Jump to content

Talk:H-1B visa/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

other source of income

I understand the an H1-B holder can only (legally, haha) work for the employer listed on the visa. What about other sources of income such as self-employing jobs (e.g. tutoring, website design), investing in stocks, or selling goods on ebay? What if the person has not yet converted to an H1-B and still on OPT? Does that change anything?

--Chochopk 05:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Back in 1998, Dr. Norman Matloff of UC Davis testified to Congress about the Software Labor Shortage (or rather it's lack as he indicated). I always liked his argument and was wondering if this would be an appropriate addition to the 'External Links' section (I'd originally considered Outsourcing but this page seems like a better match). I was considering something like this:

Does this seem appropriate to everyone? --KNHaw 04:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI, since I did not hear any objections I added it to the article. --KNHaw 22:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Common Misconceptions

The common misconception section should be removed. If it isn't a copyvio, it's still a completely inappropriate format for Wikipedia. Any useful material should be integrated into the article proper. Superm401 - Talk 02:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I am removing it now. It doesn't belong and is extremely POV, biased in favor of H1B.

Anti-H-1B sites

I cannot see how a list of sites of dubious quality with little or no verifiable information such as that contained in under "Anti-H-1B sites" has any place in this article. I think that having this list of links violates the spirit of NPOV. -GLG

Or at least we should have a list of "pro H1B" sites, such as immigrant rights sites, but I do favor removing this list altogether. Quase 21:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Pro-H1B sites are not encyclopedic because the only ones I know of are commercial/spam "for a big fee, we'll help you navigate all the visa requirements and immigrate to the United States!!!" sites. Anti-H1B sites are encyclopedic because they provide sourced critical information on this program including firsthand testimonies from those American workers who have been directly harmed and displaced from their jobs.
White-washing by people who benifit from H-1B programs is unacceptable. the article must present both sides including research supporting contrary evidence to what the white-washers believe.
We do have a list of pro-h1b sites; they're listed in [[1]Advocacy efforts]. Where are the "anti" H1B visa sites you speak of? Does anyone care that (according to Google) 70% of all searches for "H1B" are from India? And what article do you think is at the top of the search results?


The Zazona site is run by Rob Sanchez, who probably knows more about the H-1B program than anyone. I think it's beneficial to keep that link. Though it is a good point that there be a pro-H1B link for balance. EB.

High-tech companies often cite a tech-worker shortage when asking Congress to raise the 65,000 annual cap on H-1B visas, but according to a study conducted by John Miano and the Center for Immigration Studies there is no empirical data to support that claim. 2

Citing studies done at Duke, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Georgetown University and others, critics have also argued that in some years, the number of foreign programmers and engineers imported outnumbered the number of jobs created by the industry. 3

POV Assertions and Unformatted Data

I removed a paragraph I thought was POV (it included text such as "Immigration policies have Constitutional protections of American jobs, wages, and workplaces. Willful violation of these protections is a major fraud against the United States."). I also took out a large unformatted table, though that could possibly be wikified and and included. Before replacing this content, please discuss it here first. Superm401 - Talk 19:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


Superm401, I don't know the poster of the table you removed, but restoring the deleted table (with linearly interpolated values replacing his minimal values for missing data and perhaps inclusion of O-1 visas, together with a graph to let the reader judge the appropriateness of the interpolations) would add tremendously to the article for many reasons, not the least of which is to offset the bias in the selective treatment and minimization of the number of H-1B (and other) visas exhibited in the current text of "Quotas . . . ." That section admittedly concedes that there are "exceptions" to the cap for some workers, but conveys no information about how dramatic those exemptions from the cap actually are -- so that the number of H-1B visas actually granted in recent years with the progressively expanding exemptions, has been far more than the so-called cap, making the "exceptions" almost the rule. Thus in 2003, the "cap" for granting H1B visas reverted to 65,000 for FY 2004, but the government issued 386,821 H-1B visas for FY 2004, soaking up whatever growth in technical jobs there may have been. In addition, in FY 1999 and 2005, despite retroactive increases in the cap, INS/DHS still substantially violated the cap on the H-1Bs still subject to a cap. Does everyone understand why citing only the "cap" is misleading?


