that I am basing that on my own limited experience — an odd thing to say in light of the fact that I have been dealing with grad students for several decades, involving hundreds of students.

            So, you tell us, then. Do you know of ANY cases in which a foreign tech student wanted to stay in the U.S. but was forced to go home?

            The U.S. data on stay rates are well over 90% for the Chinese students, and remember, that includes the ones who returned home because this was their preference.

            You ask why the Cruz/Sessions bill does not account for regional differences in pay. Good question, and one could also ask why not account for occupational differences too? My understanding was that the framers of the bill wanted to prevent all the games that have been played by employers on these two variables.

            You propose,

            I agree that H1b should be reformed but it amazes me that you think an arbitrary level is a good reform. If you want H1b to be used for its purpose, there are many better ways to do that: for example, H1b can only be issued for people with US bachelor degrees or above from accredited colleges. Set up a clear wage requirement that reflects at least tirer-2 wage requirement in that specific region, These are much better measures that can at least have a positive impact(I do not say “totally solve the problem”).

            Those conditions are much too mild, especially the wage level, which should be at least Level III.

            Concerning depressing of wages, you cited a $100K figure. While not necessarily agreeing with that figure, I said it is just an absolute figure. Now you say fine, but it’s high (relative to, say, mean overall U.S. income across all occupations), so that shows wages in tech haven’t been depressed that much. Sorry, but again this fails the 10-year-old child test.

            You say,

            There are also studies showing how H1b brings positive impacts to wage level:
            http://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/just-facts/h-1b-program%E2%80%99s-impa
            +ct-wages-jobs-and-economy

            I know you will question the merits of this study and you will again claim this
            study is done by pro immigration groups and should not be trusted(if this logic applies, I also have the ground to say I do not trust studies from the opposing groups because by nature, they will not say a good word)

            I know all of these studies, and have extensively analyzed them in this blog. In every case, the researchers are funded by the tech industry, e.g. Microsoft in the case of Brookings. As far as I know, Salzman et al on the other side don’t get a penny from anyone. Now do you see my point?

            I stand by my statement that the big tech companies only ship a small percentage of their work overseas. Major companies, such as Microsoft, have said so, and it jibes with what people at those firms tell me.

            Like

          • I found that your refute is merely saying :”hey, there is the other case that is contrary to what you said” while you never want to directly dispute the facts I say.

            That indeed does tell something.

            1) “The federal government funds research, which pays for the tuition of the grad students on the research projects.”

            Who do the research projects? Students on PhD programs. This does not include the vast majority of master and undergraduate students.

            There are cases in which a few undergraduate students and master students may undertake some Research Assistant jobs. Unfortunately, these research assistant jobs are very limited and the wage from these jobs is a penny compared to the tuition fee.

            I trust you do have data about how foreign students are funded in this way, but how much is that money? how “plenty” is compared to the total population of international students.

            2) Also it is interesting to talk about your example: UC decided to increase the number of foreign students, there was a public outcry, and UC later reduced the number in response.

            See? UC saied “reduce the number”, they did not say stop recruitment of international students for ever.

            Again, you do not dispute the actual proportion of international students in US university.

            regarding 24%, i think I understand very correctly: you think 24% is too high and you think 24% is unevenly distributed.

            I have already addressed these two points and I am not going to repeat myself.

            3)“In all the time I have been dealing with foreign students, and Chinese students in particular, I have NEVER seen a case of a student having to return home who really wanted to stay and work in the U.S. in the end”

            Are you contradicting yourself by firstly saying there are a large influx of international students, and then you think “dealing with hundreds of students” can then capture the big picture?

            4) “So, you tell us, then. Do you know of ANY cases in which a foreign tech student wanted to stay in the U.S. but was forced to go home?”

            I have of course plenty of cases just like I know plenty of students who can stay.

            I am not going to specify names because you do not know and there are no way for you to tell whether my stories are true.

            Again my point is very clear, I can use my observation to tell a conclusion that is opposite to your observation. You can do in the same way.

            Put it aside, even what you said is true, “Chinese students in particular, I have NEVER seen a case of a student having to return home who really wanted to stay and work in the U.S. in the end”

            I guess they stay because they find jobs after passing strict interview process.

            I know it is related to your claim that “companies have preference for international students”.

            I have already refuted it in my previous post and I am not going to repeat myself.

            5)”The U.S. data on stay rates are well over 90% for the Chinese students, and remember, that includes the ones who returned home because this was their preference.”

            This is related to my point: “No foreigner is entitled to stay but you cannot deprive people’s freedom to pursue dreams based on merit”.

            If you think it is related to what you claim :Foreign students have unfair advantage. Again I support common sense reform and I do not think “foreign students have unfair advantage: is applied universally.

            6)My understanding was that the framers of the bill wanted to prevent all the games that have been played by employers on these two variables.

            I can say in the other way, the framers know more moderate measures will not be appealing enough to their audience and therefore they want more radical measures. This also ensures the bill is not going to be passed.

            7)Those conditions are much too mild, especially the wage level, which should be at least Level III.

            “Much too mild”? then we have a extremely different understanding of the extent to which this should be done.

            If you think it is too mild, I also think the arguments from the opposing side are too radical and are based on negative emotions instead of actual economic issues.

            8)I know all of these studies, and have extensively analyzed them in this blog. In every case, the researchers are funded by the tech industry, e.g. Microsoft in the case of Brookings. As far as I know, Salzman et al on the other side don’t get a penny from anyone. Now do you see my point?

            I know “you know all of studies”. But I stand with my point: this is always a complicated issue and if you look at different studies, you can always draw different conclusions.

            9) regarding the wage level, .”Sorry, but again this fails the 10-year-old child test.”

            I am not sure why you keep using “10-year-old child” in your refute. I guess you are referring to your claim
            that “without foreign workers, the wage is even higher based on supply and demand”, I think I have already refuted that claim and again sorry to be blunt, you are playing the role of 10-year-old child by holding such a black-white viewpoint and an idealistic hypothesis.

            You may say the NRC report(you love this report) also holds this opinion: unfortunately, that is not true. The NRC report says H1b has effects in wage depression by putting together the H1b numbers and wage level in It industry together.

            As a student in machine learning, I do not think they have done quantitative analysis to exclude other confounding factors

            It shocks me that you just believe such a correlation because there was a claim that “each h1b job creates 2.4 domestic jobs” which was refuted by people like you because correlation has nothing to do with cause-effect relation.

            Also, I do not find any finding in that NRC saying wage level will increase without h1b.

            Maybe I skim and scann and omit some key conclusions but again any prediction based on hypothetical condition is always treated with caution.

            10)I stand by my statement that the big tech companies only ship a small percentage of their work overseas. Major companies, such as Microsoft, have said so, and it jibes with what people at those firms tell me.

            Again, if we use our own observations, we can draw different conclusions.

            That is why I encourage you to have a comprehensive viewpoint on this issue.

            You said you had but your dear followers do not think in that way.

            Like

          • Also, let me talk about a more fundamental thing.

            1)Throughout the conversation, you are talking about evidence that you have found that is contrary to my side of arguments.

            I trust your findings and those evidence you presented. However, I can also find evidence and facts that are contrary to what you said.

            This will never be resolved because we talk from different perspectives,

            2) However, both you and I agree there should be meaningful reforms. The difference is how we deliver the reforms in which way.

            3) I think there is a huge problem in your message and approach.

            When one of your followers Cathy accuse me of being ignorant and arrogant, you praise Cathy by saying

            “Very eloquently and cogently stated, Cathy.”

            First of all, I am not quite angry about the personal attacks thrown at me because I expected that to happen although I think what Cathy said is wrong.

            I have affirmed that No foreigner is entitled to stay and what I oppose is that some people want to deprive us of freedom to pursue dreams based on merit. It appears Cathy did not read carefully about my arguments.

            What Cathy said is a perfect example of what I am always frustrated about people on the opposing side: they do not want to propose meaningful reforms that are realistic and can be acceptable, They are simply expressing anger and spread venom to international students, And they want to portray international students as job killers and some parasites feeding on their well being.

            That is the position I totally reject.

            4) From your praise “Very eloquently and cogently stated, Cathy.” I think it is revealing about your true colors.

            Maybe indeed you recognize both sides of the issue and you indeed recognize the importance of keeping best and most talented as you said in your previous post.

            However, you are still purposefully advocating only the negative side of this issue because the negative side of this issue is more appealing to your audience.

            In this case, you are no better than the industry lobbyists who only promote the positive side of the issue.

            What is even more vile is that your message is preying on fear and hatred of people who believe somehow Indians and Chinese will take over the country and white American will be a minority.

            This may not be your true intention but what you have done directly causes these consequences.

            5) The final result is that international students will side with Big business and industry lobbyists to block reform bill, People like you have to side with your base who spill venom and hatred.

            Then there will always be gridlock and no good change can be done and problems in H1b and OPT are still prevalent. This causes a vicious cycle.

            6) Thus, we touch the core of the issue: if you think protecting US workers is a movement of justice, you really need to think about how your can best deliver your message and change your approach.

            No movement of justice can be achieved by appealing to negative emotions.

            PS: you claimed you studied the h1b issue for 20 years. And why throughout the 20 years, your study did not cause positive changes that can balance between keeping the best and protecting US workers?

            That should really tell something deep and profound. You should really think about that.

            Like

          • I encourage you instead of engaging in the back-forth with me(I am happy to but I do not think I can persuade you because you have already established a very fixed set of philosophy regarding the whole issue and of course you cannot convince me either)

            I would like to ask you to really think about my second last post about my fundamental observation over your approach and message.

            This is the summary of my core message to you.

