Lawyer Wants to Eliminate H-1B Quotas

Date: Monday, September 16, 2002 5:11 PM

************ H-1B NEWSLETTER *************

* Get the Facts on H-1B at *
* www.ZaZona.com *

Immigration attorney Mark Topoleski jabs Harris Miller's ITAA in this
article. Although he doesn't mention the ITAA by name who can doubt who he
is referring to in the quote below? That is because Harris Miller has been
all over the country lobbying to keep the H-1B quota at it's present level
of 195,000 per year. It is scheduled to go down to 65,000 per year in 2004.

While the supporters of the current H-1B cap level are
making the right arguments, they do not go far enough.
The best solution for the U.S. economy and the American
worker is to abolish the H-1B cap.

Topoleski wants to abolish the H-1B cap so that companies can bring
unlimited numbers of H-1Bs into the USA! He then has the audacity to say
this is the best thing for American workers. His rationale for abolishing
the quota would be very funny if it weren't for the fact that he is dead
serious. He borrows from Miller's argument that goes something like this:
The fact that "H-1B numbers are down is proof positive" that companies will
not use H-1Bs for "cheap foreign labor". Why isn't this proof positive that
companies continue to hire tens of thousands of H-1Bs despite the fact that
1.5 million American workers will lose their extended unemployment benefits
by the end of this month? (see 2nd article)

He dismisses the idea of pegging the quota to the unemployment rate because
"the success of each segment depends on an amorphous collection of different
factors unique to that segment." Only a lawyer could say something like
that.

Topoleski uses another classic Harris Miller argument. He states that
companies must be allowed to import more H-1Bs or they won't be able to
recover from the recession. The assumption is that the massive number of
H-1Bs that were imported here to eliminate American workers from the job
market somehow helped our economy and now we need more of the same. In all
probability H-1B has accelerated the recession and more visas will cause the
recession to deepen. Replacing highly paid Americans and forcing them into
low paying jobs or unemployment cannot possibly help the economy - although
it will make corporations and immigration lawyers like Topoleski rich.
Topoleski is proposing nothing less than a globalist open borders scam.

I wouldn't be surprised if the press soon paints Harris Miller as a
moderate. This is a typical "good guy/bad guy" tactic used by crooks to dupe
unsuspecting victims to go with the lesser of two evils. We all need to keep
our eye on the ball: H-1B is a scandal and should be abolished. All quota
limits are irrelevant.

http://www.indusbusinessjournal.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=272228

Indus Business Journal - Immigration
Issue: 09/01/02

H-1B statistics support argument for abolishing annual cap
By Mark A. Topoleski

In August, the Immigration and Naturalization Service reported its
statistics detailing the number of individuals who were granted H-1B status
through three quarters of its current fiscal year (Oct. 1, 2001 to Sept. 30,
2002). According to the INS, 60,500 individuals were approved to begin
employment in H-1B status during this period, which was a 53% drop in
approvals compared to the same three-quarter period in fiscal year 2001 when
the INS approved 130,700 individuals for H-1B status.
Currently, the number of individuals the INS can approve for H-1B status is
capped at 195,000 annually. However, this cap is scheduled to return to its
original level of 65,000 at the end of fiscal year 2003 on Sept. 30, 2003.
As this date approaches, you can expect a heated debate in Congress and
across the nation on the appropriate future direction of the H-1B program.

In the height of the U.S. economic boom, the H-1B annual cap was raised
progressively to its current level at the prompting of U.S. businesses to
address difficulties in finding highly skilled workers to fill technical
positions.

Many of the most ardent supporters of an increase in the annual H-1B cap
were companies in high tech industries who had found that the U.S. labor
pool did not have an adequate number of workers with specialized technical
training to fill open positions and the U.S. educational system was lagging
behind in its ability to supply graduates in technical fields including
computer sciences, hard sciences and mathematics.

Opponents of raising the H-1B cap decried the business community's claim of
a "labor shortage" as inaccurate and lacking supporting evidence, and
instead posited that big business was only looking to raise the H-1B cap as
a means to hire more "cheap" foreign labor. These opponents argued that
raising the H-1B cap hurt the U.S. by taking away jobs from Americans.