One of the problems in discussing these issues is that the US government has been lackadaisical in collecting the data -- e.g., their report for FY 1997 reported that the FY 1996 data for H-1Bs was unavailable at press time and in 1999 they finally announced without further explanation that reliable FY 1997 H-1B data were unavailable; I'm so far unable to find any published data for H-1Bs issued for fiscal years 1986-1988 and 1991-1994. The data required to make sound, intelligent judgments on the program and its effects without wading through reams of text, are often simply not collected.


I have also created some tabular information based on raw data from NSF that might I might be able to contribute, but would appreciate any guidance on how to "wikify" it if I can find the time. [I'm a newbie at this, so please be gentle when pointing out my Wikipedia policy transgressions.--Ray921 21:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC).

breakdown by nation

is there any data out there that breaks down the H1-B visa holders by nation of origin? Mokwella 23:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Mokwella, good question. I will add it to the main story. Danarothrock 01:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Since the effort to get this added has stalled, let me clarify here that the number of new work visas for citizens of each country is broken down by visa category in the annual "Handbook of Immigration Statistics" published by the Dept. of Homeland Security starting in 2002 or in the annual "Statistical Yearbook" published by INS. Table numbers vary by year, but the data you seek can be accessed by choosing "Temporary Admissions" and browsing for the desired table (stored in Excel format after FY1997), entitled something like "Nonimmigrants admitted as temporary workers, exchange visitors, and intracompany transferees by region and country of citizenship."

http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/yearbook/YrBk04TA.htm (select Table 25 for FY 2004) and either http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/archives/index.htm#yearbook or http://www.ailc.com/shared/statistics/archives/index.htm (for fiscal years prior to 2004):

FY2003, Table 25; FY2002, Table 27; FY2001, Table 38; FY2000, Table 38; FY1999, Table 38; FY1998, Table 40; FY1997, Table 40, p. 122 of pdf file, repeats the information for FY1996 (data for FY1997 have never been published, though in FY1998 there is a buried comment in the text suggesting that they were destroyed).

I am unaware of electronic availability of the INS Statistical Yearbook prior to 1996, but would appreciate any reference.--Ray921 04:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone help?

I recently changed employers, I was on an H1-B, I'm now working for my new employer as we wait for the new petition (a.k.a "h1-transfer") is done. In the meantime, I received a way way better offer for a job. Can I apply for a second h1-b as I wait for this one and leave my current job? or should I wait for the current petition to be approved until I start the next petition process? --69.112.255.195 21:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I followed them and on two I had to search around for info on H-1B visas, and then it was only to oppose them. They are not serious discussions of the merits, or even demerits, of the visas, if that is what you were looking for. (speaking of anonymity - don't forget to sign your own 'talk' page additions). Willmcw 22:35, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


The programme allows for more than just engineers, scientists and programmers. It's open in principle to any professional with a relevant degree, qualification or experience. For instance, I work in the USA on the H-1B visa as a financial risk manager on the strength of a physics degree, MBA and ~8 years of experience. I'll try to find time to correct this with somre references if nobody beats me to it. Simon

Computer disciplines (job codes 030 - 039) make up over 50% of all H-1B non-immigrants. The next highest category is either engineering or health workers, depending on the year. Among the 3.6 million H-1B admissions, there are very, very few scientists, mathematicians, or micro-biologists, as the propaganda begs. See globalism. Incidently, I am one of those replaced citizens. Danarothrock 10:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

The sentence: "Fortunately, the H-1B visa is not the only means for U.S. employers to lawfully hire skilled foreign nationals" reflects the pro H1-B stance of parts of this article. The author should just assert the fact that there are other means. I view that as "unfortunate". I suggest the word "fortunately" be replaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.178.197 (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Large change to intro

This change [2] made a lot of changes to referenced data, but shortens the intro. It should be examined by people who more closely follow the article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I'm concerned too. The old version had about eight sources, while the new version has none. A number of issues covered in the old version appear to be omitted from the new version. OTOH, that was a marathon-length intro, and the body of the article appears to cover most of the ground. This topic tends to get involvement from either immigration law firms or those opposed to the visa. Soe neutral, yet informed, editors would be very helpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

random comments

_______

Given that most H-1Bs are from India or China, the program continues to look like indentured servitude.

