Dear Readers:
If you’ve noticed your emails and phone calls to your immigration lawyer have been a little slow in getting returned, it might be because this is H-1B cap week. 25 years ago, someone got the brilliant idea that the H-1B category needed an upper limit of 65,000 visas per year. No need for any provisions for the number to grow with the economy. Surely Congress would just increase the number every few years.
We all know what happened. 25 years later we have an economy that is substantially larger. There are about 70 million more people in the US. And we’ve got the same 65,000 quota. The demand for the visa is so great that all the visas are gone in one week a year (it would be one day if USCIS was interested) and there will still be a lottery amongst those who got their applications filed in time.
There is a small minority out there who thinks this is great. A few folks who are convinced that their job has been stolen by an H-1B worker (despite plenty of evidence showing H-1Bs preserve and create a lot of jobs without displacing US workers). And there are the xenophobes who want to stop all immigration simply because they don’t like immigrants.
There’s a lot of consensus in both parties that we need to reform skilled worker immigration. But there’s still paralysis. That’s arguably because a few restrictionists in Congress have seniority on key committees and party leaders are unwilling or uninterested in defying them.
It has now been nearly ten years since Congress passed even modest skilled worker immigration. I represent a number of clients in two key areas where legislation that enjoys widespread support has been introduced but is still languishing. One is physician immigration. There is a massive shortage of doctors in the US that is getting worse. Because it can take 15 years from the point when Congress decides to grow the physician supply to the point when the additional doctors have finished their training, we know that this problem is going to last a long time. There are thousands of doctors who have US training that are available, but strict quotas limit how many can practice here. The other group is comprised of entrepreneurs who are starting up businesses. These are individuals often taking substantial risks who will end up employing a lot of Americans if they succeed. 25% of the companies in Silicon Valley were started by immigrants including Google, EBay and Intel. The StartUp act would create immigration pathways for many of these individuals. More H-1Bs or an H-1B cap exemption for individuals in science, technology, engineering and math fields would also help considerably for immigrant entrepreneurs.
I regularly go to Washington to meet with congressional offices working on immigration legislation. Last month I was there and I’ll be back in a few weeks for the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s annual Day of Action. I’ll be joined by lawyers from across the country who see firsthand what is not working in the immigration system. These visits make a difference as do other forms of advocacy. In the middle of the last decade, comprehensive immigration legislation failed because the pro-immigration community was largely silent while restrictionists were so organized that their numbers seemed much larger than was the reality. That has changed dramatically in the years since and even though we still are awaiting legislative solutions, the politics of immigration reform are such that an anti-immigrant candidate for President has no chance of winning and public opinion consistently backed moderate solutions. Restrictionists are now clearly on the defensive and it is in no small due to the activism of the pro-immigrant community.
***
The implementation of the President’s DACA and DAPA deferred action programs that would offer immigration relief to millions of out of status individuals has been halted because of the ruling of a federal district court judge in Texas. The judge, to no one’s surprise, issued an injunction barring the White House from proceeding with the programs. I say it’s not a surprise because the plaintiffs in the case looked at every judge in the country and chose to file in the court that had a judge with a known hostile record on past immigration actions of the President.
But we should know soon if this was a momentary blip or the beginning of a long delay. On April 17th, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals is set to hear oral arguments regarding the lifting of the injunction. While this does not mean either side will have ultimately won or lost the case, lifting the injunction would almost certainly be seen as a huge victory for the White House and the DACA and DAPA programs would likely be implemented within a few months. A loss, on the other hand, would mean a delay of a couple of additional more months and would be very demoralizing for the individuals waiting to apply.
If you follow me on Twitter (@gsiskind) or read my blog at www.ilw.com, you’ll get my take on the 5th Circuit decision on the injunction as soon as it is announced.
***
Readers are reminded that Siskind Susser welcomes new clients and if they would like to talk with one of our attorneys, visit our web site at www.visalaw.com. You can contact the attorney of your choice by visiting their individual biography pages, fill out our consultation request form at the web site or call the phone number on the site to set up an appointment.
Regards,
Greg Siskind
Disclaimer: This newsletter is provided as a public service and not intended to establish an attorney client relationship. Any reliance on information contained herein is taken at your own risk.