H1-B visas

Skilled Immigrants: More, Please

by Ryan Young on October 6, 2010 · 1 comment

in Economy, Employment, International, Personal Liberty

Over at the Daily Caller, my CEI colleague Alex Nowrasteh makes the case for doing away with the cap on H1-B visas. The cap limits the number of highly skilled immigrants to 85,000 per year. In most years, all 85,000 spots are filled in a single day. Applications were down last year and this year because of the recession. But they’ll bounce back as soon as the economy does. At the very least, the cap should be substantially raised. It would be better if the cap were eliminated altogether.

The reason the cap exists is that some people think skilled immigrants take jobs away from Americans. Alex explains why that isn’t true:

There is no fixed number of jobs to be divided among Americans.

Foreign skilled workers don’t “take” American’s job; they complement them. Foreigners are not substitutes for U.S.-born workers even when they have similar skills and experience.  In many situations, H-1B workers push Americans into managerial or other higher positions.

Many people also believe that skilled immigrants lower wages for native-born Americans. That isn’t true either:

If cash-strapped businesses could drastically cut wages by hiring more H1-B workers instead of native-born workers, then applications for H-1B visas would increase during recessions as businesses cut costs.  The opposite is true.  H-1B applications fall dramatically during recessions.

Firms that employ H-1B visa workers do so when they are expanding production and have trouble meeting their labor requirements domestically.  Observing this effect, the National Foundation for American Policy reported in 2009 that for every H-1B position requested, U.S. technology firms increase their employment by five workers.

The government’s artificial limit on skilled immigration is prolonging the recession. The H1-B cap needs to be either raised or done away with entirely. American jobs depend on it.

No “hysteria” about trade — just some facts

by Fran Smith on March 19, 2009

in Odds & Ends

I admire Dan Ikenson’s work on trade issues at Cato. Usually I agree with his views. A notable exception is his post yesterday on Cato’s blog – “Too much hysteria about trade.”

No, Dan wasn’t hitting the current climate of China-bashing or the Teamsters’ on-going campaign against Mexican trucking and NAFTA or the “Buy American” provisions in the stimulus bill. Dan instead was taking to task newspapers like the Washington Post that have been warning readers about the rising tide of protectionism in this world economic downturn.

He writes:

The fact of the matter is that there isn’t any discernible trend toward protectionism in the United States or in the world right now. World leaders issue warnings about the consequences of protectionism, but there are not trends. There are incidences, but no trends.

He uses now-US Trade Representative Ron Kirk’s Senate testimony as evidence of the Obama Administration’s support for open trade and for enforcement of trade rules.

I beg to differ. Kirk’s testimony, of course, reiterates President Obama’s Trade Agenda, which, while including some good rhetoric about the importance of open trade, strongly endorses the need to focus on non-trade issues in trade agreements, such as those involving labor and the environment. Here’s what Kirk said:

I respectfully submit that two strong steps toward restoring domestic confidence in open markets are a real and renewed commitment to enforcement of our trade rules, including those addressing labor and the environment,

And –

. . . to ensure that the way we promote trade reflects our country’s values about economic progress and justice, including through the advancement of internationally recognized labor and environmental standards.

Such issues, as Jagdish Bhagwati has often written, really act as non-tariff trade barriers and force poorer countries to adopt our regulatory schemes in these areas (to “level the playing field”) even when they don’t have the resources.

Dan may not realize that U.S. policymakers such as the Energy Department Secretary and others are seriously considering imposing carbon tariffs on countries (read China and India) that aren’t taking appropriate steps to restrict carbon emissions. Again, that would be a good way to level the playing field and improve U.S. competitiveness. Not protectionism?

Food safety is another area where protectionism may rear its ugly head under the guise of protecting consumers but actually setting detailed standards that may rely more on procedures than the safety of the end product. A bill recently introduced in the House could easily be used to block foreign competition.

And let’s not forget the stimulus package and the infamous “Buy American” provisions, which mandate that any company receiving government funding has to use “made in America” goods, such as iron and steel. The stimulus legislation also restricts companies receiving bailout funds from hiring foreign workers and restricts those firms receiving Trouble Assets Relief Program (TARP) funds from hiring foreign nationals holding H-1B visas unless they can prove they could not hire U.S. citizens instead.

The Obama Team’s emphasis on enforcement issues seems benign to Dan. But take a look at what Rep. Sander Levin, head of the trade subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee is cooking up on trade enforcement. Besides promising lots more WTO complaints, the legislative plan is to put back in place provisions on U.S. antidumping and countervailing duties that were changed under President Bush because they weren’t WTO-compliant. But don’t interpret that as protectionism, Levin was quoted as saying, since its purpose is to “enforce the rule of law and the openness of markets.”

“Hysteria” about trade protectionism?  Think it’s not coming from the media, Dan, but from trade protectionists.