            Of course, you may deny or you may criticize me of being arrogant(in this case, I can only infer that I am telling the undeniable truth that is just so unsettling and uncomfortable that you simply do not want to recognize because it is different from your fixed set of ideas established through your 20 year study).

            You do not have to respond to me but it will be a good thing that you actually jump out of the circle and really fulfill you previous claim that “you did have a comprehensive viewpoint of the two sides of this issue)

            Like

          • I give you a lot of credit for trying to see both sides of the issue, and by the way for being a clever, quick-witted debater. 🙂

            However, what I really liked about Cathy’s comments is that she pointed out that your analysis is self-serving. You agree that H-1B is flawed, but you contend that there are good uses of the H-1B program — and your definition of “good uses” exactly coincides with your own circumstances. 🙂 This apparently means you are currently, or were recently, on OPT; drawing a salary of Level II; and have a Master’s degree from a U.S. university (not a PhD, as you don’t realize that research grants pay the nonresident tuition, IN ADDITION to the regular stipend). So these are the “good uses,” in your view, not very objective.

            Your latest postings don’t cover any new ground, best to just let them go. 够了 🙂

            But there is one point concerning statistical reasoning that I should respond to, in order to be helpful to you. You write, “As a student in machine learning, I do not think they have done quantitative analysis to exclude other confounding factors.” I’m glad that you and I share a field! But you also say, “Are you contradicting yourself by firstly saying there are a large influx of international students, and then you think ‘dealing with hundreds of students, can then capture the big picture?” This is a very, very common error in statistical reasoning, in which people incorrectly think that n/N needs to be large, where n is the sample size and N is the population size. You will see this error a lot in the coming months of presidential election season, where people ask, “How can an election poll be accurate with a sample of only 1200 voters, when there are more than 100 million voters in the nation?” I don’t have space here to explain why it is only n that matters, not n/N, but since this is such a fundamental issue in your field, I urge you to look into it. We could discuss this in private e-mail if you wish.

            Good luck to you. Thanks for an interesting exchange.

            Like

          • It seems we still have a gap of understanding.

            1)You said “Your latest postings don’t cover any new ground, best to just let them go”

            Well on the contrary, I think this is my core message.

            All your evidence and studies you cited including the NRC report, the youtube link you posted and so on:

            However, all these studies you cited do not harm my argument. Because from the beginning, I realize there are serious problems and I support real and meaningful reforms.
            I never deny their validity although I do believe the information is incomplete and only emphasize the negative side.

            The problem I have with you is that while you claim “you hold your comprehensive view point and you do believe US should retain best and brightest”, I do not really see this message through your blog posts and look at all the comments by your audience, I believe they all think somehow every problem can be solved if they are no foreigner in US.

            One example: You wrote a blog post to criticize a Chinese student in Rice University of being “ill informed” because that Chinese student wants to advocate for OPT extension.

            First, from what you wrote, you are trying to portray this Chinese as someone who thinks he/she is privileged and are entitled for this OPT program(again, you convey your favorite line about “sense of entitlement”).

            If you really want to cast a light on the OPT extension rule, I do not think this blog post serves this purpose because most people read this post are people in your circle who already think the primary culprit of all problems is international students.

            This blog post only inflames more hatred and anger without doing anything good,

            This is a very bad way of moving a conversation forward and I assume you do want to deliver meaningful changes to the system.

            My only request is that you really need to restructure your narrative.

            This is again related to what I say before: “if there are enough reasonable voice from the opposing side, I will not start this conversation

            2) “and your definition of “good uses” exactly coincides with your own circumstances”

            By definition I am a typical international student therefore it will of course coincide with my case, This is not self-serving but it is about my identity.(one caution, I am indeed a phd student so you are wrong in this regard)

            Also, I can tell you most of Federal Funding about research has very clear provision: US citizens only and therefore, I again disagree about your claim that “federal funding finances the non resident tuition”
            I think no one can be absolutely objective regarding this issue but I have already tried my best.

            The real problem with your praise about those personal attacks is that you seem to also believe I am somehow arrogant and ignorant .It is very evident with your quote “10-year-old test”, “you are talking to yourself”, “this is wasteful”

            So it seems you are shocked and annoyed that someone would dare to speak against your argument because you believe you are the expert with 20 year old study and your audience have always followed your line of thinking. I agree you may have some degree of authenticity but again I think there are serious problems in your overall message.

            thanks very much

            Like

          • You say,

            And by the way, thanks for bring the statistic error up. Yes you are right and I forgot about that. But again, you should again treat statistics with caution. There is a famous quote: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

            Yes! Glad to see we agree. I’d add that in addition to the “lies,” there is the even larger problem of fundamental misunderstanding of concepts, even basic ones; see for example my posting at https://normsaysno.wordpress.com/2015/12/01/noble-and-ignoble-goals-in-immigration-policy/

            But your example of Obama vs. Romney is not quite right. Polls can only show what people tell the pollsters. Some people lie to pollsters. Or they change their minds at the last minute, when they enter the voting booth; in fact, in 2008 some people thought that Obama might fal victim to the Bradley Effect.

            You write,

            The problem I have with you is that while you claim “you hold your comprehensive view point and you do believe US should retain best and brightest”, I do not really see this message through your blog posts and look at all the comments by your audience, I believe they all think somehow every problem can be solved if they are no foreigner in US. One example: You wrote a blog post to criticize a Chinese student in Rice University of being “ill informed” because that Chinese student wants to advocate for OPT extension.

            I am very sure Ms. Tang is uninformed, at least if the newspaper quoted her correctly. Unlike you, she seems to have no inkling of the fact that H-1B/OPT is often abused. But that doesn’t necessarily imply that she is not “the best and the brightest” in her field; I have no idea whether she is or not. Perhaps you can invite her to join this conversation?

            In this conversation, I’ve mentioned more than once specific cases in which I acted on my conviction that the nation gains by the immigration of “the best and the brightest.” I’ve stated this many times in my blog and my prior e-newsletter. Tell me, please, how often should I mention it to be sufficiently clear? Once a month? Every week? In every blog posting?

            You say,

            By definition I am a typical international student therefore it will of course coincide with my case, This is not self-serving but it is about my identity.(one caution, I am indeed a phd student so you are wrong in this regard)

            Also, I can tell you most of Federal Funding about research has very clear provision: US citizens only and therefore, I again disagree about your claim +that “federal funding finances the non resident tuition”

            It may be very natural for you to define “good uses” of H-1B to coincide with your own situation, but that is still self-serving, right?

            You are incorrect on the issue of federal research funding. You seem to be confusing research funding with fellowship funding; the latter does typically have a nationality restriciton, but not the former. Anyone reading this can check by calling their local university. Note carefully that this doesn’t mean that EVERY foreign student on a grant gets his/her tuition paid (I only said “often”); if you didn’t have your tuition paid, it may be because your adviser had only limited funding, or had a priority set that unfortunately didn’t favor you.

            Like

          • 1)I do not know that specific Chinese student and I do not know how she really thinks.

            But still I believe you portray her as some arrogant student who thinks she is privileged to some entitlement and that will only inflame hate and anger in your audience. I know you have written a lot about OPT program and that should be more than enough. Why are you so sensitive about people who advocate for something that you oppose and why are you so eager to deliver a negative image of an “ill-informed” and “arrogant” Chinese student to your audience?

            It is again related to my previous point that as we talk from different perspectives, the conflicts will never be resolved and you should not try to resolve it in your favored way.

            Maybe it is my subjective assessment and excuse me if what i said is not what you intended

            2)I applaud that you do emphasize the other side but again I do not see your followers have the same opinion and I do not hear enough reasonable voice from the opposing side. So you should do more

            3)Regarding your link, that does not contradict what I said. You say it is inconsistent with American values for importing cheap foreign labor.

            I agree because I support common sense reform to create a fair environment, However, I want to add that it is inconsistent with American values and naive and ignorant and arrogant for many people on the opposing side to think that somehow if there is no foreign student, every problem will be solved.

            4)regarding the research funding, I again think we are in an endless back-forth because we talk from our own perspectives.

            I have mentioned in my previous reply that in most cases, only Phd Students will receive research funding.
            There are a few Research Assistant positions that are offered to masters and undergradues, However they are really limited and the money obtained is really just a penny compared to the whole tuition.

            Also you should note: if what you said is correct that “most” or “often” foreign students are funded indirectly via US government. Why there are overwhelming influx of foreign students as you admitted?

            If the government funding is enough, I do not think US universities will have so many incentives to absorb foreign students:

            Here is the reason:

            I think you should agree that for research funding from Government, there are a lot of restrictions about how they are used.

            US universities want more foreign students who are self-funded because they want money at their own hand. That is why there are influx of foreign students and that is also why most of foreign students except some phds are self funded.

            Like

          • Actually, I signaled that the discussion had gone on long enough, but you’re still posting. That’s OK, as long as you bring in new points.

            You say, about Ms. Tang in the Rice article,

            I do not know that specific Chinese student and I do not know how she really thinks.

            But still I believe you portray her as some arrogant student who thinks she is privileged to some entitlement and that will only inflame hate and anger in your audience. I know you have written a lot about OPT program and that should be more than enough. Why are you so sensitive about people who advocate for something that you oppose and why are you so eager to deliver a negative image of an “ill-informed” and “arrogant” Chinese student to your audience?

            Remember, in the Rice newspaper article, Ms. Tang was quoted as saying that the Americans opposed to the OPT are “uninformed.” So I said she herself is uninformed, and (again, at least from the article quote), it is clearly the case.

            What Ms. Tang doesn’t understand (and you don’t seem to either) is that many Americans have been severely harmed by the H-1B program. When you criticize people — readers of this blog, comments on the DHS OPT Web page, people who write on the NumbersUSA Web page etc. — you ought to be much more tolerant.

