H-1B Visa Research Articles

Ability Drain: Size, Impact, and Comparison with Brain Drain Under Alternative Immigration Policies

Immigrants or their children founded over 40% of the Fortune 500 US companies. This suggests that ‘ability drain’ is economically significant. While brain drain associated with migration also induces a brain gain, this cannot occur with ability drain. This paper examines migration’s impact on ability, education, and productive human capital or ‘skill’ (which includes both ability and education) for source country residents and migrants, under three different regimes: (i) a points system that accounts for educational attainment; (ii) a ‘vetting’ system that accounts for both ability and education or skill (e.g., the US H1-B visa program); and (iii) a points system that combines the points and vetting systems (as in Canada since 2015). It finds that migration reduces (raises) source country residents’ (migrants’) average ability and has an ambiguous (positive) impact on their average education and skill, with a net skill drain more likely than a net brain drain. These effects increase the more unequal is ability, i.e., the higher the variance in ability. The average ability drain for highly educated US immigrants from 42 developing source countries is 84 percent of the brain drain, a ratio that increases with source countries’ income and is greater than one for most Latin American and Caribbean countries. Heterogeneity in ability is the ultimate cause of both ability and brain drain (as they are equal to zero under homogeneous ability). Policy implications are provided.

Caring from Afar: Asian H1B Migrant Workers and Aging Parents.

With the growth in engineering/technology industries, the United States has seen an increase in the arrival of highly skilled temporary migrant workers on H1B visas from various Asian countries. Limited research exists on how these groups maintain family ties from afar including caring for aging parents. This study explores the experiences and challenges that Asian H1B workers face when providing care from a distance. A total of 21 Chinese/Taiwanese, Korean, and Indian H1B workers participated in in-depth qualitative interviews. Key findings indicate that despite distance, caring relationships still continue through regular communications, financial remittances, and return visits, at the same time creating emotional, psychological, and financial challenges for the workers. Findings highlight the need for further research in understanding how the decline of aging parent's health impacts the migrants' adjustment and health in the United States.

Canadian DOs: International Expansion of Osteopathic Medical Education North of the Border.

The growth of osteopathic medicine in the United States has led to a vibrant expansion of the profession internationally. Canadian students represent the majority of international applicants and matriculants to US colleges of osteopathic medicine (COMs); however, to our knowledge, no studies have explored this population. To gain a better understanding of Canadian students attending US colleges of osteopathic medicine by examining their residency training preference, visa preference, intent to practice in the United States or Canada, receptiveness to incorporating osteopathic manipulative medicine into practice, specialty preference, estimated debt incurred, and effect of debt on specialty choice. A 10-question electronic survey was sent to Canadian osteopathic medical students in the 17 COMs and branch campuses that accept international applicants. The initial survey pool consisted of frst-, second-, third-, and fourth-year medical students (classes of 2014-2017) compiled from a database managed by the Canadian Osteopathic Medical Student Association. Of the 102 students contacted, 66 (65%) completed the survey. Respondents had a strong desire to practice in Canada (44 [67%]) but were considering an Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) or dually accredited residency program in the United States (46 [70%] and 15 [23%], respectively) that would sponsor an H1B visa. Respondents were receptive to incorporating osteopathic manipulative medicine into practice (44 [67%]). Most respondents chose non-primary care specialties (40 [61%]) and incurred a debt of more than $200,000 (44 of 65 [68%]); however, debt had a limited infuence on respondents' choice of specialty (χ23=1.911; P=.591). Most respondents planned to complete ACGME training, to return to Canada to practice medicine, and to practice in a non-primary care specialty. As a growing population that will play a large role in the expansion and reception of the profession internationally, Canadian osteopathic medical students and US-trained Canadian DOs merit further examination.

H1-B visa program reform: Analysis of a problem facing policy decision makers on foreign labor practices

H1-B visa program reform: Analysis of a problem facing policy decision makers on foreign labor practices

Can the Service Sector Strike?

As Silicon Valley companies have grown, with skyrocketing profits and public approbation, their executives have been startled recently to encounter an obstacle beyond their control: government regulation. Facebook now employs enough H1-B visa holders to trigger limits on its employment of hightech immigrant workers. For a company that has built a global empire on “sharing,” or moving user data through Facebook’s system as freely as possible, the prospect of limits—whether on the distribution of data or human resources—is not welcome. Facebook’s slogan, “move fast and break things,” takes as a given that the company is firmly in the driver’s seat, choosing its speed and what limits it will surpass, without its pace regulated by outside forces. Accustomed to relative technical sovereignty, Facebook and its cohort see the prospect of federal immigration restrictions not as a divergence of their interests with that of the public, but as an outdated threat from Washington, the imposition of old values on an ecosystem that has transcended them.

Recruiting High Skill Labour in North America: Policies, Outcomes and Futures

AbstractThis article compares Canadian and US recruitment of highly skilled workers, defined by educational, skill, and occupational criteria. Analysis shows that Canada disproportionally recruits skilled workers as legal permanent residents whereas family reunification dominates in the US. But such contrast ignores the large temporary skilled worker flows to the US and the on‐going reliance on them, or the growing use of temporary labour in Canada, including skilled workers. Data is presented on the admission of skilled migrants; recent and future policy developments are discussed. Comprehensive immigration reform is back on the US agenda with potential to increase the migration of skilled immigrants, to utilize a point system for some, and to continue the role of employers in the H1B visa programme. Canada has recently moved to a model of high skill labour recruitment that is characterized by decentralized selection mechanisms, and is demand driven and employer instigated. Policy Implications In studies of high skill international worker flows, it is insufficient to focus only on permanent resident policies; temporary worker programmes also offer entry to high skilled workers. Although skill can be defined by high education and professional or science based occupation, some countries seek skilled workers in the trades. New Canadian policy includes a Skilled Trades class. In the United States, the congressional system often produces incremental change on aspects of skilled worker policy. In Canada, the consolidation of power in the parliamentary executive is allowing substantial change in how skilled international workers will be recruited.

