BETA
This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here

More From Forbes

Edit Story

Indian And Chinese Tech Workers Could Go To Front Of Green Card Line Under New Bill

Following
This article is more than 5 years old.

The U.S. is taking a second shot at removing the per-country limit on green cards through bill HR 1044, a measure that will help certain U.S. immigrant populous source countries, such as India, China and Mexico overcome a current disadvantage in applying for U.S. permanent residence. Bill HR 1044 (formerly HR 392), also known as the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act, introduced in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, aims to have green cards issued by category and date of filing, regardless of the country of birth of the applicant. With bipartisan support and the backing of major tech firms including Google, Microsoft, and IBM, it seems the bill may be the real deal. However, despite HR 1044’s intended  purpose of alleviating current backlogs with “more efficient” processing of employment-based applicants born in countries like India and China, and family-based applicants born in Mexico, the problem is it will not benefit immigrants from all the other countries and therefore may not be a net benefit for America. Instead of issuing more green cards, HR 1044 is pitting immigrants from some countries against those from others on a divide and conquer basis. But some advocates take the view that is the only way forward.

Currently, the U.S. grants 140,000 green cards annually to employment-based immigrants. However, no more than seven percent can actually go to any one country, regardless of population size. As a result of this limited number, there is an enormous backlog of applicants from some countries that some say may take decades to clear. In fact, as of May 2018, over 395,025 foreign nationals are awaiting their green cards under the employment-based category. Of this number, 306,601 are Indian. Enter the HR 1044 bill, which will supposedly resolve the backlog through a first-come, first-serve process. Immigrants from India and China would get the majority of the green cards, simply because of how many applicants there are from both countries now in the backlog. The table below provides a better glimpse of processing numbers for green cards.

Sourced from USCIS -- https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/nativedocuments/Count_of_Approved_I-140_I-360_and_I-526_Petitions_as_of_April_20_2018_with_a_Priority_Date_On_or_After_May_2018.PDF

Advocates for the bill argue that scrapping the per-country limit will help reduce the backlog, help maintain America’s competitive and innovative reputation, and boost opportunity for all. Opponents argue that if HR 1044 were passed, it would be discriminatory because less populated countries would no longer have access to a guaranteed green card pool. Whether intentional or not, the new system would unfairly favor a few countries over all others. What is more, they argue, scrapping the per-country limit would favor one industry over others - high-skilled tech workers would benefit, but the bill would create a shortage of workers in other industries, such as healthcare. In summary, opponents argue that the bill would not actually fix the backlog because, for example, even though it may help Indians - and the extent to which it will ease the logjam is debatable - it will increase the wait time for other countries. Indians alone already face inordinately long wait times in certain categories for the possibility of approval. If in accordance with the change, everyone now became subject to long and strenuous wait times, the U.S. would only increasingly suffer from a lack of incoming talent and thus, innovation.

Jinhee Wilde,  an immigration attorney and the managing partner of Wilde & Associates, an immigration law firm in Rockville, Md. presents the opposing position most clearly, "While this bill may help with the current Chinese, Vietnamese and Indian backlog for a few years, it will exacerbate the inequality of the future immigrant population and will significantly add to the backlog for all other countries, and work to kill the EB-5 program as a whole." Wilde adds, "this bill would torpedo all employment-based immigrant visas in the future." She cites the fact that "It would not only hurt petitioners from over 100 other countries, but also will affect businesses that happen to be sponsoring individuals that are not from India or China. For example, a highly coveted specialist from the Netherlands would be sent to the back of the line and will have to wait 10+ years to be employed by the U.S. employer (currently, there are 9-10 years of backlogs in both the EB-2 and EB-3 categories for India, and several years backlogs for China and the Philippines as well)."

"For EB-5 investors, the elimination of the country cap would essentially mean that China-born applicants would dominate the front of the line for EB-5 visas for the next 10+ years, while the rest of the world would stand in line behind them ... Just as the long wait time for China has dried up that market within the last 2 years, forcing the rest of the world to wait 10+ years after investing $500,000 or more to get a Green Card would kill the EB-5 program. A dramatic increase in the amount of the minimum investment would have less deterrence than telling the investors to wait 10+ years to get their conditional green card as there will be enough investors with enough wealth to undertake the process as long as they could obtain their Green Card quickly," says Wilde.

In short, opponents of the HR 1044 bill say that it is really an inelegant solution to a complex problem. While it seems like the proposed change would solve a one issue, it would only end up creating more problems. They say HR 1044  would not solve America’s diversity and immigration problem, nor would it foster equal opportunity. As opposed to rearranging the distribution of green cards, America should give immigrants from all countries a more equal shot by increasing the number of green cards issued, like for example, in reinterpreting the 10,000 slots currently allocated to EB5 applicants, to include only investors and not counting family members in that yearly total. They argue that U.S. lawmakers need to go back to the drawing board on the EB5 program as well as on green card availability as a whole.

Whatever their views, stakeholders are urged to contact their local representatives to voice their respective opinions on the proposed bill.

Follow me on Twitter or LinkedInCheck out my website or some of my other work here