Posted on 04/04/2009 5:40:30 AM PDT by MyTwoCopperCoins
WASHINGTON: In the first-ever indication of its stand on H-1B visas popular among Indian professionals, the Obama administration has informed a court that the US needs this scheme to avoid "competitive disadvantage" the American companies could face otherwise.
A submission in this regard was recently filed by Michael F Hertz, acting assistant attorney general, in response to a lawsuit filed by a group of three US bodies, nine individuals and two students challenging government's decision to extend from one year to 29 months the duration of foreign nationals with engineering, science and other technical degrees who can work in the US on student visas.
This was a policy decision by previous Bush government, which was challenged in a lower court in New Jersey last year and was summarily dismissed. The same petitioners approached the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia last month.
The Obama administration's view point was expressed in its submission before the Philadelphia court on March 23.
"The inability of US employers, particularly in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics, to obtain H-1B status for highly skilled foreign students and foreign non-immigrant workers has adversely affected the ability of US employers to recruit and retain skilled workers and creates a competitive disadvantage for US companies," the US government argued.
Defending the policy of the Bush administration on extension of work permit to foreign students with degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) by 17 months, the new government argued that this is necessary to retain these foreign students in America.
Otherwise, it said, they would have no other option but to return or go to other countries for employment. With there being great rush for H-1B visas, extension of work permit to those holding F-1 (student visa) is a justifiable way to retain this talent, it argued.
The extension of time simply allows these students to avoid the hardship of leaving the country to change their status and gives the employers ample time to file H-1B petitions on their behalf in due course.
The Acting Assistant Attorney General noted that had the government not extended the work permit of foreign students in STEM category, some 10,000 students holding H-1B visas for the fiscal 2009 would have had to leave the country within 60 days as required by law or extend their F-1 status by enrolling in another course of study.
"As indicated in the IFR (Interim Final Rule) there is an important economic interest for the United States in keeping STEM graduates from going to other countries that are providing increased opportunities to these students," the US government said in its petition.
"The IFR would help attract STEM students to the United States. Otherwise, United States will lose skilled technical workers in great need by high-tech industries."
Exactly, not enough people consider the national security implications of outsourcing our technology especially to China.
If we aren’t already. I don’t disagree with you, but I see this self-destructive thought process every day.
Ah, Hoover enacted Smoot-Hawley. Look it up on google. Back in the day the GOP was protectionist and the Democrats were free traders...don’t you read history...now do you form your opinions if you don’t inform yourself?
Yes, I know who enacted Smoot-Hawley. To say that Smoot was causative is oversimplistic, but that’s for another thread. The fact of the matter is that, labels aside, Roosevelt was a control freak who thought that competition and profit were evil. He dumped US commodities on foreign shores which resulted in tarrifs being levied against those products by those countries. Meanwhile, he was buring crops in the field to hold prices down which resulted higher prices. Why? Because his policies created shortages and made the United States - the breadbasket of the world - a net importer of foodstuffs.
So Democrats of the ‘20’s and ‘30’s may have marketed themselves as “free traders”, but what they really were was in love with the socialism that was taking root in Europe. He thought Uncle Joe Stalin was a prince and that Communist Russia was heaven on earth.
Free markets produce winners and losers. Our post-individualist society can’t cope with a level playing field. Instead, we vote for candidates that will punish the winners and reward the losers.
Some think that FDR’s “NewDeal” was the first implementation of the Randian Directive 10-289. The purpose was not to re-boot the economy so much as to freeze it in place to arrest the apparent downward spiral. How well did it work? Debatable, but not a lot of people know that there were actually two Depressions in the 1930s. The first was early on after the market crash and that’s the one everyone thinks of when the GD is mentioned. But there was a slow, gradual recovery until late in the decade, then another slump. Basically a double-bottom chart formation for the technical analysts out there. Who knows how long the second one would have gone? The war came along and changed things, and then the controls really set in (for justifiable reasons). Just as a leading indicator, the DJIA didn’t recover it’s pre-Crash levels until the mid-Fifties. Control freaks or not, these things, like the GD then and the recession now (although not as bad) take time to recover. There isn’t much government can do.
Perhaps. But what is going to be done about that problem?
One positively Orwellian aspect of today's political world is the successful brainwashing of the public by the media and the 'Rats into thinking that Republicans and conservatives are "The Party Of The Rich". Nothing could be further from the truth. Look where "the rich" put their money in political support. Who benefited from AIG payouts? A lot of 'Rats. What party do people like Soros and Lewis support? Look at the wealthiest members of Congress, people like the Kennedys and John Kerry. What is their party affiliation? Who is really pulling Obama's strings? I mean, the guy just basically reads from a teleprompter. He's brainless. Who is writing his words? I think we all know.
Conservatives and Republicans have more often than not been the party of the working man, the honest, decent, law-abdiding citizen who works hard, takes care of his family, provides for himself and others out of the goodness of his heart. That we don't have a message that resonates with these kinds of people is to our discredit. And look how is the party of the takers, the moochers, the unproductive, the destroyers, the manipulators. The difference could not be starker.