            And part of your being more tolerant would be for you to recognize that the category you define for “good uses” of H-1B, defined conveniently around your own personal qualifications, is not necessarily “good.” There are in fact Americans who are passed over for jobs while foreign workers with qualifications like yours are hired, while the Americans don’t even get interviews from those same employers. Not only do many of those American who make remarks like “send them home” FEEL that they are harmed by your claimed “good uses” of H-1B, I have personally SEEN it, many times, as I’ve explained.

            You say,

            I applaud that you do emphasize the other side but again I do not see your followers have the same opinion and I do not hear enough reasonable voice from the opposing side. So you should do more.

            Believe me, it’s no fun to write a blog where all the readers agree with me. That’s why I welcome your input, and have allowed you to post much longer comments than I would prefer. (I’ve asked several of my blog readers to be briefer in the past.)

            You say that my link, given in my last post regarding faulty quantitative reasoning, was the wrong link. It indeed was the wrong link. The correct one is https://normsaysno.wordpress.com/2015/07/07/innumeracy-in-politics-alleged-murder-in-sf-by-an-unauthorized-immigrant-etc/

            You now appear to have abandoned your claim in your last post that only U.S. citizens can be employed on federal research grants. Good, but you are still wrong in claiming that the student must pay the tuition from his/her research salary. I explained before that this is just false. The student has the tuition paid in ADDITION to the salary. In other words, if the basic salary is $x and the nonresident tuition (in the case of public universities) is $nr, then for an American student $x is spent from the grant, while for the foreign student $x + $nr is spent.

            This is not a minor issue, because of your emphasis that Americans benefit from the nonresident tuition paid by the foreign students. As I said, Americans don’t want that “benefit” in the first place, and that is even more true when one accounts for the other ways in which the foreign students may avoid paying tuition. For example, many universities, including my own, exempt Teaching Assistants from paying tuition. You say that the Master’s students don’t get research positions; actually, some do, but MANY become TAs. At many universities, again including my own, foreign PhD students are exempt from paying nonresident tuition once they advance to candidacy status, so taxpayers must make up the deficit. No question about it, a lot of taxpayer money is going to paying for foreign student tuition.

            You say, “If the government funding is enough, I do not think US universities will have so many incentives to absorb foreign students.” First, as I said, universities run by state governments are happy to take tuition money from the federal government. But in addition, you are confusing the Bachelor’s and graduate levels. The big controversy that arose when UC said it would admit more foreign students was at the Bachelor’s level, while most of the foreign students hired by U.S. industry have a graduate degree.

            Having said that, I will note a disturbing recent trend, in which universities are “selling” special Master’s degrees that apparently are aimed at self-funded foreign students, and with lower admissions standards. I believe we will see more and more of this, and your claim about the “benefits” of foreign student tuition will more and more be true, though again, Americans won’t find that to be a “benefit.”

            Like

          • I also agree the conversation is too long and you do not have to respond to my response on this forum

            1)”many Americans have been severely harmed by the H-1B program”

            I think I have said numerous times that I never deny the serious problems and I support protection of US workers but should we allow anger to dominate the conversation?

            You seem to oppose Donald Trump’s ban on all Muslims so you should know anger is not a good way of moving the agenda forward

            The same word “tolerate” should be applied in my case. I am strongly opposed to people who think h1b holders and students on OPT are job killers and parasites feeding on well beings of American citizens.

            Therefore, we stand on equal grounds and we are both guilty of being “in tolerate” and meanwhile we both deserve understanding from the other side.

            2) regarding “good uses” of H-1B

            I think we again return to your claim that :US companies exclude American citizens in favor of H1b holders

            I have addressed your claim and I do not want to repeat myself.

            3)thanks for allowing me to post long comments. As I said, you do not have to respond to this post and I guess this shall be my last long post

            4)”Good, but you are still wrong in claiming that the student must pay the tuition from his/her research salary. I explained before that this is just false.”

            I say it from my observation of course you say it from your own observation. Which means both of us can be correct because we live in different institutions and we have different life.

            From my opinion, there are a few positions that can cover everything(tuition + salary) but this is extremely limited in resources and competition is very intense.

            There is no way that these cases can be described as “often” or “most”

            And by the way, it is interesting to note: for example if you do look at the comments from international students under OPT new rule(I guess you did)

            Many are saying OPT allows them to get jobs and earn salaries to pay for their tuition.

            See, many of them pay their tuition instead of being a free rider on government research funding.

            5)Americans don’t want that “benefit” in the first place,

            Of course they will hold this view because this benefit is implicit and people will not feel it unless suddenly it was taken away.

            6)For example, many universities, including my own, exempt Teaching Assistants from paying tuition. You say that the Master’s students don’t get research positions; actually, some do, but MANY become TAs. At many universities, again including my own, foreign PhD students are exempt from paying nonresident tuition, so taxpayers must make up the deficit. No question about it, a lot of taxpayer money is going to paying for foreign student tuition.

            I can tell you this is utterly wrong in my school. TA will never get exempt. The only way TA will be exempted is that TAs are Phd students. I never met any international student in Master or Undergraduate degree who is exempted simply because he or she takes a TA position.

            As you are a professor yourself, you should know how intense the competition is for a faculty member to get research funding. That is why application for PHD program is most intense and that is why only a limited number of applicants will finally get the fund to be enrolled in PHD programs.

            So foreign PHDs are exempted but the pool of PHD foreigners is much smaller compared to Masters and Undergraduates.

            7)”I said it would admit more foreign students was at the Bachelor’s level, while most of the foreign students hired by U.S. industry have a graduate degree.”

            I do not think it is true to say most of the foreign students are on graduate degree, I will encourage you to check the number of foreign undergraduate students in US over years which have shown a huge increase in recent 5-10 years.

            here is the link:http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2014/11/17/number-of-international-college-students-continues-to-climb

            8)you are right about “selling” special Master’s degrees that apparently are aimed at self-funded foreign students,

            Actually that is why there have been influx of international students in the recent 10-15 years.

            By the way, the influx of international students did not happen until early 2000s.

            Again, it is true that American people do not view it as a benefit because the pain will only be felt when this is taken away.

            This is my personal hotmail: korantshi@hotmail.com if you want to further your conversation

            Like

          • Concerning the question of whether TAs at the Master’s level are exempt from tuition, anyone reading this can check with any university (research-oriented, PhD-granting) in their own region. And in terms of “$x + $nr”, i.e. the fact that the grants pay the tuition IN ADDITION to the regular salary, they can ask the local university about this and also look at the NSF grant application Web page.

            Your link to a statistic on the growing number of foreign students at the undergrad level is completely irrelevant to my point.

            Glad to see we agree (?) on the “selling” of Master’s degrees.

            Like

          • Just two points: the use of statistic about increasing number of foreign students at undergraduate level is a response to your claim “most of the foreign students hired by U.S. industry have a graduate degree.”

            I am not sure why you say “hired by US industry” because the focus is on whether foreign students are most or often funded by US government. And It is questionable about which degree level most international students fall when they are hired by industry.

            Final point: I believe what you said is true from your observation. The fact that we can draw opposite conclusions from our respective angles is a perfect illustration that you cannot use “most” or “often” to say foreign students are funded by US government

            Like

          • Why do I focus on the foreign students hired by the industry, you ask. Isn’t that the central topic of this entire discussion, e.g. OPT? And the industry itself has said that it hires foreign students mainly at the graduate level.

            As I said, readers of this blog can check on the issues of tuition remission for TAs on their own. I just checked my own school, UC Davis, the University of Illinois, CMU and Stanford, and indeed they all do have this policy.

            Like

          • 1)In this specific context, I am addressing whether foreign students are self-funded or they are funded in some way by US government. So IT industry is not related here in this context.

            The reason that I talk about the increasing number of international students in US under undergraduate program is because you and I should both admit except for a very few Ivy leagues, undergraduate students cannot receive scholarship and it is almost impossible to receive some research funding to cover the whole tuition.

            2)Regarding the “policy”, I can tell you I am an alumni of CMU. My department policy is this: yes, there are research assistant positions that cover salaries and tuition. However they are mostly only available to Phd Students with a limited number. For master students and undergraduate students, only in rare instances, this can be possible.

            You should how stringent government research funding is right now and competition for funding is always so intense that in no way it will be a universal case.

            Like

          • And by the way, thanks for bring the statistic error up. Yes you are right and I forgot about that. But again, you should again treat statistics with caution.

            There is a famous quote: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

            Interestingly you mentioned about presidential election. Well I can give you an example about why polls may not give a good prediction, in 2012, in the final 2 weeks of presidential election, all major polls show that Romney and Obama run in a tie-to-tie battle within the margin of error:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

            Of course there are 1-2 percentage difference depending on which poll but you should know these polls always have 2-3 percentage error.

            What happen next? Obama won by a margin of 4% which is actually a large win throughout historical data.

            Like

          • 1)In response to your claim “in your experience there are firms that do not hire foreign students; I don’t know why you mention this, because I already agreed that there are some.”

            The reason that I cite my experience is not because I want to say No companies have preference to foreign students. I want to say is :if we use our own observation, we can draw totally contrary conclusions and both can be correct at least in our cases.

            What I argue has been consistent is that you should look at both sides of issue. It seems that you also admit that but I do not know you have framed this comprehensive view on this issue through your blog posts. And I do not see your dear followers have a comprehensive viewpoint of the issue. That is why I want a conversation with you.

            2)You talked about how biased NAFSA report is (By the way, I know the full name of NAFSA and I know you will respond by saying NAFSA is biased because of the nature of its work).

