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.

[1rudeboy]

Most do already. A H1-B visa is the quickest route to a green card, other than possibly marrying a U.S. citizen.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Understand the tagline below?

Yes I do. They wanted to build up American industry and they needed revenue. They had no other good source of revenue. Whiskey taxes were tried, but they tended to piss off the citizenry.

Now, do you understand this part of the Constitution?

(Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.) (The previous sentence in parentheses was superseded by Amendment XIV, section 2.)

[Paul Ross]

My point was far larger than one straw man argument on your part, I have noted that you both always side against the United States. And a more or less complete silence by you about the vastly predominant Communist nature of the PRC...carefully preserved against all your presumed odds. Always.

And, btw, your straw man argument failed to recognize that Adam Smith and David Ricardo implicitly believed in that which exaggeratedly attribute to Marx...encompassed as an assumption in the theory of comparative advantage. So if you think you are tilting against Marx, you are likewise, and in fact, opposing Adam Smith and David Ricardo.

And the exploding U.S. trade deficit which threatens all the U.S. and our living standards never is commented by you, except and unless you pretend counterfactually it is a boon.

And after that economic and dollar collapse...the U.S. taxpayers of the near-future will wind up being taxed ruinously to pay the treasuries held by the foreign industrial predators... in exchange for your dictated foreign consumptions of the present.

Truly, exchanging our national birthright...for a mess of pottage.

If you were truly for the U.S., you would be arguing the opposite of what you do.

Hence, I contend that you have been intellectually dishonest from the get-go.

[1rudeboy]

Funny, how the first sentence of your reply laments strawman arguments, yet is one itself. And the folks arguing the Labor Theory of Value on this thread are not doing so in the tradition of Smith and Ricardo. In fact, highlighting the antipathy shown their work on threads such as these, as well as the tacit agreement with other works of Marx (On the Question of Free Trade, anyone?--possibly the single most misunderstood speech on FR) is not a strawman argument, unless your definition of one is "pointing out something I find inconvenient."

[steve-b]

Opposing geniuses moving to Silicon Valley from Bangalore

Well, then, you'd support a reform to H1-B: You come in, you don't leave. Ever.

[Paul Ross]

You prefer more government and higher prices for Americans.

No. I prefer less FOREIGN government control of our U.S. market. Which you always remain mysteriously queit about.

IT IS PROBABLY SAFE TO SAY YOU PREFER MORE. [No matter what you are going to say to deny it.]

I prefer less government and lower prices for Americans.

Your claim is a falsehood.

It is well known that once the predator nations have finally exterminated U.S. industrial production...that prices will then drastically go up. That is an empirically well demonstrated phenomenon that is axiomatic. There is a lengthy, lengthy U.S. experience with this happening. Your feigned ignorance of it, is unpersuasive.

Clearly, you make an wishful-thinking assumption that FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS, will continue colluding to maintain the low-wage price competition that eradicates U.S. production. In fact, it is morely they then switch policy around and collude to maximize their profits instead and gouge with the high prices they can extract against the helpless U.S.....

So you are doing the consumer no favor. Especially when, in conjunction, you get the consumer disemployed from the good production jobs you outsource.

[steve-b]

Everytime you import 20,000 H1-B, which increases the supply and dampens the wage, you send a clear message to domestic high school students about to enter college. The message resonates loud and clear. Don't take the hard math and science classes, the return isn't worth it. Take liberal arts.

Democrats: The Next Generation (and majority)

[Toddsterpatriot]

Pssst, foreign governments don't control the US market.

It is well known that once the predator nations have finally exterminated U.S. industrial production...that prices will then drastically go up. That is an empirically well demonstrated phenomenon that is axiomatic.

Let's see,

Empirically 1 : originating in or based on observation or experience

Axiomatic 1 : taken for granted : SELF-EVIDENT

So, once U.S. production of TVs, VCRs and DVD players is finally exterminated, prices will then drastically go up? And this is Self-Evident and based on observation or experience?

I think you must be mistaken. Again.

In fact, it is morely they then switch policy around and collude to maximize their profits instead and gouge with the high prices they can extract against the helpless U.S.....