-dave chapman

If you don't understand the visa is temporary permission for a company to hire a foreign worker for a short term need, then yes, from the perspective of someone who's misinterpretted it as an immigration visa, it may look that way. AmyInNH

I have added some of Dash77's remarks to the article. Does it now address your concerns? Mamawrites & listens 22:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

PS -- I have also added sections to the article, and generally wikified it according to WP:MOS. Mamawrites & listens 22:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

While I havn't met any Chinese on an H-1B visa, The Indians on H-1Bs I'm aware of are all IT workers and their salaries are competive. 168.166.196.40 21:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I do know chinese on H1B visas. I also know Indians who came to US for education and rely on H1B visa post-education for jobs [non-IT jobs] - electrical, civil, chemical, environmental, metallurgical and manufacturing engineers to name a few areas. Both these communities hate to hell the Indian H1B wasters - the IT companies that apply for H1B visas for a large number of their employees and do not even use them. Does anyone have statistics of H1B visas issued that are not used for entry to US? - cloud9ine

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.226.230.36 (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Not likely, given the sloppy, disconnected records kept on foreign visas. AmyInNH

All of the Indians on H-1Bs I'm aware of are working in IT for salaries equivalent to trainees. As they are being trained on the job, it is appropriate. Danarothrock 01:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no comments on foreigners who just come here on H1 and take up jobs. What about those who came here, spent 2 or more years in a US university, paying fees, contributing to society and economy. If they are as well or better qualified as someone else, shouldn't they be offered the opportunity. I agree that it should not be through H1B, but better means ought to be devised. Also, when H1 transfers are allowed, is it legal for a company to have its workers file a H1B visa filing fee repayment agreement if they leave the company within the first year? Doesn't this affect the Labor Conditions Application provisions?

Bizarre expectation that the US would owe a foreigner anything to attend universities here, please clarify. The visa program purpose is supposed to be if the company can't find qualified citizens, not because they think someone from another country is equal or better - hence the program being abused. No, it absolutely is not legal to have the worker pay the H-1B filing fee.

Lead is too long?

I think the lead is not very long now. What do you think? Kushal 01:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is a mess.

It reflects the conflict between industry lobbyists, worker advocates and H-1B workers. This gives the article an incoherent tone. I also add that the "lobbyist spins" here have added completely false or misleading information. The "immigrant" spins have added pour gramer and Englesh. Even the "neutrality" disputes here are calls for advocacy.

The "Congressional Yearly Numerical Cap" is pretty much factually correct but poorly written.

The "Employer Attestations to Protect U.S. Workers" section looks like it was created as a propaganda piece to make it appear as though there are real protections for U.S. workers in the H-1B program. The additions, while factual, are incoherent.


The "H-1B Fees Earmarked for U.S. Worker Education and Training" section looks like it was added as a propaganda section. No one filled it out. It does not describe the nature of the fees in detail; where they go; or even some of the criticisms of their effectiveness.

The "income taxation" section here is nonsensical. It sounds like it was written by an H-1B worker trying to prove he pays taxes.

The "U.S. policy on maximum duration" is incoherent.

"H-1B and legal immigration" is poorly written and does not include citations. The H-1B program is specifically exempted from the non-immigrant intent requirement for most visas.


"Quotas and changes in quotas" the writing here isn't great but finally a section that is factually accurate.