            But the nature of organization matters, then I will also raise doubt about reports from the opposing side because by nature, they will not say a good word about international students.

            It is interesting to you did not debate about the actual data of NAFSA report, Instead you claim that without international students, except tuition fee, most benefits will bring if the equal number of “otherwise” US domestic students can fill the positions.

            You are using the same logic from your calim”without H1b or OPT holders, there will be some other US domestic workers that can do the same or better jobs”, First of all, this type of logic is out of reality and secondly, using the same logic, I can say I should be rewarded with Nobel Prize because if I underwent a different path of fate, I can get the same accomplishments.

            You always want to use the term “sense of entitlement”. Well the so called sense of entitlement happens when people want rewards for work they have not done. Therefore, this claim is not true because H1b and OPT holders have done real and meaningful work.

            3) The major problem of the Cruz and Sessions bill is firstly it sets up an arbitrary salary value which ignores the companies’ size and different income levels in different areas(you also admit only companies like facebook have the money). Also, it prohibits anyone but a handful of Phds to get H1b, I do not think it is realistic.

            4)In response to
            “You raised the standard industry lobbyist argument that without H-1Bs, firms would move the jobs overseas.”

            You also admit it is an industry standard claim and why it is standard ? because it is common practice.

            “You now reply that they don’t do so now because they don’t have to — you’re begging the question.”

            So the only way that you can refute me is by raising the issue about the rhetoric? Even if I am begging the question, I am stating the true or is truth so cruel and cold that you do not want to admit?

            By the way, the problem of L1 issue does not help your case. The L1 issue perfectly shows why “ban” and “prohibit” will not work because companies will find loopholes if you ban the programs.

            You said “you never advocate ban”, Well your dear followers in this forum do not think in this way and I can tell you if there is enough reasonable voice from the opposing side, I will never start such a conversation now.

            5)”I had stated regarding the foreign worker programs, “This has HURT the economy, not helped it as you think, because of the disparity in talent between the two groups.” You now call this “discrimination,” but I ask you to look at my EPI paper and its references.”

            I say it is discrimination because you arbitrarily claim there is a disparity of talents between US domestic workers and foreign workers.

            That is wrong. People’s talents are assessed individually based on assessment. You cannot say US domestic workers are more talented than foreign workers(I cannot say the other way around either).

            However, throughout your conversation, you repeat this one-sided argument for too many times

            For The EPI paper you mentioned, if the paper says US domestic students are more talented than international students. I will not trust that paper. Even the paper does not say that, then you are contradicting yourself.

            Like

          • It seems that your followers start to accuse me of “arrogance” and “ignorance”.

            It also appears that you agree with @Cathy that I have a sense of arrogance and ignorance.

            I do not know where it comes because my points are based on substance and issue-oriented.

            Using your words: “have a productive conversation”, these personal attacks are not acceptable.

            I can only infer that because I speak out the cold and cruel truth of the other side of the issue, that sounds quite unacceptable to you and your followers.If that is the case, live with it whether you like it or not

            Like

          • Finally, there is actually a fundamental observation about the whole set of your ideas, You seem to stick to a nationalism agenda as you believe US can do equally well or better without people from other countries.

            The problem of nationalism(ie: anti-globalization) is that with advance in technology, human capital, information capital and financial capital can flow freely all over the world. This is the trend that no one can resist. That means it is more difficult for nationalists to oppose effects of globalization.

            Whether you like it or not, that is the sad fact from your perspective and you have to accept it and the only way is to achieve a balance or a middle ground

            Like

          • Remember, you are my fellow nationalist. You agree that there should be limitations on immigration. The only thing we disagree on is where to draw that line.

            What I said earlier today, and have been saying for years, is that our policy be limited to giving work permits or green cards to “the best and the brightest,” because this benefits the U.S. I’ve acted on that conviction many times. For example, within the last year I have urged a Silicon Valley employer to hire a certain student from China, who is highly creative, and wrote a letter to DHS in support of another employer’s hiring someone from Britain on an O-1 visa. I have two faculty colleagues, one from China and another from India, who I urged my department to hire because I considered them brilliant.

            The rise of globalization comes from the source you already identified — the greedy, selfish actions of Big Business.

            Like

          • the rise of globalization is due to technology advance that connects different parts in the world. Big business are greedy in nature and we cannot get rid of them. The only way is that we should achieve a balance.

            I do not oppose nationalism but I oppose unbounded nationalism. If your examples are correct, then we are the same page of creating a good immigration system that awards talents and punishes free riders.

            However, one major frustration I have is that those people on the opposing side only want to promote their hatred instead of trying to solve the problem

            Like

          • Also you can look at the statistics from the labor department about unemployment in Information Industry in United States:http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes151133.htm

            You will see no annual wage is below 100K, it shows your argument that people in H1b and OPT depress wages and hurt US domestic workers is not valid

            Also, regarding you claim that “companies will exclude US citizens from hiring process”, here is the evidence shows that you are wrong: if you have an linkedin account, just search under “Job” category with keyword: “US citizens only”, Last time I check, there are 3500+ posts. If what you said is true, I should have found ZERO

            Like

          • Sorry to be blunt, but even a 10-year-old would immediately see the flaw in your argument regarding the $100K figure. Citing an absolute salary says nothing about what that salary would be without the massive swelling of the labor pool by foreign workers. And one doesn’t need to have taken any economics courses to know about the law of supply and demand. And in that connection, I will request here, for (at least) the THIRD time, you address my point about the NSF report that advocated flooding the labor market with foreign workers.

            Concerning “U.S. citizens” only: First, I never said that all companies hire foreign workers for the immobility. I did say that many do, especially the big Silicon Valley firms. And there is a very interesting example of that — Cisco — which was exposed as running a FAKE “U.S. citizens and permanent residents only” ad for the purposes of EXCLUDING Americans, in the green card process. You should view those LinkedIn jobs (many of which are fake anyway) in that context.

            I urge you to watch the YouTube video, very edifying.

            Like

          • 1)Regarding the NSF report, I have already addressed it if you do carefully look at what I said in my previous post. I never deny the negative side but the NSF report about influx of foreign students ignores the economic benefits international students bring to the US economy and US high education system:
            here is the link you can look at: http://www.nafsa.org/_/file/_/eis2014/usa.pdf

            2)You said ” Citing an absolute salary says nothing about what that salary would be without the massive swelling of the labor pool by foreign workers”

            If I understand correctly, you are saying without foreign labor, the wage will be even higher than 100k?

            I am also sorry to be blunt but your argument does not reflect a serious scholar’s view point.
            I did not find any study that performs some simulation to predict what wage level will be if there is no foreign labor in the US domestic market. If you have some valid source, I am happy to look at it. However, even if there is some study, any simulation based on hypothesis is always questionable at best.

            It seems interesting that you try to use the law of supply and demand to justify that “without foreign labor, the wage will be even higher than 100k?”

            Use your own word:of “10-year-old”, I will say only a 10-year-old without taking serious economic courses will hold such a simplified viewpoint. If you do take economic coursework, did your teacher warn you about “free market principle in theory” vs “free market principle in reality”, the so called “invisible hand” behind the supply and demand principle is imperfect and throughout history, a lot of economists have criticized the over simplified principle of supply and demand.

            If you want to do some qualitative analysis by using the principle of supply and demand, I can also use the same qualitative logic and draw a different conclusion

            No foreign workers->US companies have to search for US domestic labor force->wage increase because the pool is redued->fewer companies have willingness to hire because fewer companies can afford higher wage-> reduced jobs opportunities for US domestic labor force

            See, if you use some qualitative theory, you can always draw any conclusion depending on which side you choose.

            I do not want to educate you as you seem to be at least 30 years older than I am. So yes, I may be a “10-year-old” in your eyes based on physical standards.
            You surely have more experience than I have. But I do not think you are serious to use the principle of supply and demand.

            3)”Cisco — which was exposed as running a FAKE “U.S. citizens and permanent residents only” ad for the purposes of EXCLUDING Americans”:

            You are using one single observation and this does not justify the overall picture.

            First, I never said that all companies hire foreign workers for the immobility. I did say that many do, especially the big Silicon Valley firms.”

            So you are using your own experience? Then I can also use my experience to say the contrary. Myself and I have many friends who are international students. When they seek jobs in IT industry, we are frequently rejected because we are not US citizens and many US domestic students get jobs because they do not worry about work authorization.

            Here is the point: I admit some US company indeed exclude US citizens unfairly but what you argue over the conversation is totally focused on your own observation regarding only one negative side of the issue.

            4) It is interesting that you seem to highlight large Silicon Valley Firms in comparison to other “normal” companies in IT industry.

            Large Silicon Valley seem to hire H1b holders because they can afford all the explicit and implicit costs with lawyers to file H1b petitions. I personally have a lot of US domestic IT professionals working with me and the number of foreign employees on h1b / OPT in my company is around 600 compared to the overall size of around 50000. Immobility may be an advantage but this advantage is overly exaggerated. If you are the recruiter, should you hire people based on whether they can do the jobs first instead of whether the candidate has the ability to transfer?

            By the way, H1b holders are not totally immobile and transfer is possible as long as the new company is also willing to sponsor H1b or the current H1b is still valid. I personally transferred once and I did not see any immobility.

            5)”You should view those LinkedIn jobs (many of which are fake anyway) in that context.”

            So you think linkedin jobs cannot trusted? If you hold this opinion, then I have nothing to say but I can tell most people do not agree with you.

            Also, you can search “h1b” as keyword in job category and last time I did, there were only around 1300 records showing up. Do you say they are fake as well? When an international student searches for job, the first thing he or she looks at is to see whether there is h1b sponsorship.