Mr. Zuckerberg Goes to Washington

As Silicon Valley companies have grown, with skyrocketing profits and public approbation, their executives have been startled recently to encounter an obstacle beyond their control: government regulation. Facebook now employs enough H1-B visa holders to trigger limits on its employment of hightech immigrant workers. For a company that has built a global empire on “sharing,” or moving user data through Facebook’s system as freely as possible, the prospect of limits—whether on the distribution of data or human resources—is not welcome. Facebook’s slogan, “move fast and break things,” takes as a given that the company is firmly in the driver’s seat, choosing its speed and what limits it will surpass, without its pace regulated by outside forces. Accustomed to relative technical sovereignty, Facebook and its cohort see the prospect of federal immigration restrictions not as a divergence of their interests with that of the public, but as an outdated threat from Washington, the imposition of old values on an ecosystem that has transcended them.

IEEE-USA Urges Senate to Reject Expanding H-1B Visa [IEEE—USA

IEEE-USA Urges Senate to Reject Expanding H-1B Visa [IEEE—USA

Slump sinks H1-B visa program

Slump sinks H1-B visa program

Congress Pushes Back on H1-B Visas

Congress Pushes Back on H1-B Visas

Do Interest Groups Affect Immigration?

While anecdotal evidence suggests that interest groups play a key role in shaping immigration, there is no systematic empirical evidence on this issue. To motivate our analysis, we develop a simple theoretical model where migration policy is the result of the interaction between organized groups with conflicting interests towards labor flows. We evaluate the key predictions of the model using a new, industry-level dataset from the United States that we construct by combining information on the total number of immigrants and H1B visas with data on lobbying expenditures associated with immigration. We find robust evidence that both pro- and anti-immigration interest groups play a statistically significant and economically relevant role in shaping migration across sectors. Barriers to migration are lower in sectors in which business lobbies incur larger lobbying expenditures and higher in sectors where labor unions are more important.

Growth in Visas Boosts NSF Education Programs

Last week Congress rushed through an immigration bill that gives a big boost to education programs at the National Science Foundation (NSF). The measure, which almost doubles the number of skilled foreign workers eligible for high-tech U.S. jobs under so-called temporary H1-B visas, marks a hard-fought victory for high-tech companies scrambling for talent. In addition, it provides more than $100 million to help NSF tackle what policy-makers say is the real problem: the need for more homegrown scientists and engineers.

The Candidates' Views on Science

D uring each of the past several U.S. presidential elections, Science has posed questions about science policy to the major-party candidates. The editors have tried to ask hard questions that challenge the candidates and their staffs to develop thoughtful answers—responses that will not only help Science 's readership evaluate their positions before the election but might clarify important science and technology issues for a much larger number of thoughtful Americans. This year, as in the past, the candidates have been good enough to cooperate fully with Science , and the results provide some significant insights about how the next president might deal with the multiple aspects of U.S. national interest that have scientific and technical roots. We won't insult your intelligence by rehashing or evaluating the responses, the full texts of which are available in a side-by-side outlay beginning on page [262][1] as well as on Science Online. But here are a few areas that, in the view of the editors, are worth highlighting. Our first question was the shortest: It asked Vice President Gore and Governor Bush simply to choose their top three science and technology priorities. Both mentioned education, with Bush—consistent with his major campaign theme—putting it in first place. Gore emphasized investment incentives for research and made major commitments to balance and scope in the federal RD both unveiled programs to assist students with higher education. In responding to some of the later questions, the candidates took fairly similar policy positions. Both, for example, expressed support for raising the ceiling on H1-B visas for foreign high-tech workers, but both put it forward as an interim rather than a permanent solution. And when asked about making presidential appointments in the science and technology area, both candidates promised efforts to speed the process while identifying delays in Senate approval as offering challenges to a successful outcome. Both opposed “reasonable pricing” clauses regarding drugs developed with the help of federal funding. But there were important differences. When queried about the proposal to double the National Science Foundation's budget over the next 5 years, Vice President Gore responded with a clear commitment, whereas Governor Bush promised an unspecified increase. With respect to the deployment of antiballistic missiles, Gore insists on ensuring compliance with the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, whereas Bush proposes to change the treaty terms through negotiated agreements with Russia. Gore likes the space station; Bush would reevaluate it. Gore liked the Advanced Technology Program at the National Institute of Standards and Technology; Bush didn't say, but advocated more support for defense-related research. Perhaps it is not surprising that the starkest differences are over programs and policies that have themselves been the subject of especially intense national controversy. Affirmative action programs are clearly favored by Vice President Gore; Governor Bush proposes “affirmative access”: expanded recruitment efforts without preference. Our question on the scientific evidence regarding the human imprint on global warming drew an affirmation from Gore that might have been predicted from his previously announced position. But the answer from Bush emphasized other atmospheric quality issues. On global warming, he described the temperature increase as a slight one with uncertain causes, and advocated “extensive scientific analysis” to explore the issue further. Science has not endorsed candidates for partisan elective office in the past, and we don't intend to start now. Those of our readers who are eligible to vote in the United States, most of them practicing scientists, will want to evaluate the evidence and then reach their own conclusions. We also know that in making their choice, they are unlikely to limit their evaluation of the candidates to issues that lie in the domain of science policy. Still, the future of the United States is perhaps more dependent than ever on science and technology and on how the U.S. government supports and manages them. These issues are our business here at Science . We hope that our readers will compare the candidates' responses carefully and that they will find them useful on November 7. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.290.5490.262