This section "H-1B-dependent employers" makes no sense. It comes out of the blue. There is no mention of the H-1B Dependent concept being created in 1998; expiring at 2003; then being renewed again in 2004.


"Criticisms of the Program" This section is disjointed -- though factually accurate.

"Guy Santiglia v. Sun Microsystems" This case failed. So what's the point? Shah v. Wilco Systems is the prevailing case in H-1B law there is no mention.

"Criticisms by H-1B holders" should go in the previous section. However, the inability of spouses to work on H-1B visas should be just a factual statement in the description, not a criticism. Payment of out-of-state tuition is a matter of state law. It is simply a gripe. It is factually stated later in the article. (Dependents of H-1B visa holders) "An H-1B Worker Faces Additional Obstacles at His/Her Workplace" is factual but written as a gripe.

"Worker protection and law enforcement" duplicates a previous section. HOWEVER, this is the best written and most factually accurate section in the entire article.

"Recent changes to U.S. law" so poorly written I can't understand it.

"Similar programs" Second best section.

"Dependents of H-1B visa holders" third best section.

70.111.227.90 (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Faceman28208


Degree requirements

I think that you should add to the introduction that a Bachelor's degree in a field related to the offered position is a minimum requirement for the visa category. -GG

  • The statement is generally true for applicants in science and engineering, who constitute about 90% of the H-1B recipients, but is not necessarily true -- the reality is far more confused than that because the H-1B is such a desirable visa.
  • H-1B visas are issued for fashion models, entertainers, artists, writers, workers in religion and theology, and officials, who do not necessarily require a bachelor's degree. Presumably the H-1B is sought rather than the P-1, P-2, P-3, Q-1, or R-1, (which are special work visas for athletes, entertainers, artists, writers, and religious occupations) because one can apply for permanent residence while working here under that visa; they may also be longer-term visas, but I have not checked on that.
  • In FY 2000, level of education was unknown for 10.1% of all approved new H-1B applicants; 2.4% of the remaining 89.9% of approved H-1B visa applicants lacked a bachelor's degree. If Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) approves that many H-1Bs without even knowing educational attainment, it's hard to call it an unqualified minimum requirement.
  • It should also be noted that the majority of H-1B visas granted in technical areas are granted to people with only a bachelor's degree; in FY 2000, ignoring the 8.5% whose education level is unknown, only 36% of new H-1Bs were given to holders of master's degrees or PhDs.

(Data source available at http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/aboutus/repsstudies/h1b/index.htm , which must be accessed through http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/aboutus/repsstudies/index.htm )--Ray921 17:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


  • I wasn't cherry-picking the results above, but the results for FY2003 show the government has drastically reduced the number of H1Bs issued to new applicants not stating their educational attainment to less than 0.1% (down from 8.5% in FY2000). For those of known educational attainment, 2.2% stated less than a bachelor's degree. At least the bureacracy is now making a better effort to see that the boxes are filled in on their forms before issuing the visas. --Ray921 18:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hundreds of H-1B visas go to people without the equivalent of a US high school diploma, and thousands to those without the equivalent of a US bachelor's degree.

new H-1B visas by degree

year noHSdiploma HS <1yearcollege
2000 554 288 158
2001 247 895 284
2002 169 806 189
2003 148 822 122
2004 123 690 137
2005 107 440 77
year 1+yearscollege associate total<bachelor
2000 1290 696 4290
2001 1376 1181 4803
2002 849 642 4015
2003 623 534 3718
2004 421 432 3375
2005 5358 363 2987

source: USCIS annual report "Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-1B)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.20.55 (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Corrections

I just made a number of factual corrections to this article. I do not believe that any of these changes alter the tone/bias level but IMHO the numbers should be correct.

1. I have have spelled out the actual quota as 65,000 + 20,000 + unlimited 2. The first increase occurred in 1998 as more precision than late 90's 3. The increase was to 115,000 rather than 130,000 [Here I also took the liberty of removing some some commentary on these increases that was opinion rather than fact.] 4. I put down the actual increase contained as part of the "comprehensive immigration reform" and SKIL bill.