I don't begrudge people the wealth they earn of their own creative efforts and hard work. People who do that are generally smart enough to know how their wealth was created, and what it will take to maintain. But those who don't, who either have what they have handed to them without knowledge or appreciation of what it took to make, or don't have things and feel they should be given them with no effort of their own or simply take them from those who do have them from their own efforts, are the ones who lead us down the dark path of tyranny.
I agree with much of what you say, but I must point out that it was Pres. Bush who gave AIG most of their money...I don’t think it’s about parties the banking industry owns our government it would seem. Neither party is willing to stand up to them and certain policies which the banking industry lobbied for are very bad for average Americans. I don’t know what the answer is...but something must change.
I understand that much of this happened in the waning days of Bush’s watch. But you know Obama and the ‘Rats were right there with their hands out when AIG was greasing the palms of the various political critters. That’s why I find this fax “outrage†at AIG and the others so ingenuous. It isn’t like the ‘Rats are as pure as the driven snow on this stuff. When it comes to free money, the last ones to lecture anyone else with any “outrage” are the politicians in Washington.
You understand the depression, you are right, most people do not understand that their were two parts...many believe that Roosevelt’s attempt to balance the budget in 1936 which effectively pulled money out of the economy caused the second part of the depression which caused a spike in unemployment in 1937. It is a pleasure to discuss this with someone who is knowledgeable and not just spouting talking points. Personally, I think the GI bill had much to do with finally ending the depression...invested in education in a good way. Also, millions of ex-serviceman who might have been dumped into the workforce were in school and came out after a period of growth at a time there were jobs available. People don’t realize as they follow the market today...that our current stock market bears a disturbing similarity to the 1933 market which rallied quite a bit...biggest one day gain until in history... until last week. So the question I have is this...is it 1933? Are we headed for depression or will we pull out of this? If you look at unemployment-particularly the U6, we are approaching a depression era unemployment rate...already I hear talk about a ‘jobless recovery’ which in my opinion can not be considered any sort of recovery but only an example of stock market manipulation by those who know how to use financial tools to make paper profits...not sustainable I fear.
I'm not saying the war or mandatory service were the sole reasons for recovering from the GD, because, as we've said, the real recovery in terms of the DJIA as a "leading indicator" didn't come until the mid 1950s. But it sure changed the landscape. I'm not sure anything today or in the future will come close.
Yes, the GI Bill is likely to be considered by most as a rare example of a government program success story. It has aspects of foresight and wisdom, the need to avoid dumping large numbers of unskilled, perhaps previously unemployed workers on the post-war job market. It softened the blow by allowing those so inclined to enhance their skill set and thereby broaden their opportunities beyond what otherwise might have been available.
When you have a worldwide economic downturn, countries move towards protectionism...Roosevelt probably could not have done anything about this...you will see the same sort of reaction this time too-just watch.
As for crops, the burning of crops was an attempt to put a bottom on prices, stop the cycle of deflation. It was only done once because public outcry was so vehement that crops were donated to soup kitchens and other charitable organizations after that...the US did not import food except perhaps briefly due to the dust bowl...wrong about that. Trade was no way near as important during that time as it is now...only 6% of GNP.
Actually, there was a great deal of anger towards Wall Street, people believed they had caused the 1930’s depression-quite similar to what we have today. People wanted policies enacted so this could not happen again-punish Wall Street. Roosevelt largely resisted these calls but did institute some reforms...Too bad a Dem president and a GOP congress gutted those safeguards in 1999...we might not be here today...but the campaign donating banks lobbied for it.
However, I digress. In fact, Roosevelt protected the financial sector...he could have had a fair number of the top guys...like JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley big wigs, Prescott Bush etc tried for treason and probably executed had he chosen to...have you ever heard of the business plot? Top financiers got together and plotted to overthrow the government and install a fascist dictator (many admired Hitler). They needed the support of the military so they approached General Butler-Marine general-who would be installed as dictator in chief after he rallied the troops to overthrow a democratically elected president...can you imagine? But General Butler-a Marine-ratted them out to Congress. None were tried for their treasonable actions because Roosevelt (so the story goes) believed that this would destroy the public’s faith in capitalism forever. I see no evidence that the Democrats were ‘in love with communism’ at this time. This is a rewriting of history. It is apparent that the greatest risk to our Republic in the 1930’s was from those (I can’t consider them the ‘right’) who wished to install a fascist government similar to Germany in this country. Semper Fi ...the marines always save the day (military family).
This is what I think also.
I agree with you...but what is the answer for today. What can we do? It is a daunting task indeed.
Absolute and complete BS.. H1-B is to skilled workers what Illegal Aliens are for unskilled, anyone tells you otherwise they are lying out their arse.
Also, I do believe the government jobs created in the 30’s which are not counted in the unemployment figures by the way and later the enlistment of GI’s did indeed lead to recovery. I think back then the market was the ‘lagging indicator’ like unemployment today because back then companies had to improve in order for the market to gain traction...unlike today where they have all sorts of financial tools. Really, today’s market trades on emotionalism...not really business.
Quite correct...H1B visas are merely the extension of illegals taking low paying jobs away from American to H1B visa holders taking away mid to high paying jobs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.