            A job post that does not mention h1b sponsorship will definitely be skipped.

            Therefore, if a company wants to use h1b holder to use some advantages, they have to specify h1b sponsorship in their job post

            Like

          • You talk about age advantage for young STEM workers? That is true age may be an advantage but this is something you can never avoid. As I said, if you ban all foreigners into US, there will still be age advantage for young workers in certain cases. If you think addition of H1b and or OPT holders will increase this age advantage, let me say this: is US a capitalistic society? If yes, then it is legitimate for businesses to place profit at top and hire people base on profit maximization. Also, if the free market principle holds, then labor should move freely without restrictions. Older people with age disadvantage should take their personal responsibility to compensate by their own skills and experience.

            It seems to me that you welcome some restrictions upon how companies hire people. This will never be successful

            Like

          • You shouldn’t talk about people whom you don’t know.

            Let me tell you something about Roy Beck, the founder of NumbersUSA. When his kids were young, he chose to live in a poor black part of DC, so that his children would understand poverty, racism and the struggles of the oppressed. I wonder whether you would do such a thing.

            If H-1B and OPT were abolished, you ask whether older Americans would be hired instead. Here is an easy way to see that the answer is yes: Suppose all imported cards were banned from the U.S.; would people who loved the Japanese cars (I am one such person) simply stop buying cars? Of course not; we still have to drive.

            We do NOT have a free market here, in terms of foreign labor. That’s why I asked you whether you support open borders (to which you answered no).

            Employment-based immigration policy should be set according to its value to the country. The way we have it now, H-1B/OPT/GC are harmful not only to American workers but also to the American economy, because the average quality of the foreign workers is somewhat lower than that of the Americans. Due to the indirect and sometimes direct displacement of Americans in tech, we are replacing more-talented people with less-talented people, which ought to be alarming to anyone.

            Like

          • For people I do not know, I judge by what people say and what people.do from information I see and read.

            From what I read and see, I do not think NumbersUSA is actually trying to do anything good other than promote their anti immigration which is based on hatred not economic issues.

            Of course, the high level officials in NumbersUSA will be more implicit and there is even a page in the website of NumbersUSA claim “no bash for immigrants”.

            However, the base NumbersUSA is appealing to is a group of racists who are also uneducated and ill informed

            If you want to try to use some personal stories about Roy Beck to justify his character, that is fine but this is totally unrelated with his anti immigration stance based on hared not economic issues like “protecting US workers”.

            There is a good example why personal story has nothing to do with one’s own political agenda which can be evil: if you look at history books, you should know Adolf Hitler was described by his secretary as a very nice and easy-going and caring person. But does that justify Hitler’s actions?

            “Here is an easy way to see that the answer is yes: Suppose all imported cards were banned from the U.S.; would people who loved the Japanese cars (I am one such person) simply stop buying cars? Of course not; we still have to drive.”

            I do not believe this is a good example. First of all, our debate should be based on reality, there is NO chance to abolish OPT and H1b completely. Secondly, if they are indeed banned/or significantly reduced, companies in US will be more likely to move their office to other countries and this is a much easier way to do it.(and in other countries, there may not be a cap on worker visa) If you look at recent news about the relocation of pfizer’s office to Ireland, you should know that.

            “We do NOT have a free market here, in terms of foreign labor.”:

            Of course US does not have a free market of foreign labor. because there are already some regulations in place. I used the “free market” because you seemed to favor even more regulations on how companies are going to hire people? No way that this is going to happen because of the power of Big business in government which you should have recognized.

            I said very clear in my previous reply regarding regulations: NO foreigner is entitled to stay in US and even with the current system, only those foreign students who pass strict interview process from a limited number of companies can stay.(H1b is not automatically issued and OPT will be invalid with 3 month of unemployment)

            The problem is that some people even want to deprive foreign students’ freedom to pursue dreams base don merit. That is what I oppse

            Like

          • If you are going to accuse Roy Beck of hatred and compare him to Hitler, then you have lost all credibility. Same comment applies to your claim that I don’t know the power of Big Business.

            You are just talking to yourself and not listening to me. Your statement about the “strict interview process” ignores what I said about the employers automatically rejecting the older Americans. Those Americans are not allowed to participate in that “strict interview process.” Please think about it.

            I don’t want “even more regulations” of employers. I simply want EFFECTIVE versions of the current regulations.

            Like

          • Forgot to mention, concerning your reply to my analogy with the Japanese cars:

            YOU asked me what would happen if the H-1B and OPT programs were banned. So I replied, pointing out what would happen if Japanese cars were banned. Then you rejected my reply by saying you disagree, because H-1B/OPT would never be banned! This is absurdly circular reasoning.

            I believe we can have a productive discussion. Please don’t write so impetuously. Review your post carefully before clicking the Reply button. Let’s have a meaningful exchange. Thanks in advance.

            Like

          • “Without knowing you at all, I am sure that you do not support an open-borders policy, in which anyone in the world can come live and work here, no limitations whatsoever. So, are you “anti-immigration” too? The only difference between you and CIS is where to draw the line.”

            I never say “no limitation”, I support common sense reform to make sure the right people to come.

            However, those people on the opposing side never want to propose real applicable reforms and what they constantly say is “ban”/”prohibit”/”deport all”/”send them home”

            that is why I say they are anti immigrants.

            Finally, I believe NO foreigner is entitled to stay in US and even with the current system, only those foreign students who pass strict interview process from a limited number of companies can stay.(H1b is not automatically issued and OPT will be invalid with 3 month of unemployment)

            The problem is that some people even want to deprive foreign students’ freedom to pursue dreams base don merit. That is what I oppse

            Like

          • So who are you really talking about here, when you say they say “Send them home”? And there have lots of proposals for reform, contrary to your claim.

            Like

          • Who say “send them home”? Almost everyone on the opposing side. You just need to look at the comments under the website of NumbersUSA and negative comments under the New OPT extension rule.

            There are indeed some good reforms such as the h1b bill proposed by Dick Durbin and Grassley, Of course they are not perfect but in the right direction to crack down those Indian Consulting firms.

            However, this bill is also heavily scorned and disdained by the opposing side simply because this bill does not say abolish all programs

            Like

        • @Yi Shi

          > The authors of the book “sold out” are affiliated with Centers For Immigration Study which is a long time anti-immigration group. Even worse, this group was established by white supremacist John Tanton.

          You should be careful about slandering someone based on heresay. In the Wikipedia entry for CIS at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Immigration_Studies is the following account to which I suspect you are referring:

          > The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) published reports in 2002[25] and 2009[26] claiming to connect CIS to John Tanton, who helped found various other organizations, including the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and NumbersUSA, and alleging that he has ties to white supremacy groups and a eugenics foundation.

          However, it then gives the following response from Mark Krikorian, its Executive Director:

          > The fact that they went after mainstream groups rather than fringe ones shows that the goal is not elevating the tone of public discourse but shutting it down altogether. … The report’s section on CIS is not just hackwork, but amateurish hackwork. Much of it dwells on letters written to (not by, but to) one of my board members, misidentified as having been executive director. Our research is described as having been debunked by “mainstream think tanks and organizations,” oddly enough including two of the most strident open-borders advocacy groups in the nation. My tenure there, the majority of the center’s existence, is dismissed briefly at the end as “The Later Years.” And they didn’t even mention my book, which knits together decades of CIS research on the many facets of immigration into a unified theoretical framework–-something at least worth touching on when trying to show how naughty CIS is. What’s more, CIS is an unlikely source of “intolerance.” The chairman is Peter Nuñez, U.S. attorney for San Diego under Reagan; the board includes the president of the Greater Miami Urban League and a former executive director of the National Black Caucus Foundation; the staff includes the former national policy director for the American Jewish Committee; and I
          didn’t even speak English until I got to kindergarten.

          It goes on to describe the following response from Tanton.

          > Tanton also denied the SPLC’s accusations. As to his alleged influence at CIS, he wrote, “I also helped raise a grant in 1985 for the Center for Immigration Studies, but I have played no role in the Center’s growth or development.”[28] Tanton also challenged the SPLC to a public debate at the National Press Club.[29]

          The fact is, I don’t know the final truth of the arguments by either side. If you have any strong additional evidence, then present it. Otherwise, I would suggest that we not slander the organizations engaged in the debate but look at their arguments.

          Whatever you might think of the rest of the book, I personally know that “Sold Out” publicized some provably shoddy studies put out by pro-H-1B groups. One produced the claim that each foreign-born worker in STEM with an advanced U.S. degree creates 2.6 native jobs. At the page at http://econdataus.com/claim262.htm , shows this claim was parroted by lobbyist groups like FWD.us, Compete America, and Partnership for a New American Economy and Senators like Orrin Hatch and Jeff Flake. The trouble is, the same formula that calculates 2.6 native jobs gained for 2000-2007 calculates 1.22 jobs LOST if you shift forward two years to avoid the tech crash. As of yet, I’ve heard nobody on the pro-H-1B side address this.

          I make no claim to know the intention of any individual who worked on the study to produce the 2.6 number. I just know that the number is bogus, at least as it is being represented. Likewise, I think that you would do well to focus on the arguments and stop slandering those who make them.

          Like

      • Final advice: if you think protecting US workers is a movement of justice. Do not side yourself with Jeff Sessions, Steve King, Ted Cruz and groups like numbersUSA. Their true intention is to promote anti immigration agenda that is not based on economic issues but on hatred(Steve King, Jeff Sessions and numbersUSA fall into this category) or political gains(Ted Cruz who wants votes from Donald Trump).

        Simple fact, both Ted Cruz and Jeff Sessions voted against increase in minimum wage with the argument that increase in minimum wage causes job loss. And now in their “American Jobs First Act”, they are trying to set up a minimum wage at 11k?