As next fall approaches, the H-1B debate will again center around what to do
with the annual H-1B cap. Supporters of the H-1B program will argue to keep
the cap at or near its current levels to keep businesses in a position to
grow when the economy improves. Opponents will argue that the H-1B cap
should be reduced to at or below past levels to protect American workers.
Some opponents are already suggesting a framework where the H-1B cap would
be tied to an unemployment index.

In my opinion, the opponents of the H-1B program are taking a position that
is fundamentally flawed and ultimately is counterproductive for the U.S.
economy. By setting the H-1B at an artificially low level, we would only be
handicapping our nation's ability to grow its economy.

In today's high tech world, if business cannot find skilled workers to fill
positions in areas such as information technology, science and research and
development, they will not be able to keep pace with global competitors
operating in countries that have taken measures to encourage, not
discourage, the flow of highly skilled workers. Typically, the businesses
that need highly skilled technical workers today are the same businesses
that develop new products and services in the future, thus creating new jobs
for American workers.

However, if we limit businesses' ability to acquire this talent through an
artificially low H-1B cap, opportunities for new jobs and new wealth for the
U.S. economy will be missed.

For example, when the H-1B cap was at its previously low level, the cap was
sometimes reached as early as four or five months into the fiscal year. This
meant that some employers looking to hire an H-1B worker had to wait over
six months to obtain authorization from the INS. Obviously, in a fast-moving
economy this was not a viable option, and so business suffered.

Those who argue tying the H-1B cap to an unemployment index as a means to
protect American jobs also miss the point. The U.S. economy is made up of
various industry segments. At any given time, the success of each segment
depends on an amorphous collection of different factors unique to that
segment.

Thus, while the manufacturing sector is suffering, the financial services
can be doing well. If we were to tie the H-1B cap to an overall inflation
index, we limit the ability to have skilled labor flow to the industry
sectors that need it to continue to sustain growth. If nationwide
unemployment numbers are high due to slowing growth in old economy sectors,
that is certainly not the time we want to cap the number of skilled workers
the new economy sectors can access the talent they need to pull the nation
out of an economic slowdown.

While the supporters of the current H-1B cap level are making the right
arguments, they do not go far enough. The best solution for the U.S. economy
and the American worker is to abolish the H-1B cap.

When the economy is strong, the only objective accomplished by setting an
H-1B cap, however high it may be, is to set a cap on our nation's economic
growth.

When the economy slows down and U.S. employers are able to find an adequate
number of highly skilled technical workers from within the U.S. labor pool,
the number of H-1B workers needed will necessarily fall. By eliminating the
H-1B cap, the H-1B numbers will always regulate themselves as dictated by
the present state of the economy.

Such a "no-cap" solution allows U.S. businesses the flexibility to tap the
H-1B labor pool when needed without restriction, instead of relying on
Congress to make adjustments that traditionally lag years behind when they
are really needed most.

As the INS statistics reflect, we will not come anywhere near reaching the
annual cap this fiscal year. Why? Because the U.S. economy is slow and
businesses are able find the workers they need from the U.S. labor pool. If
businesses were using the H-1B program only as a means to hire cheap foreign
labor, these numbers would have remained consistent.

The fact that the H-1B numbers are down is proof positive that the state of
the economy will properly regulate the H-1B number, and thus a cap on H-1B
use only serves to cap our nation's opportunities for growth when better
economic times return.

Mark A. Topoleski is an immigration attorney with the law firm of Clark Hill
PLC. Topoleski is also a member of TiE-Detroit.

Many Unemployed As Jobless Benefits End

T.K. MALOY, UPI Deputy Business Editor
United Press International - September 10, 2002
WASHINGTON, Sep 10, 2002 (United Press International via COMTEX) -- By the
end of this month, about 1.5 million unemployed workers will have exhausted
federal emergency unemployment insurance benefits without finding work,
according to a study released Tuesday by the Center of Budget and Policy
Priorities.

In stopgap legislation enacted last spring, Congress funded 13 additional
weeks of benefits in all states and 13 more in states that are classified as
"high unemployment, the CBPP, a Washington think tank, said.

More workers are exhausting all federal unemployment benefits, without
finding new jobs than during the early 1990s recession.

For 2002 as a whole, about 2.2 million unemployed workers will exhaust
benefits under the Temporary Emergency Unemployment Compensation program
established in the March stimulus package.

The "major reasons that so many unemployed workers are exhausting benefits
this year are found in the design of the measure passed in March ... it
provided too few weeks of extended benefits, especially in comparison to
federal action in the last recession," said CBPP.

