> The problem is that ruling circles in US and the developed world
> generally are committed to free trade in commodities and free
> movement of capital. It would be difficult to oppose free movement
> of labour power on that basis.
"Free movement of labour" is not the objection--it's that the technical visa programs are designed to provide "high-tech braceros" for employers:
http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/itaa.real.html#trappedsection
> 9.4.1 Why Indentured Servitude Is of Such High Appeal to Employers
> The indentured servitude issue is central to the H-1B discussion.
> For many employers, indentured servitude is even more important than
> salary, as the impact of a programmer leaving a project can be
> devastating.
<snip>
> 9.4.3 The Nature of De Facto Indentured Servitude
> Note that an H-1B employee is essentially immobile during the years
> while the greencard is pending, thus refuting ITAA's argument that
> H-1Bs who are exploited in terms of salary can simply move to
> another job. The workers certainly do not want to start the
> greencard process all over again.
<snip>
> The anonymous author of an op-ed piece in TechWeb News, March 16,
> 1998, wrote,
> I am an immigrant from India...the H-1B visa allows someone to
> work only temporarily at a high-tech job for a few years. An
> employer has to sponsor one for an H-1B visa. These engineers
> cannot switch jobs at will. To do so requires a new H-1B visa.
> Companies love these H-1B workers, as they are eager to please
> their sponsors [in the hope] that they can be sponsored for
> greencards. These engineers are virtually ``indentured slaves''
> of their sponsors.
> Once a company initiates the process of sponsoring a candidate
> to greencard, it can currently take three to four years.
> Companies love this and frequently delay the process on purpose.
> Some big companies have this delay built into their sponsoring
> process. During this period, candidates are virtual slaves. They
> are forced to work long hours at low wages. And usually they do
> not get good raises or promotions...
> I myself left my company when I got a greencard and I got a
> raise of 40 percent.
> Department of Labor statistics show that many of the H-1Bs do leave
> their employers soon after they get their greencards, just like the
> case of the anonymous author above. The Inspector General's report
> (The Department of Labor's Foreign Labor Certification Programs: The
> System is Broken and Needs to be Fixed, Final Report No.
> 06-96-002-03-321, Joseph Fisch, Assistant Inspector General for
> Audit) found that
> ...many left the employer who sponsored them shortly after
> obtaining permanent [i.e. greencard] status: 8 percent left
> within 90 days, 17 percent left within 180 days, and 33 percent
> left within 1 year.
> Presumably many of the remainder who stayed beyond a year did so
> only after negotiating a large pay increase, by threatening to
> leave.
<snip>
> In addition to the de facto indentured servitude which results from
> the long wait for greencards, in many cases ``job shops'' impose a
> de jure indentured servitude, by forcing the H-1Bs to sign contracts
> in India before coming to the U.S.
<snip>
> The new law allows an H-1B to exceed the 6-year time limit on the
> visa, if a greencard application is pending. From the H-1Bs' point
> of view, this of course is preferable to having to leave the U.S.,
> but from the employers' perspective, it means that the period of
> indentured servitude can be extended even longer.
> Immediately after the bill passed Congress, immigration attorney
> Jose Latour assured nervous employers that it would indeed continue
> to be business as usual in terms of indentured servitude.
<snip>
> Starting in early 2001 (or late 2000), the industry experienced a
> sharp slowdown. There were now many more H-1Bs than jobs which
> employers wished to fill with H-1Bs. Accordingly, many employers no
> longer offered green card sponsorship when they hired H-1Bs. Though
> this would at first appear to at least give the H-1Bs more freedom
> of movement, they now had a new problem - deportation. If they were
> laid off or fired from one job, they would have to find another
> within 10 days, or face deportation. (Some immigration attorneys
> challenged this, but the INS chose not to respond.) So, it was de
> facto indentured servitude all over again.