This article needs a bit of serious editing as it is starting to get repetitive.

The temporary increase to 115K was enacted as part of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998 between 1998 September : http://news.com.com/House+OKs+more+work+visas/2100-1001_3-215905.html http://www.kermitrose.com/econ1998.html#19980924

and 1998 October 13: http://news.com.com/H1-B+bill+could+get+reprieve/2100-1023_3-216639.html http://www.kermitrose.com/econ1998.html#19981013 http://www.asmenews.org/archives/backissues/june/columns/washington.html

And the temporary, 3-year, increase to 195k was enacted 2000 October between the 3rd and the 18th: http://news.com.com/Senate+votes+to+increase+high-tech+visas/2100-1033_3-246528.html http://www.kermitrose.com/econ2000.html#20001003 http://news.com.com/Short+Take++Clinton+signs+high-tech+visa+bill+into+law/2110-1033_3-247229.html http://www.kermitrose.com/econ2000.html#20001018 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.20.55 (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

YouTube Video, Investigated by Sen. Chuck Grassley and Rep. Lamar Smith

  • Defrauding Americans to secure green cards: A video presentation by an HR Law Consultant Firm on how to Defraud the US government and make it appear as if there is a shortage of qualified US candidates to fill a job position.

This link has been inserted several times. I don't believe it qualifies as a reliable source. We don't know who compiled it. We don't know who the people talking are, or what the subject is. I'm sure there is visa abuse, but it'd be best if we stuck with reliable sources instead of anonymous Youtube videos. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a reliable source. Two state senators thought it was reliable enough to ask the Dept. of Labor to investigate.

Sen, Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, both proponents of immigration reform, requested Thursday that the U.S. Department of Labor investigate a law firm that published a YouTube video showing attorneys advising clients on how to avoid hiring U.S. workers InformationWeek.

I found a reliable source (Information Week) that has an article about this topic, so I've inserted that link instead. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

These links were removed because the video is about "Green card process". Although the employees who apply for green card are on H1B visa, they are not talking about abusing the H1B visa in this video.

The video was posted by the Cohen and Grigsby law firm, itself, of its 7th annual conference/seminar on employment and immigration law, as publicity for their firm. The conference covered both how to legally under-pay people sponsored on H-1B visas, and, in the most cited section, how to reject all US applicants when a firm wants to get a "change of status" from H-1B or L-1 to a green card. Links to excerpts, links to the entire video, and articles can be found here: http://www.kermitrose.com/econ200706.html#Best2007

Now, Cohen & Grigsby have to get all of their change of status applications overseen by DoL, and another major immigration law firm, Fragomen et al., is being audited: http://www.kermitrose.com/econ200807.html#20080708 http://www.kermitrose.com/econ200807.html#20080712 which lead to more sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.20.55 (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Soapboxing removed

I have removed some soapboxing about the high percentage of foreigners in science and engineering PhD programs being a disincentive to Americans studying those subjects. That isn't what the reference says, not at all. The OSEP (p. 25) puts the blame squarely on faulty policies and serious deficiencies in the U.S. educational and value systems. (And I find it surprising that in US high schools they usually manage to teach the kids all 26 letters.) 71.255.154.111 00:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

And yet, NSF, flatly states that the expansion of student visas and creation of the H-1B visa program would be a disincentive to US citizens and that it would suppress compensation for people with PhDs.

