Bush urges US Congress to lift H-1B visa limit

PTI ^ | February 03, 2006 | Sridhar Krishnaswami

[Tyche]

Making a strong pitch for America to stay competitive in the face of emerging economies such as India and China, President George W Bush has urged the Congress to raise the number of H-1B visas that allow companies to hire foreign workers for scientific and high tech jobs.

"Congress needs to understand that nations like India, China, Japan, Korea and Canada all offer tax incentives that are permanent. In other words, we live in a competitive world. We want to be the leader in this world," Bush said in a speech in Minnesota on Thursday.

To fill vacant jobs in the US, Bush urged the Congress to lift current limit on H-1B visas that allow foreign workers to get jobs in the United States. The Congress in 2005 capped at 65,000 the number of H-1B visas, a third of the 195,000 allowed during the technology boom.

"I think it's a mistake not to encourage more really bright folks who can fill the jobs that are having trouble being filled here in America, to limit their number. So I call upon Congress to be realistic and reasonable and raise that cap," Bush said, but did not say by how much he wanted the limit lifted.

He said that one part of the agenda to stay competitive was to study math and science, a theme he touched on in his State of the Union Address on Tuesday.

"It's one thing to research, but if you don't have somebody in that lab, well… And so I got some ideas for the Congress to consider. The first is to emphasize math and science early, and to make sure that the courses are rigorous enough that our children can compete globally," Bush said in a speech at the 3M Corporation.

He said there are more high-tech jobs in America today than people available to fill them. "So what do we do about that? And the reason it's important -- and the American citizen has got to understand it's important -- is if we don't do something about how to fill those high-tech jobs here, they'll go somewhere else where somebody can do the job."

"There are some who say, we can't worry about competition. It doesn't matter, it's here. It's a real aspect of the world in which we live," he said.

"And so one way to deal with this problem, and probably the most effective way, is to recognize that there's a lot of bright engineers and chemists and physicists from other lands that are either educated here, or received an education elsewhere but want to work here. And they come here under a programme called H1B visas," Bush said.

He said America should not fear competition. "It's important for us not to lose our confidence in changing times. It's important for us not to fear competition but welcome it."

Senior administration officials noted that the number of H-1B visas has fallen to 65,000 which in their estimation was 'too low' and that it was imperative 'to bump that up.'

". . . some of reports have called for increases of 10,000; others between 20,000 and 40,000. So there is a number of options on the table to be considered. But we'll work with Congress on that," said Claude Allen, assistant to the President for domestic policy.

[JasonC]

Ping means inviting someone to a thread they are not currently participating in. FR term. Replying to others active in the same thread isn't "pinging", it is just discussion.

[maui_hawaii]

Debate about what?

Oh brother.

Debate on trade. Economics and particularly why everyone not on board with your limited view, how they are not doom and gloomers or protectionists, or anti trade.

Its not a fight. I can win with not one slur or attack.

Why would I want to debate you about nothing?

Because its not nothing, and secondly discussing it professionally will hopefully cut out the mud slinging about the stuff on this very thread...

One side yells traitor and the other screams protectionist...

Its like two brick walls arguing with each other....that circle has been going round and round for several years.

I am ready to end it.

[Sam the Sham]

Exporting the American standard of living, levelling it to globalist levels, doesn't do one damn thing for the American worker.

It is great for people who own businesses and live off of returns from investment. It is lousy for the average American. And what does 'record equity' mean, by the way ? Are you pointing to half a million being the median price for a California home as being a sign of strength ? Are you aware most California mortgages are interest only ?

[logician2u]

You are correct that they are doing it for (mostly) big business.

If you think business should be prohibited by law from hiring "furriners", however, you are wrong.

This is -- or was -- a free country, one where free exchanges -- labor or goods -- are not within the purview of federal authorities.

The federal government has no business either promoting or restricting certain transactions, regardless as to their alleged benefit to the economy or detriment to "national security."

[1rudeboy]

Bernie Sanders pod-person alert.

[JasonC]

What playing field? What level? What rigged? I simply pointed out that wages are up 64% in the last 16 years. If companies could pick whatever wage level they wanted to exploit their workers in good Marxist fashion, do you think the level they'd pick would gallop ahead 64% in 16 years? Why?