Huh?

So you are doing the consumer no favor.

Protect us from high prices in the future. Raise our prices NOW!! LOL! Are you Willie Green?

[Paul Ross]

Which is 5% of GDP,

WRONG. A trillion dollars is 0NE-TWELFTH. 8.33333% And growing. The vector of change portends calamity.

that is less than 1 years nominal or 2 years real, growth,

What are you smoking?

and a solid chunk of which is oil spike related and temporary.

Rooooooight.

Our interest rates might be 1-2% higher, the direction they are headed. No problem.

Not for China, obviously. They are the ones we will owe, and we will have to pay back with collapsed value dollars.

Thanks a bunch.

[A. Pole]

They wanted to build up American industry and they needed revenue.

Very good. But if they wanted to dismantle American industry and to suppress/tax wages they would not want tariffs - they would be for "free" trade instead.

Now, do you understand this part of the Constitution?

I think I do, but do not see what is your point.

[A. Pole]

not doing so in the tradition of Smith and Ricardo

Are Smith and Ricardo some type of infallible oracle or unholy prophets? Is your freemarket ideology a cult? You guys treat their writings like Muslims treat Koran.

See my tagline.

[1rudeboy]

No, and no.

[Tired of Taxes]

Oops, sorry, I misread your post.

[Toddsterpatriot]

But if they wanted to dismantle American industry and to suppress/tax wages they would not want tariffs - they would be for "free" trade instead.

Wages are higher than before NAFTA passed. We manufacture and export more than ever. So much for free trade doing what you claim.

I think I do, but do not see what is your point.

You said:
Federal income tax came much later, I seriously doubt that they even considered that! You are projecting present into the past.

As you saw from the Constitution, they considered direct taxes, but they had to be apportioned. So, taking that into account, what other good source for revenues did they have besides tariffs?

[rgx5471]

Wages are higher than before NAFTA passed.

Averages don't give you the whole picture. NAFTA puts downward pressure primarily on low wages, not high wages. As a matter of fact, it may well lead to growth in high wages. Disproportionate growth of high wages could by itself explain rising average wages. These averages will not account for the decreased well being of lower wage workers.

Furthermore, average wages, along with productivity, rise over time. The time between now and when NAFTA was passed saw some of the largest rises in wages from unrelated factors. NAFTA's relative downward pressure on lower wages is real, and is not reflected in long term average wages trends.

We manufacture and export more than ever. So much for free trade doing what you claim.

Yeah, yeah. Go get another beer.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Furthermore, average wages, along with productivity, rise over time.

But I heard there would be a sucking sound. Millions of jobs lost if NAFTA passed. Wages would fall. We'd be impoverished. I guess that was wrong?

Yeah, yeah. Go get another beer.

Thanks for proving my point. Look at those exports, higher than ever.

[rgx5471]

But I heard there would be a sucking sound. Millions of jobs lost if NAFTA passed. Wages would fall. We'd be impoverished. I guess that was wrong?

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Thanks for proving my point. Look at those exports, higher than ever.

The economy has been naturally expanding at a steady pace from unrelated factors. Adjusted for this growth, exports have been falling. Look at the graph, silly.

(Hint: Next exports give a good idea of whats going on.)

[Toddsterpatriot]

The economy has been naturally expanding at a steady pace from unrelated factors.

So you say. I claimed we manufacture and export more than ever. You've posted nothing that prove me wrong.

[indthkr]

"Is your freemarket ideology a cult?"

LOL! You hit the nail on the head! For a lot of these guys, freetrade is like some kind of fundementalist religion, instead of a theory of how markets behave efficiently when there isn't any "fine print" involved.

Instead of considering a system of completely Free Trade as a goal that might be achieved sometime down the road (like "Free Energy, World Peace, eradication of all human disease, and interplanetary space travel), they insist that we all grab a glass of Kool-Aide and chant the vitues of Free Trade with evangelical fervor.

[Toddsterpatriot]

instead of a theory of how markets behave efficiently when there isn't any "fine print" involved.

Do we trade more now, or before NAFTA? Which nations have a higher standard of living? Those that trade a lot or those that trade very little?