http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118049275665118129.html?mod=opinion_m...
"The H-1B program is already costly, and all things being equal there's
already a heavy incentive to hire Americans," says Robert Hoffman, Oracle's
vice president of government and public affairs. "But there comes a point
where the program is so costly that we have to decide if it's better to move
this work offshore. And that's something that can't be in our overall
national interests."

It's obvious that the immigration bill was written with the fate of 12
million illegal aliens foremost in mind. But we hope Congress is mindful
that foreign professionals also fill important niches in the U.S. labor
market that help keep American companies competitive and jobs stateside.

Immigration policies should acknowledge that the U.S. is not producing
enough home-grown computer scientists, mathematicians and engineers to fill
our labor needs.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118049275665118129.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

The Legal Visa Crunch
May 30, 2007; Page A18
The Senate immigration bill continues to take lumps from all political
sides, with some criticisms more deserving than others. The vote last week
to halve the size of a guest-worker program for low-skilled workers is a
big step in the wrong direction; skimping on visas will only lead to more
illicit border crossings. But the bill's handling of high-skilled
immigration is even more troubling: The proposed changes are worse than
current law.

Ostensibly, the goal here is to move immigration policy away from a system
based on family connections and toward one based on skills. The Senate
measure calls for a "merit" system that awards points to would-be
immigrants based on their education and work experience. But employers who
recruit foreign professionals -- and aren't too keen on Uncle Sam taking
over those duties -- are balking at the proposal on grounds that it will
introduce all sorts of inefficiencies to their hiring.

U.S. businesses aren't looking for skilled workers in general; they're
looking for people with specific skills. And in the high-tech industry
especially, where the demand for new products and services is constantly
changing, employers need the flexibility to fill critical positions as
quickly as possible. The last thing Hewlett-Packard or Texas Instruments
need is uncertainty about whether the workers they want to hire will pass
some bureaucratic point test. If the Senate wants the U.S. to keep
attracting the world's best and brightest, this bill is an odd way of
showing it.

Last month the supply of H-1B temporary visas for foreign professionals
not only ran out in one day, but did so six months before the October
start of the 2008 fiscal year. It's the fourth straight year that
companies have exhausted the supply before the start of the year, which is
a clear market signal that the cap should be raised, if not removed.

The Senate bill would increase the supply of H-1B's by 50,000 to 115,000
and put in place a market-based escalator that couldn't exceed 180,000.
That's an improvement, but it will still leave too many firms in the
lurch. The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects growth of about 100,000
jobs per year in computer and math science occupations between 2004 and
2014.

Worse, the visa increase is combined with other provisions that seem
designed to make employing foreign professionals both costly and
cumbersome. Larger companies can probably live with the proposed increase
in the fee for each H-1B visa hire (and renewal) to $5,000 from $1,500.
But companies would also be forced to prove for the year surrounding the
hiring of a foreigner -- six months before and six months after -- that a
U.S. worker has not been displaced. This requirement is so burdensome that
under current law it's used to punish companies that have been caught
violating program rules. The Senate bill would needlessly apply it to
everyone.

"The H-1B program is already costly, and all things being equal there's
already a heavy incentive to hire Americans," says Robert Hoffman,
Oracle's vice president of government and public affairs. "But there comes
a point where the program is so costly that we have to decide if it's
better to move this work offshore. And that's something that can't be in
our overall national interests."

It's obvious that the immigration bill was written with the fate of 12
million illegal aliens foremost in mind. But we hope Congress is mindful
that foreign professionals also fill important niches in the U.S. labor
market that help keep American companies competitive and jobs stateside.

Immigration policies should acknowledge that the U.S. is not producing
enough home-grown computer scientists, mathematicians and engineers to
fill our labor needs. Last year, U.S. universities awarded more than half
of their master's degrees and 71% of their Ph.D.s in electrical
engineering to foreign nationals. It's foolhardy to educate these
individuals and then effectively expel them so that they can put their
human capital to work for U.S. competitors. There's no shortage of
countries that would be thrilled to benefit from a U.S. brain drain.

The best way to keep that from happening is by raising the quotas for
employment-based visas and green cards to realistic levels consistent with
market demand, and by allowing U.S. firms to make their own decisions
about which workers are best suited to fill their labor needs.