Posted on 10/01/2003 9:39:39 AM PDT by 11th_VA
MUMBAI: The annual cap for H-1B visas will now be 65,000. This is a sharp drop from the earlier limit of 195,000 visas.
The US plans to enforce this rule from October 1, 2003.
The Indian IT industry has been lobbying hard to freeze H-1B visa limits at current levels. However, these efforts which had the support of some US corporations to retain H-1B visa limits have failed. (Will Europe be the next big hunting ground for Indian IT pros?)
Indian IT professionals are among the largest users of H-1B visas, as US Big Tech shops big from this technical pool. The H1-B visa cap was raised to 195,000 in 02. This particular legislation had a 'sunset' clause. According to this clause, the limit would have (automatically) lapsed on October 1, 2003. Ergo, the H1-B visa annual cap will now fall back to 65,000 visas.
The H1-B visa issue has generated a lot of controversy in the US. Several trade unions representing (local) technology workers have been lobbying against these work permits. The slowdown in the high-tech industry combined with an overall drop in US economic growth has resulted in a number of job losses.
H1-B visa users have been at the receiving end of criticism from unemployed American professionals for taking away their jobs. These visa users are also seen as representative of the trend towards offshore outsourcing trade jargon for moving to cheaper locations like India which is also under flak for spiriting away US jobs.
The visa was created in the early 1950s to give skilled foreign workers a permit to reside in the United States. The H1-B category was added in 1990 to give foreign workers an opportunity to pick up a job with the intention of remaining permanently in the United States.
In 1999, under pressure from high-tech companies and other manufacturers, Congress expanded the limit from 65,000 to 115,000. It raised the cap again to 215,000 in 00 and to 195,000 in 01 and 02.
Top Indian companies have been curtailing the use of H1-B visas for sending employees to the US. Ergo, it unlikely that the offshore outsourcing trend will be affected. Most companies have shifted to the use of L-1 visas (used for intra-company transfers). However, companies whose basic revenue model is supplying manpower to US corporations, ( body-shoppers, are likely to be hit by this move.
But apparently not YOU. You don't 'inherit' your politics from your family...more's the pity evidently.
Not sure what you are but they totally agree with you on this.
don't partake in drinking from the Bush kool aid
Ummm, hey, Genius? Bush's policies are right in line with yours on this, and against mine. Just because you are some misanthropic "independent" doesn't mean you aren't drinking some Kool-aid of a different flavor.
I would be for legislation allowing immigrants to be granted preference based upon a needed skill set and a coproration sponsoring them to be given prefence in our immigration system. However since there are a large number of Indian muslims and many of them are members of radical muslim groups, note the violence there, there needs to be in place safeguards against allowing potential terrorists into the USA.
But why do we need open immigration to the USA I am for the Free Market to determine wages in this nation. I am not an internationalist I suggest that if these companies want someone from abroad they do the work and properly sponsor the immingrants with immigrant status, and not expect guest workers to be allowed who will merely be a short circuit to the Free Market for wages in the USA.
Perhaps if India had no tariffs and were not engaged in currency manipulation to preserve capital investment in India (see controls on the Rupee. If a company needs someone let them hire in the USA by providing enough money and benefits to fill the job. There are people out there with the skills maybe not at what teh company wants to pay but then the company can not fill teh job or pay more simple really.
There are people that are hirable and the companies need to look. Maybe they are not hirable at what the companies wish to pay but I do not get to set my price for the house I wish to buy I may offer lower but if I want a specific House I have to come to an agrrement with the seller.
In short, I believe in a free market with no short circuits on either the supply or demand side. There is no right for an employer to have people work for the wages he/she wishes to pay. if you want an engineer for $5/hr here in the USA then tough luck. If, however, you want anengineer you can hire one for a fair wage determined by you and the person you wish to hire.
Not really. I'm just not dumb enough to think I could argue a socialist out of believing the things you believe in your falsely loaded questions. If you believed in capitalism, you wouldn't even ask things so stupid. Were you an economics major in college? Just curious.
So is Orin Hatch probably. All that corporate money he's been getting to backstab American workers is going to dry up if he doesn't bring home the bacon... and soon.
No kidding. The WSJ had a great article on union violence yesterday. Many FReepers are a perfect example of why that still exists. Many people here LOVE unions.
Please, please explain to me how this is not Marxist. Unbelievable.
Really? It's an industry that needs federal props and intervention to hold it up. It claims it is a national security issue. What's the difference? Man, for a "conservative", you sure do love those federal government restrictions on business.
That's what economic efficiency is. Go study capitalism and competition corruption. It's not a bad thing.
This statement of yours is insane what possible benefit does it give to the USA to open our birders to open immigration without background investigations from anywhere? There is no right that foreign citizens have to come into the USA. There is no right to bring foreign nationals into teh USA. Even if you wed a foreign national you need to get a vis for that person and you want to let businesses do it so they can pay employees less? Let the Fre Market decide without government intervention in the USA and changes in our immigration law can be delibratively passed.
Thanks for proving my point: Your problem with H1-Bs isn't the federal government "intervention" (if so, you'd be for just removing any federal restrictions on business). It's all about needing the federal government to protect your chosen few at the expense of everyone else.
This has a Marie Antoinette "let them eat cake" ring to it. Well Tex, here's what I think.
Maybe Bikers4Bush is not as valuable a labor resource for an American capitalist as someone from the 3rd world. Afterall, the American capitalist would have to pay Bikers4Bush more money, provide safe working conditions, etc. The third-worlder would probably not demand as much. Ergo, employing the third-worlder is more profitable and therefore, he is more valuable.
Just one problem ... Texas and Biker both live in the same society. Decisions can not be based solely on profitability. Societal issues most be considered as well. It's just, to quote Adam Smith, "enlightened self-interest."
You don't understand this side of capitalism, despite the fact that you are always invoking its name to justify your greed and corruption. Or, conservatism. Social safety nets were first implemented by Bismark for sound conservative reasons.
So Tex, I hope you are tallying up your profits when the masses break through your "palatial entry way" and cut off your ... er ... head.
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.