The center added that the congressional measure used a flawed formula for
determining whether a state had "high unemployment." The group said that the
formula fails to count as unemployed those workers who exhaust their regular
unemployment benefits -- that is, their initial 26 weeks of state-financed
benefits -- and remain out of work.

"Thus, the longer that unemployment remains elevated -- and the greater the
number of workers who have been jobless for more than six months -- the less
likely a state is to count as having high unemployment," the center said.

The state-by-state figures in the report show that though July, the states
with the largest numbers of unemployed workers who had exhausted their
benefits were: New York (111,000), Texas (78,000) and Florida (62,000).

The report notes that, aside from providing crucial support to families
under financial duress, unemployment benefits are highly effective as
automatic stabilizers.

That is, they provide economic stimulus during downturns but automatically
shrink as the employment picture improves.

Since Congress approved extended benefits, the jobless rate hasn't changed
much. In both March and August, the unemployment rate was 5.7 percent,
according to the U.S. Labor Department.

In the CBPP report, the group recommends prompt federal action to assist
those who have exhausted their federal benefits.

Copyright 2002 by United Press International.

http://editorial.careers.msn.com/articles/longterm/

Discouraging News for the Long-Term Unemployed
by John Rossheim

Many of the headlines on February 1 appeared to hold promise for the
jobless: The US unemployment rate dropped by 0.2 percent in January 2002, to
5.6 percent. But the very first clause of the Bureau of Labor Statistics
report bore bad news on the complimentary statistic: "Employment continued
to decline in January." Indeed, the employment rate plummeted by 0.4
percent, to 62.6 percent, its lowest level since August 1994.

How can this be? How can the numbers of both employed and unemployed
Americans decline simultaneously? The answer is dispiriting: Faced with the
continuing deterioration of demand for their skills, large numbers of job
seekers simply stopped seeking jobs.

In the Twilight Zone

By Labor Department standards, workers who have given up are neither
employed nor unemployed, since they don't qualify for unemployment if
they're not actively looking for work. These dispossessed souls, who say
that they want to work, have entered a twilight zone where they are labeled
as "discouraged workers" or "marginally attached" to the labor force, in
government parlance.

How have 1.5 million Americans ended up in this unenviable state? "A lot of
people have just given up for a few weeks," hoping their prospects will
improve in the intermediate term, says Heather Boushey, a labor economist
with the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington, DC, think tank.

For many jobless professionals, especially men, "after they run through
their network, the optimism runs out," and they give up for a while, says
Dorothea Braginsky, a professor of psychology at Fairfield University in
Fairfield, Connecticut.

Where to Turn?

Many who have at least temporarily given up the job search decide that
further education may help them out of their quandary. "A lot of those
workers are deciding to go back to school," says Anthony Chan, chief
economist at Banc One Investment Advisors in Columbus, Ohio. "You're seeing
college enrollments pick up, and some people with bachelor's degrees are
going directly to graduate school" rather than braving a labor market
glutted with recent grads.

Of course, many discouraged workers lack the flexibility or financial
resources to go back to school. "Some people will just depend on spousal
income" to pull them through the jobs recession, says Braginsky. For these
workers, the first half of 2002 may be a demoralizing waiting game.

For those who have long been jobless but are still looking, the future is
equally unwelcoming. "Long-term unemployment is up, and exhaustions of
unemployment insurance benefits are rising," says Rick McHugh, a staff
attorney with the National Employment Law Project in Dexter, Michigan.
"Congress has passed benefit extensions in every recession beginning with
the 1970s, and we are way past due on getting extensions of benefits in this
recession."

Prospects for Jobs Recovery

Unfortunately, when discouraged workers do summon the will to resume the job
search, they will help prolong the dearth of jobs by increasing the
oversupply of labor. "These people will eventually come back into the labor
force, which will make the unemployment rate go up," Boushey says.

On the bright side, Chan believes that the US recession has already ended
and the economy actually began to expand in January. But because hiring lags
behind economic recovery, "the bad news is that unemployment will go higher,
peaking at 6 or 6.25 percent," Chan says. "What you see here is a labor
market that likely will continue to deteriorate over the next several
months."

Help to Keep ZaZona.com Online

Donate to the Cause at
http://www.zazona.com/Donations.htm

Back to archives