        This inconsistency tells you a lot about true colors of Ted Cruz and Jeff Sessions.

        Ted Cruz once propsed 5 times increase of H1b quota and now he wants to limit it because he is running for president and he needs to win over Marco Rubio and Donald Trump. Therefore, I do not really think this bill is a “dream” act as you suggested. It is a simple political tool to prey on some people’s ill informed mind

        Like

        • There are very few politicians of either party whom I respect. I have not voted in the last few presidential elections, because I don’t like either choice. (I do vote in the primaries.)

          I’ve never met any of those politicians you mention, and I’m pretty sure you haven’t either. I don’t know whether they have good hearts or not. But I sure can say whether I like their proposals or not, and yes, absolutely, the Cruz/Sessions bill is a “dream” act.

          By the way, until a few years ago, the Democratic politicians were in the forefront of criticizing the H-1B program. But they suddenly stopped. Here is a test for you on current events: Why did they stop?

          Like

        • @Yi Shi

          There is something that I believe you are not seeing reading your comments when you say that if we close our borders, people like yourself will go to other countries.

          The reason you come here in the first place and I don’t blame you for that is because the “market” is here in America and the reason the market is here is because we pay our people more than what it costs to live which means they have disposable income, or we used to.

          And because we offer the opportunity to be all that you can be that probably does not exist in your country or other countries.

          When you say you will go to another country and sell your products/services, that gets you nowhere if the people of that country cannot afford your products.

          As an example, 12 years ago I could buy anything that I wanted.
          Now I cannot afford anything

          Many point to the fact that a middle class is being created in each country that this game of musical countries touches, but I don’t believe that will last because as we take away the “demand” by putting Americans out of work, we cannot buy anything which means your countries “supply” will no longer be needed either.

          If this plays out like I believe it will, the game of musical countries will create a middle class in every country that it touches and then destroy that same middle class as the jobs or offshored once again to cheaper countries just like it is doing in America and if this happens it will destroy the middle class of the BRIC countries just as it did the middle class of America.

          http://keepamericaatwork.com/it-is-time-to-revisit-my-musical-countries-theory/

          Like

          • regarding your muscle countries theory, I believe it has some reasoning behind it but as I said in my previous post, if you do a qualitative theory, you can draw any conclusion based on which side you choose.

            It is also interesting that you talk about shrinking of middle class in US(in that way, I assume you are also referring to the income inequality in US)

            Does it have to do with H1b holders and OPT? Maybe, but is it really the solution to ban “h1b” and “OPT”?

            banning foreign students = expansion of US middle class? I do not see any reasoning behind this formula?

            Using a similar qualitative logic, I can also argue that the shrinking of US middle class has more to do with the tax policy that favors the rich.

            I can also argue the reason behind “pushing US people out of work” is that advance in technology means increase in productivity and therefore the same piece of work which originally requires manual work can be now performed through automation. No one can resist the technology development.

            Therefore, this is a very complicated issue that is compounded by many factors.

            It is unfair and wrong that you predominantly pick h1b or OPT or foreign students as the primary culprit.

            Like

      • “I deeply resent foreign nationals who believe that what they want to benefit themselves is a consideration in US laws.”

        There are two flaws in your argument. First of all, OPT and H1b are not benefits. They are not handled automatically. H1b sponsorship is a long consuming process. Of course you never need to go through it so you do not know the pain. For OPT, if one cannot find a jon within 90 days, OPT automatically becomes invalid. Using your own word, I also “resent” American citizens who criticize OPT and H1b without deep knowledge about it.

        Secondly, you think it is wrong that foreign students consider themselves as part of the law. Well, students come on legal visa and therefore by definition, they are already part of the law consideration whether you like it or not. If US laws should only be about US citizens, then US does not need to trade with other countries, Business should not invest in US and US companies cannot go outside. This is the “unbounded nationalism” I always reject.

        Like

      • @yi shi

        Musical Countries happens because of two things:
        1. Sending jobs offshore to avoid taxes, regulations that protect people, and to increase profit
        2. Importing 25 million non immigrant foreign born workers in a country that only has 162 million jobs to start with

        As for your theories, I don’t give a rats ??? about theories as I prefer historical data that can be analyzed rather than theoretical data that that was conceived from the security of a steady salary and the sanctuary of a closed office.

        Now lets talk about your situation.
        If you are so good, why do you not create jobs in your country?
        It is obvious by looking at the combined government and total nonfarm payroll data that we have created very few jobs since the high we hit in 2007 that you are not creating any jobs in my country.

        As for Silicon Valley and Wall Street being prosperous and people like you have made them so.

        We Americans made them so long before 1990.
        Just as we did many things that really were amazing feats rather than these smart phones that contribute nothing to society.

        It’s all about building blocks.

        Take for instance the 8″ floppy drive.
        That turned into the 5 1/4″ and then the 3 1/2

        And into the dvd drive

        And most recently into the USB drive.

        Now Intel will tell you that they built the newest invention ever whereas people like myself realize they just miniaturized it.

        Now lets get back to musical countries.

        You probably believe that a new middle class is being created in places like China and India.

        Me, I believe that new middle class is already in the process of being destroyed, but just as it took 40 years to do it to Americans, it will be a slow almost imperceptible process.

        -=-=
        “We have been seeing wage inflation over the past several months,’’ said Chris Ruffle, who helps manage $19 billion as China co-chairman of Martin Currie Ltd. Rising salaries may prompt businesses that operate plants in China to move to lower-cost countries such as Vietnam and Cambodia, Ruffle said

        http://keepamericaatwork.com/everybody-loses-when-we-play-musical-countries/

        Like

        • 1)In response to “Musical Countries happens because of two things:
          1. Sending jobs offshore to avoid taxes, regulations that protect people, and to increase profit
          2. Importing 25 million non immigrant foreign born workers in a country that only has 162 million jobs to start with”

          Sending jobs offshore is already happening and this is the trend of globalization. Why there is trend of globalization? because advance in technologies connect different parts of the world closer to each other and it makes human capital flow much easier.

          There is no way you can resist it and that is why I call a meaningful conversation between both sides.

          again it is related to your second point. I have said very clearly from the very begining: No foreigner is entitled to stay but they should be given freedom to pursue dreams based on merit.

          I also support common sense reform to make sure the US labor market is not flooded with foreign workers.
          This flooding is not happening because we still have a cap of H1b annually.

          2)As for your theories, I don’t give a rats ???

          So you do not believe because you think what I say is merely theory?

          Well I will encourage you to look at the labor participation rate(people like you enjoy citing the low labor participation rate as evidence about how immigrants take away jobs so I guess you do want to look at it)

          You should know the immigration starts to increase dramatically after the immigration act of 1960 and then if you look at the labor participation rate from 1960s until today. You will find the labor participation rate shows an increasing trend from 1960 until early 2000: http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

          So why there is increase in labor participation rate despite the increase in immigration following the 1960 act?

          You should know about the tech boom starting from early 2000(this is not theory but a fact and you can google it). Therefore, the tech boom starts at the same period as labor participation rate starts to decline

          Of course, this is merely a correlation and may not imply cause-effect relation.

          However, this again shows the issue itself is very complicated and it involves a lot of factors and it is unfair to pick immigration as the No.1 culprit.

          3)If you are so good, why do you not create jobs in your country?

          That is the point I have also addressed.No foreigner is entitled to stay but they should be given freedom to pursue dreams based on merit.

          Therefore, if I get a job think it is good enough, it is up to me to decide whether I should stay.

          If you think somehow the current system creates unfair advantages for foreign students, the correct way is not to impose your will but try to engage with the other side to deliver meaningful reforms to make it work better.

          Unfortunately, I have not heard these voices from the opposing side yet.

          4)As for Silicon Valley and Wall Street being prosperous and people like you have made them so.

          We Americans made them so long before 1990.
          Just as we did many things that really were amazing feats rather than these smart phones that contribute nothing to society.

          The contributions are not just smart phones and it involves a lot of technologies you use while you even do not realize.

          Citing the work of Americans before 1990s cannot deny the fact of immigrants’ work after 1990s.

          Also, I have worked with a lot of US domestic IT engineers and good work is always achieved by friendly cooperation.

          5)Me, I believe that new middle class is already in the process of being destroyed, but just as it took 40 years to do it to Americans, it will be a slow almost imperceptible process.

          Middle class shrinking has to do with a lot of factors. Tax policy(again it is not theory but fact, otherwise, during the current presidential debate, why so many candidates propose their tax reform plan). Globalization. income inequality. The solution is not to somehow create a illusion that if there is no foreigner, everything is good

          Like

          • Dude, I hate to tell you this.
            But you don’t have a clue.

            I once had a 3 hour conversation with Gordon Chang on facebook.

            Turns out it was not Gordon Chang.
            And I’m suspecting the same thing now.

            Like

  8. @Yi Shi

    You are unbelievably naive and arrogant. That is too often true for a young student or guest worker. You are not the “cat’s meow” or the “gift to the world”. The reason foreign students and workers want to come to the US is the hard work of AMERICANS who built the country after WW2. There was not the influx of foreign students or guest workers during the early years after the war.

    Please get an attitude adjustment and start to appreciate what those workers who created the educational system and infrastructure that attracts you to the US have accomplished. Humility needs to be a word in your vocabulary. I would dread having to work with or live near you based on the attitude you have put forth in your postings.

    Many of the people on this forum are likely twice your age with many times the work experience. I find it amusing that a student or recent graduate can make definitive statements about the value of the OPT program or how young foreign workers are so valuable to US employers. These types of statements only demonstrate ignorance and an inflated sense of ego and entitlement.

