> Stats from the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services
> suggest that both applications and approvals of H-1B visas have
> already declined dramatically (especially in the non-exempt
> categories) since 2001. In 2002, about 60% of the H-1B visa quota
> went unused.
But
* the so-called "quota" does not apply to all employers: as your
source clearly states (and might even more clearly, if you would
bother to cite a URL :-)
Tampa Tribune (Florida) May 3, 2003, Saturday, FINAL EDITION
> Exempt categories such as employees of nonprofit organizations and
> institutes of higher learning are not counted against the cap;
Note that "these are jobs too": importing workers to fill them
places downward pressure on labor markets generally, and
exploitation of academic workers is still exploitation. In case
you're unaware how technical visas are used to exploit academic
workers, see
http://nber.nber.org/~peat/PapersFolder/Papers/SG/NSF.html
* the H1-B is not the only technical visa. There is, for instance, the
L-1 (which, BTW, has _no_ quota):
http://www.computerworld.com/printthis/2003/0,4814,81518,00.html
> NUMBERS: There are currently more than 325,000 L-1 visa holders in
> the U.S., up from 203,255 in 1998.
> WHO CAN GET IT: The visa is intended to let companies transfer
> workers with specialized knowledge into the U.S.
> PROBLEMS: Critics say the L-1 program is being abused and functions
> as a vehicle for displacing U.S. IT workers with cheap foreign
> labor.
* marginal reduction != total reduction. As, again, your source
clearly states
Tampa Tribune (Florida) May 3, 2003, Saturday, FINAL EDITION
> The cap does not apply to renewals.
Remember that visa-holder inflow greatly exceeds outflow. Even if
the number arriving in any one year declines, the total number of
imported workers (which is what drives labor-market effects)
continues to increase.
Yoshie Furuhashi Fri, 04 Jul 2003 15:41:40 -0400
> It is probable that economic downturns have affected would-be H-1B
> visa applicants much more harshly than US-born IT workers.
Umm ... what's your point? Are you defending technical visas? Or seeking to belittle their effect on workers and labor markets?