"A growing influx of foreign PhDs into U.S. labor markets will hold down the level of PhD salaries to the extent that foreign students are attracted to U.S. doctoral programs as a way of immigrating to the U.S.A. A related point is that for this group the PhD salary premium is much higher [than it is for Americans], because it is based on BS-level pay in students' home nations versus PhD-level pay in the U.S.A... [If] doctoral studies are failing to appeal to a large (or growing) percentage of the best citizen baccalaureates, then a key issue is pay... A number of [the Americans] will select alternative career paths... For these baccalaureates, the effective premium for acquiring a PhD may actually be negative." http://www.nber.org/~peat/PapersFolder/Papers/SG/NSF.html http://www.nber.org/~peat/ReadingsFolder/PrimarySources/TimeLine.html Policy and Research Analysis Division of the NSF http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/pres/comments/numbers.html

"A decade after lambasting the National Science Foundation (NSF) for botching a study of the science job market, Congress has asked the agency to once again take on the politically risky task of predicting how many high-tech workers the United States will need over the next decade... Nonetheless, such projections can spark a political fire-storm, as NSF learned after a 1987 study, led by Peter House, warned of a coming 'shortfall' of several hundred thousand scientists. After the forecast proved false, law-makers questioned the agency's reputation for dispassionate analysis (Science, 1992 February 14, p. 788)." http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol282/issue5395/s-scope.dtl 1998-12-04 vol 282 issue 5395

Gene Nelson http://psyche.uthct.edu/nes/wwwboard/messages/53.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.20.55 (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Matloff

The Matloff paper doesn't seem to be in the links any more. Moreover, section V.A of it specifically points out flaws in the 2000 act, which the article here glosses over as "The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) and the U.S. Department of Labor's PERM system for labor certification erased most of the earlier claimed arguments for H-1B's as indentured servants during the green card process". Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Reference restored. It was deleted a number of months ago by an anon IP who didn't bother with an edit summary. The deletion of that reference is presumed vandalism, if not censorship. Dl2000 (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that this reference needs to be moved to another section (something like External Links or Further Reading), or better yet, directly cited in the text and included in footnotes. The entrire article is a bit of a mess and needs substantial restructuring. E.g. there are several sections (or what seems to be sections) after references and footnotes. I don't like having Matloff's references located where it is now because of WP:UNDUE concerns. His opinion represents one of the (fairly radical) point of views in the immigration battles, as they relate to H1B visa. There are just as many people (CEOs of tech companies, Bill Gates, etc) arguing exactly the opposite. However, at the moment, the "References" section includes just two items: an official USCIS ref and the Matloff ref. That is a problem in terms of balance and WP:UNDUE. I think that it is in fact better to remove the "References" section altogether, and to have both of its items directly cited in the articles and moved to the "Notes" section. Nsk92 (talk) 04:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I have added a link to Gates' congressional testimony to the References section, for balance purposes. Nsk92 (talk) 05:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge H-1B article to here

I think H1b crisis needs to be merged into this article. My reasoning is as follows:

  • It doesn't deserve its own article since there's not enough info to justify one.
  • It's hyperbolic: the scant references provided to back up the article do not describe what happened as any kind of "crisis". It's newsworthy and worth mentioning on Wikipedia, sure, but the article overstates the severity of what appears to be little more than a story covering the fact that the H-1B quota is not able to meet the demand for visas, and that "something needs to be done".

-- Hux (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose merger. Each is a significant topic and merits own article. Tynetrekker (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree and have explained why in this edit. -- Hux (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
i concur with Hux. The main article is the visa, examples of specific cases and historical information fit well when the main article is properly structured. however, as this is really a "current news topic" with information changing "rapidly" this may need to wait until "the crisis" is over and a summary of the historical example can be made. Iggynelix (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Hux. Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Do not even display article. It presents something that is looks like "news" but only is political and only presents one side of the story. What is being called a "crisis" is actually a ploy to get more H1B Visas when American citizens are losing jobs. This is wrong. If you are going to write about the "crisis" as if it is one and not just a fact (which is all the H1B Visas were used up because we are importing armies of foreign nationals rather than giving jobs to US citizens) then report both sides and explain that there are Americans who cannot get jobs at companies where armies of foreign nationals are being employed - and then taking their knowledge back home. User:LostAJob (talk) 21:22, 08 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.126.123 (talk)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:H-1B_visa/Archive_1&oldid=1223712358"