    FWIW, I could care less about a new app or model of a phone. I certainly don’t need a new video game or drugs that I cannot afford to buy to replace others that work just fine but are not trendy. What I do care about are Third World countries who need the talents of those who have come to the US to study with the promise that they will return home with their new found knowledge. Clean water, sanitation systems, education for the masses and not the privileged few in the cities, health care workers in remote areas, improved agricultural practices – these are what is important to these countries struggling with poverty, disease, hunger, and no future for so many of their citizens. Hope and new opportunities is what the US educational system should be giving to the world via the educational opportunities here.

    Like

      • So you agree I also have a sense of arrogance? It seems you did not read my comments and you are trying to accuse me of “not being productive in the conversation”. That tells really about something fundamental.

        If you do look at what I have said, I have stressed very clearly: No Foreigner is entitled to stay, But the problem, is that some people want to deprive their freedom to pursue dreams based on merit.

        That is my whole point and you continue to ignore it. So who is arrogant?

        Like

    • “You are unbelievably naive and arrogant. That is too often true for a young student or guest worker. You are not the “cat’s meow” or the “gift to the world”. The reason foreign students and workers want to come to the US is the hard work of AMERICANS who built the country after WW2. There was not the influx of foreign students or guest workers during the early years after the war.”

      So If i understand correctly, you are saying I have some type of entitlement sense or arrogance that I think without foreign students, US will collapse? No That is NOT WHAT I say, what I said is very clear throughout the conversation.

      I never deny the fact H1b and OPT have problems and I support common sense reform.

      Unfortunately, despite the fact that we may have different opinions, we cannot allow hatred and xenophobia to dominate the conversation. But what I see from this forum and other forums is the opposite.

      Regarding your claim “What I do care about are Third World countries who need the talents of those who have come to the US to study with the promise that they will return home with their new found knowledge”

      I said in my previous post. No Foreigner is entitled to stay in US. I do not know why you say I have a sense of ignorance, The problem is that some people even want to deprive foreign students’ freedom to pursue dreams based on merit. That is wrong and that is the only thing I object.

      BTW, even with the current system, only a very limited number of foreign students can stay because only a limited number of them can find jobs from a few companies who are willing to go through the process.

      It appears,that you never read my responses and then you just accuse me of ignorance and arrogance, So who is truly arrogant? I will leave ignorance out but I do encourage you to focus on two sides of the issue instead of one side.

      Like

      • Yi, my man! It’s obvious you are passionate about this topic and I think that is great. You’ve acknowledged that reform needs to happen and that the abuse of the program is too large to ignore, so I think we are all on the same page there. I’d like to make a few points:

        1) This post is about the, now dead, proposal put forth by Ted Cruz to reform the H-1B program. I didn’t see any mention of “sending them back” or any feelings of xenophobia until you commented. Now, it is entirely possible that some people have ill will toward immigrants in general, but it is definitely in your best interest to give people the benefit of the doubt and not throw around labels like that.

        2) You’ve left enough detail about your current situation that I can deduce you a) have a masters (and possibly a bachelors) from a US university in a STEM field b) you work for a large company that probably isn’t in the technology sector (50k employees and only 600 H-1Bs). c) You make somewhere around 100k. So my guess is you are rank and file, bottom of the totem pole employee with a run of the mill title like ‘Software Developer’. So ask yourself a question, is there really no citizen in the entire country that could do your job?

        Like

        • 1) “regarding the proposal”, I think I have said a lot about it. It sets up an arbitrary level of wage that ignores the highest income level is different in different areas.

          In Silicon Valley, 100k annually only meets a very basic demand but in Texas, 100K is really a lot of money.

          Actually I am a phD but I know most people on OPT and H1b are master and undergraduate students and it is simply unrealistic that the bill requires no hiring of people other than a few phds.

          I mentioned about “ban” and “prohibit” and “send them home” because these are only rhetoric I hear from the opposing side. I do not think those people actually want to propose good changes that balance between interest of foreign students and protecting US workers.

          2)
          “So ask yourself a question, is there really no citizen in the entire country that could do your job?”

          I do not know the answer to it and I guess no one in the world knows it. I get the job as I pass the interview.

          I sense you are suggesting without foreign students, the same work can still be done by some “unknown” US citizen that resides in some area which yourself probably do not know who.

          It is again related to the “sense of entitlement” which is one of favorite lines Matloff would like to use.

          However, this logic is flawed: first of all it is out of reality. Secondly, using the logic, I can also claim somehow Mark Zuckberg is not the founder of Facebook because somehow there is some “unknown” person in some areas can achieve the same as Mark Zuckberg did if that “unknown” person follows a certain path of fate. You should see the illogical part of this argument.

          In addition, quote from bible “By their fruit you will recognize them”, you seem to recognize them by “hypothesis”

          Like

    • I think throughout the conversation, i focused on substance and issue unlike you who want to claim “I would dread having to work with or live near you based on the attitude you have put forth in your postings.”

      You are throwing personal attacks to me while yourself is not putting a right attitude.

      You mentioned “humility”. I think I have kept my points base on substance so I believe there is humility.

      If you think humility means international students should not have legitimate rights in US, then again you are promoting unbounded nationalism and this conveys a sense of arrogance which you seemed to criticize

      Again, I want to repeat what I said before(you apparently skipped): No foreigner is entitled to stay but you cannot deprive their freedom to pursue dreams based on merit wherever it lies.

      Like

    • One final point about the age, it is true that “Many of the people on this forum are likely twice your age with many times the work experience.”

      If you really think you are mature and do have a lot of experience, then I encourage you to have a comprehensive viewpoint of this whole issue instead of saying “ban” or “prohibit”

      I, much younger than you and maybe have less work experience than you, can focus recognize both sides of the issue

      what I say is to simply ask people like you propose meaningful reforms other than “ban” or “prohibit”

      I do not think international students should be treated with favor but I totally disagree some people like you who believe somehow we are job killers and somehow we feed on well beings of US citizens.

      So I do not think you have the ground to criticize me of being arrogant

      Like

      • Mr./Ms. Shi says: “You try to accuse me of “sense of entitlement” but are you holding the same sense of “entitlement’ for your side?”

        Yes, in fact US citizens should be ENTITLED to first crack at these jobs available in the USA, and not forced to compete with the lowest wage bidders from around the world, who yes, may be equally qualified. We are not talking about Nobel Prize winning work here, one of the many, many red herrings you bring into your lengthy but rambling arguments. No question that truly exceptional individuals should be invited in, and benefit all. But commodity jobs in the US should go first to US citizens – period. The US is NOT responsible for enabling the dreams of those from other countries! They by and large should be encouraged to build and fulfill their dreams in their home countries. If rising wages from restricting foreign labor do result in some jobs being offshored – so be it. But wages WOULD in fact rise, there is no serious dispute of this basic fact of supply and demand. A number of times Mr./Ms. Shi acknowledges that excess foreign labor must depress wages, but adamantly refuses to admit that restricting foreign labor would raise wages! The laws of supply and demand absolutely work in both directions. Of course in either case there may be confounding factors, but the point is – all things being equal the laws must hold.

        And yes, US citizens are the ones involved in MAKING the law, through the actions of their elected representatives, who are supposed to be REPRESENTING them! Putting it as foreign students are “part of the law” of course misleadingly reframes it.

        Norm- I’ve rarely seen you so energized to refute at length such disputatious arguments. Perhaps because you recognize the basic intelligence of the proponent, even though he/she is clearly inexperienced in academic discourse. Flitting from one point to another makes it near impossible to have a serious academic discussion, and reach at least an understanding of the underlying basis of the disagreement, if not actual agreement. Saying there are always “both sides of the argument” of course ignores the fact that in the end one is usually right – a very important underlying core traditional (but perhaps changing…) American principle, that strives to find the right way to build society. This is in contrast to other societies that highly value consensus and harmony, and are often taught to say there are “two sides” so it must be left at that – a tradition that often leads to stagnation. I hope this Ph.D. student [who does not know that vast majority of Ph.D. student tuition in the STEM fields is paid for by the institution and indirectly the government. Many foreign Ph.D. students do not even fully grasp the idea that their tuition is being paid. They think that if they are getting no stipend or poor stipend, that they are on their own, not aware of the large subsidy their education is getting.] I hope this Ph.D. student learns how to have a proper academic discourse, by focusing on ONE issue at a time, so the argument can be properly developed and evaluated. Trying to pepper the discourse with many scattershot points that make refutation difficult, laborious, and disjointed is a common but not worthy technique of obfuscation. However, I must say Norm did a really admirable job of being up to the task. I don’t know how he finds the time and energy…

        Like

          • It seems to me that when I speak out the cold and cruel truth from the other side, I am always going to be attacked by people in this forum.

            If my side of truth is just so unsettling and so uncomfortable to you and your audience, that may tell something that is deep about your side of philosophy

            Like

          • Yi, the problem is not that you are talking “unsettling truth,” but that what you are saying, and the way you say it, is so outrageous.

            First you say,

            Also, I can tell you most of Federal Funding about research has very clear provision: US citizens only and therefore, I again disagree about your claim +that “federal funding finances the non resident tuition”

            and then, when confronted with the facts, you reverse yourself without apology.

            Then you say

            I can tell you this is utterly wrong in my school. TA will never get exempt. The only way TA will be exempted is that TAs are Phd students.

            and then back down again when it is shown that your statement is wrong, both in general and at your own school.

            You deny you feel a sense of entitlement, but then say that you and other foreign students should be hired in the U.S. because it is imperative under globalism.

            Even your statements here in your latest message, that you are speaking “the cold truth,” which is “unsettling” etc. is incredibly arrogant.

