H-1B

What should corporate America pay for national security when using the H-1B visa program?

The recent terrorist attacks in the UK have significant implications for our H-1B visa program, which was designed to provide specialized visas for highly-skilled professionals--such as physicians--when they cannot be found domestically to fill needed jobs. We now know that most of the UK terrorists last week were doctors.

The H-1B visa program has been highly controversial. Consider it the compliment of overseas job outsourcing. Over the years, I have written a number of articles on outsourcing which are available here on BNWW.

But what if there are jobs that cannot be outsourced? After all, it may be difficult, to outsource all the tasks your doctor performs. The answer: just bring foreign doctors here under the H-1B visa program. If lawmakers can be convinced there is a physician shortage, they may increase the H-1B visa cap to allow more foreign doctors to enter.

Of course the H-1B program does not apply only to doctors and other healthcare workers. It also applies to engineers, computer programmers, accountants, architects, and almost any other professional occupation you can think of. The real issue is whether the shortage exists or not.

For years, companies claimed there were legitimate shortages, and they needed to fill these slots with foreigners to remain competitive in the global market. Critics however, have pointed to major abuses, claiming companies exploit the H-1B program to depress salaries. The two most informed individuals on these abuses are Norm Matloff, at the University of California, Davis, and Rob Sanchez at JobDestruction.com.

Only last month, major attention was given to a You-Tube video of a law firm giving a presentation on how to exploit the H-1B program.

The UK terrorist attacks should cause us to question who we are letting in the U.S. with H-1B visas. What price are we paying in economic security and even national security?

One solution may be to require all companies issuing H-1B to pay a fee based on the prevailing salary in the industry. The proceeds could go to the government to offset the additional costs of enhanced security and administering the H-1B program, such as background checks, etc.. At least, this way, taxpayers would not be footing the bill.

The real advantage however, is that companies would be forced to pay a salary closer to the prevailing industry average. Because issuing the H-1B would become less attractive, there would be a greater incentive to hire our own domestic professionals instead.

If H-1B issuers were required to pay an H-1B tax, we might find out how real the shortages are in various industries. If they are real, companies will pay the higher amount to get the workers they claim they so desperately need. On the other hand, if the shortages are not real, as many suspect, domestic professionals in many industries that have been so adversely impacted will get a needed boost.

National security also would be enhanced because there would either be more resources to properly implement H-1B, if shortages are real, or less H-1B usage, if shortages are not real. In the end, it may be cheaper to hire U.S. workers when the new security costs are taken into consideration.

Of course, corporations are likely to balk at a security tax, but what is the alternative? To not implement enhanced security? To have already stressed taxpayers pick up the tab?

If corporations are going to use or abuse H-1B, then they should at least pick up the security cost. That way we will help minimize someone coming to the U.S. under the auspices of H-1B in order to later execute a terrorist attack. While many may say this is an overreaction, people certainly are not saying that in the UK now, after the doctors there planted their bombs.

Dr. Raynor can be reached at WRaynor124@aol.com