Real economics understands that wage levels are set by the marginal productivity of labor, not by imaginary conspiracies of exploiters. Wages have risen in the last 16 years - just as they have risen in the last 160 years, since Marx - because what labor is able to do is worth more dollars than it was worth before.

Rising wages over every historical time scale you care to name are a proof that no conspiratorial undersetting of wages is going on because it is not in the alleged interests of the alleged conspirators, yet it relentlessly happens. Proving they are not in control of wages. They also prove that Malthusian arguments about imaginary "races to the bottom" and "iron law of wages" talk is simply (though honestly enough) flat wrong.

Wages rise because work accomplishes more, and those doing the accomplishing, precisely because there is competition *for* them as well as among them, capture the vast majority of those increased accomplishments for themselves.

[JasonC]

The man literally said he was challenging me to a debate without bothering to state what about. Come on people, I don't care how ideological you are, that is more than slightly strange.

[JasonC]

Debate about what?

[maui_hawaii]

I have watched you and a few others post time and time again over time. Constantly its about trade and name calling 'economic doom and gloomers' etc, ie 'the circle'.

Thats the subject.

If you can talk the talk, lets back it up.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

You like the rest of the free traders want it both ways. It's ok for the government to help corporations find cheap labor but when it comes American citizens they need to butt out. This is no longer the GOP of Lincoln, McKinley and Coolidge, who saw unrestricted free trade for what it was.

[GregoryFul]

Perhaps, but they shouldn't be taken advantage of because of it. People who sing, probably like it, and can make gobs of money from it. People who like to boss others around like it, and can make money from it. Just because I like to solve problems, and am good at it, shouldn't mean that I cannot make money from that activity and products that enrich many.

[1rudeboy]

Check this out. Our friend Itz might know more about Marxism than it appears.

[JasonC]

Trade. Economics.

I'm talking about immigration policy, and in particular maintaining the distinction between high end immigration of skilled workers through programs like 12b-1, which I support and support increasing for reasons of increased economic competitiveness. While I do not support illegal immigration or amnesties for guest workers. I've also stated that I have no problem with using trade strategically for actual grand strategy purposes or to improve human rights, as long as those don't turn into mere excuses to destroy trade. On other threads I've insisted that trade benefits both parties that engage in it economically - which can result in strategic reasons to oppose some trade, as strengthening people better not strengthened - but does not result in any economic argument against trade.

Would you care to tell me which, if any, of those propositions you disagree with?

[JasonC]

I am quite sure you can. An entirely comfortable middle class living, for which any human being ought to be incredibly thankful. I see precious little of thankful - or of work ethic - or of fairness - or of confidence - in this thread. And I don't find that terribly conservative.

[JasonC]

Trade and name calling is the subject? What proposition I have maintained do you disagree with?

[maui_hawaii]

Trade. Economics. Immigration.

This goes hand in hand with 'globalization'.

Title the discussion how you will.

You are not just talking about immigration. Its all here for everyone to see.

So be it.

I'm out. Gotta go.

[JasonC]

h1-b - getting my silly government codes confused - sorry.

[Itzlzha]

Our friend Itz might know more about Marxism than it appears.

Oh, you'd be AMAZED at what I know...

Like how all you OBL-ers and Laissez Faire types just LOVE to scream "Marxist" when someone calls your BS.

See, you cannot claim that the Free Market is unlimited, then gin the game so that only cheap external labor is allowed to compete in the "Free Market".

That is why they all are against a Wall, and ending Illegal Immigration...as well as being so in favor of outsourcing and H-1B visas.

Then they can't artificially depress the prevailing wage in certain markets without being exposed!

And calling me a Marxist is not only laughable, it's rather pathetic to your argument...better shout "Wolf" a little louder...they didn't hear you in China!

[snowsislander]

Thanks for the article it will help him understand that there are plenty of jobs out there.

I would recommend looking also at the reader comments on that page, which give some very interesting counterpoints to that article.

[1rudeboy]

Still don't get it, do you? You thanked somebody for posting a link to Bernie Sanders' website. Completely laughable, except on a conservative website . . . where it's tragic.