            These are all obstacles to effective dialog.

            I do sympathize with you, but you’ve got to try to see things from the point of view of the victims. They don’t care that many jobs are closed to you as a foreigner. The fact is that in the end you did get a job offer, which a lot of people here believe could have been given instead to a qualified American. And the fact that you had to undergo 20 interviews before getting an offer elicits no sympathy from one particular reader — with two Master’s degrees from a top university — who has applied to FIFTEEN HUNDRED jobs in the last year, without getting a permanent job offer.

            Like

          • 1)I do not understand why you will say “when confronted with the facts, you reverse yourself without apology”

            I think I have never denied your facts(you should again read my previous posts) and you do not want to recognize my facts. It again shows you stick to your philosophy for too long and you do not want to recognize the other side despite you claim “you have a comprehensive view point”.

            2) ” then back down again when it is shown that your statement is wrong, both in general and at your own school.”

            I never back down and I do not think my statement is wrong from my observation and I never deny your observation from the beginning.

            I have already stated my department policy which is consistent with what I said when you firstly say “Foreign students are mostly funded by the US government”.

            If you look at my first response to your statement, I already said “yes, there are RA positions but they are are only for a very limited number of students in phd programs.” So my view has been very consistent.

            “when confronted with the facts, you reverse yourself without apology.”
            If you point to that I do not differentiate between research funding and fellowship, that is just the use of words. Before you ever raise this point, I think all research funding and fellowship can fall in the same category because they are both used for educational purposes.

            Are you going to deny that fellowship is not used for education of US domestic students?

            Use your own sentence, when you are confronted with my facts, unlike myself who is willing to recognize your opinions(everyone’s experience is limited and I am willing to study what other people’s opinions are, is ti arrogant?), you simply avoid directly addressing them and instead, you just say “hey, there is a case that is contrary to what you said”, Also, you do not offer any compromise or middle ground.(I am not even asking for apology)

            3)”You deny you feel a sense of entitlement, but then say that you and other foreign students should be hired in the U.S. because it is imperative under globalism.”

            This is not “:sense of entitlement” by stating the trend. It is asking you guys to stick to reality and engage in conversation in a meaningful way because under reality you have to live with it.. If you think it is sense of entitlement, you can do that but we have to agree to disagree.

            4)Even your statements here in your latest message, that you are speaking “the cold truth,” which is “unsettling” etc. is incredibly arrogant.

            I will use the word inflammatory to describe my rhetoric but again, even if it is inflammatory, I am still speaking the truth from my side.

            I also see a lot of people in your circle speaking very arrogantly and their words are also extremely outrageous when they throw attacks to me and when they speak about Chinese students. So, if I am guilty, we are evenly guilty.

            Also, you need to note when I used “unsettling truth” which you think is arrogant and outrageous, it is only after someone in your circle throw outrageous personal attacks against me(which you gave praise, so can I say you are arrogant and outrageous first?). I am not the one who shot the first bullet.

            So this is again related to your previous point that “:we need to be tolerate with each other ” and I have already addressed that.

            5I do sympathize with you, but you’ve got to try to see things from the point of view of the victims. They don’t care that many jobs are closed to you as a foreigner. The fact is that in the end you did get a job offer, which a lot of people here believe could have been given instead to a qualified American.

            Do I need to repeat myself that I support reforms to protect US workers? Why do you still accuse that I do not see things from the point of view of the victims?

            When you say “these victims do not care that many jobs are closed to you as a foreigner”, they are also speaking from their own view.

            You may say”american citizens are entitled to speak from their own view about this issue”. I want to point out no one gave the authority for people in your circle to speak for all Americans. They only speak for themselves in your group.

            I have met a lot of American citizens who support foreign students and obviously, these people do not share the same view as your audience.’

            Regarding your example, I do not personally know that person but I highly believe he or she does not follow the right strategy in job searching. All my US domestic classmates have found a job(I know at least 200 of them through my years in US).

            Again, this is hypothesis because I do not know that person. And you should treat these personal stories with caution unless you accompany that person all along in his or her own job search.

            5)By the way, I have pointed out that the current gridlock is exactly because people only think in their own viewpoints and that is why for 20 years, there are still no meaningful positive changes to the current system.

            Therefore, I speak in a way that can actually solve the problem and people in your circle and yourself do not want to listen.

            Like

          • I think when a discussion starts using words like “inflammatory,” it’s a sign that the exchange has gone far enough. 🙂 I’m now closing comments for this particular thread.

            Thanks very much for your input, Yi, which I really do appreciate. I plan to post more on the Cruz/Sessions bill in the next few days, and you are encouraged to contribute to that new discussion (though hopefully with shorter posts 🙂 ).

            Like

        • Apparently you did not read all what I said.

          1)”But commodity jobs in the US should go first to US citizens – period. The US is NOT responsible for enabling the dreams of those from other countries! They by and large should be encouraged to build and fulfill their dreams in their home countries.”

          That is what I call unbounded nationalism from people who think foreign students are all parasites who feed on well being of other people.

          You are essentially shouting at me :”how dare you think United States should take you into consideration”?

          If you do read what I said, yes, I never deny the problems in these programs and I support common sense reform to make sure “commodity jobs” can go to US citizens.

          If you think US laws should only focus on US citizens, why United States do not simply stop international trade? why United States do not just close border and drive all foreigners home?”

          These things do not happen because people do not agree with you. So you sense of entitlement is not about US citizens vs international students. You sense of entitlement is about some US citizens in a certain group vs other US citizens who have different viewpoints from yours regarding this issue.

          2)
          it. But wages WOULD in fact rise, there is no serious dispute of this basic fact of supply and demand. A number of times Mr./Ms. Shi acknowledges that excess foreign labor must depress wages, but adamantly refuses to admit that restricting foreign labor would raise wages! The laws of supply and demand absolutely work in both directions.

          I have already addressed this point so many times and apparently you do not read. You cite about supply and demand and say this will raise wages. Again, you are the ones who think “if all foreigners go home, jobs will come to US citizens and everyone is happy”.

          This will not promote meaningful conversation and what you said is equally guilty as some industry lobbyists (who you disgust to your guts) claim if there is more expansion of H1b, US economy will growth stronger.

          3)And yes, US citizens are the ones involved in MAKING the law, through the actions of their elected representatives, who are supposed to be REPRESENTING them! Putting it as foreign students are “part of the law” of course misleadingly reframes it.

          International students are part of subject of the law because by nature they are stakeholders.

          I never say international students make the law.

          Obviously a lot of representatives do not agree with you because I have not been sent home.

          If you think the problem is about your elected representatives, I am the wrong audience to your complaints.

          4)[who does not know that vast majority of Ph.D. student tuition in the STEM fields is paid for by the institution and indirectly the government. Many foreign Ph.D. students do not even fully grasp the idea that their tuition is being paid. They think that if they are getting no stipend or poor stipend, that they are on their own, not aware of the large subsidy their education is getting

          This is totally wrong. I know foreign Phds students are funded directly or indirectly by US government and Phd students themselves know but Phd students only occupy a small proportion of the whole pool.

          You should know how stringent government research funding is, I cannot believe you somehow believe US government is such a generous entity that will fund all foreign students.

          5) Saying there are always “both sides of the argument” of course ignores the fact that in the end one is usually right – a very important underlying core traditional (but perhaps changing…)

          It sounds funny to me that somehow you think I am inexperienced in academic discourse while you seem to be out of reality.

          You think your side is the force of justice and the other side is the force of evil that should be defeated?

          Then why throughout the years, the problem of H1b and OPT programs is still prevalent? Is it because the side of evil(in your view) actually has some strength in number and voice?

          You can still live

          If you think protection of US workers is a movement of justice, I will suggest you not to shout at me and try not stick to unbounded nationalism, personal attacks and negative emotions.

          Like

        • By the way: it is true that in fact US citizens should be ENTITLED to first crack at these jobs available in the USA, and not forced to compete with the lowest wage bidders from around the world, who yes, may be equally qualified

          And this is what happens right now: whenever I try to find jobs, I am frequently turned down because recruiters only hire US citizens.

          It again shows why I say there are two sides of the coin which is what you disdain.

          “The US is NOT responsible for enabling the dreams of those from other countries”

          This line again again shows how ugly your mind is and you just want to spill venom and do not want to propose good and meaningful solutions to the current system

          So unless you are native Americans, you parents or your ancestors must have come from other countries. If the US cannot enable dreams of people from other countries, you should not stay in US either.

          And again, I am not asking for special treatment, I just want a fair environment which give US citizens rights but also balance the interest of foreign students,

          Why I say balance the interest of foreign students?

          Because in such an inter connected world, you cannot live without interacting with people from other countries. Whether you like it or not, yourself can never resist this trend.

          Like

  9. @matloff,

    >>> congressional testimony of Immigrant Voice, an H-1B advocacy group

    Immigration Voice is NOT a H-1B advocacy group. They do not advocate for *any* increase either in the H-1s (or) the greencard quota/numbers. They advocate for fixes in the existing laws to address the greencard backlogs. They are also for addressing any and all fraud that happens in the current system with H-1/L-1 and fixing the system that is stacked by design against the american worker and the skilled foreign worker.

    And it’s not just H-1s that are volunteers of that group – J-1/other skilled immigrant visa holders are also voluteers.

    I am very sure that you are aware of this but my comment is aimed more at the readers of this blog who *may* mistake this group to the likes of fwd.us which it’s NOT.

    Like

    • Yes are right, of course. I used the term “H-1B advocacy group” to mean “an advocacy group regarding green cards with membership mainly holding the H-1B visa.” Thanks for the detailed account.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s