H-1B visa shortages and U.S. immigration policy debates

H-1B Shortage

In today's society, knowledge and expertise are raw materials that are essential for companies and countries so that they can be more competitive. The economy is dependent on innovative companies and whether they can not only attract but also retain the talent that will provide them with the most benefit. This should re regardless of the citizenship or nationality of those talented individuals. The most unfortunate issue here, however, is that the United States immigration system makes doing this very challenging, and many U.S. firms are incapable of getting the people that they really need to keep the economy strong because of immigration requirements (Written testimony of William H. Gates Before the Committee on Science and Technology, United States House of Representatives, P 13).

The current immigration system is thought to be broken, and by almost any type of standard it does not fulfill the purposes that would facilitate global business. It is very unfortunate that immigration is usually seen as a specific issue: Illegal immigration. Whether illegal immigration hurts or does not hurt America is very important, because there are many more illegal immigrants coming across the border today than there have been in the past. Two authors, Michael Scott and Richard Raynor, have written opposing arguments on this issue that will be addressed here, along with the work of others that are concerned with this particular issue.

Author Scott (2002) insists that this country's borders should be sealed and the people who hire illegal aliens should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. He makes the claim that there really should not be any more discussion "...about how difficult this might be" because it could actually be done relatively easily, and would not be the problem that many make it out to be. Scott is also not in agreement with the idea that "[guest workers are needed because] Americans won't do the work that illegals perform" (Scott, 2002). He does not believe this to be the real case, and instead he thinks that the wages that are seen will just start rising to make sure that the American people are being properly compensated for the work that they are doing.

Another issue that relates to these illegal immigrants and that author Michael Scott is particularly upset about is the problem with the AFL-CIO [labor union] and the way that it wants to get amnesty for around six million immigrants who are already here illegally. In other words, the AFL-CIO wants the government to just say that it is all right for these aliens to be here, and they will no longer be considered illegal, and they will have the same rights as everyone who was born here or is here legally. This is not likely to happen, and Scott would be particularly annoyed if it did take place. He feels that the wage depression that would take place in America if illegals were given amnesty would be so severe that many American workers would be hurt, and the government would be "rolling the dice" with these workers' jobs (Scott, 2002).

In contrast to what Michael Scott thinks, however, author Richard Raynor is convinced that the illegal immigration that is taking place in such high numbers at this point in history is actually no threat to America, its jobs, or its workers (Raynor, 2002). He states that, despite what many people think, there are "only Medicaid and limited food benefits...and most don't apply for these..." (Raynor, 2002). This is largely because they do not want to be detected by the INS, so they assume that they will just not register their names anywhere and therefore they will avoid detection. If the illegal immigrants have children that are born in America, however, they get other benefits because of those children.

Raynor (2002) is not saying that these individuals are not using any resources from America, but only that they are not trying to take things away from Americans. In other words, they are not villains, but simply people who are so desirous of a better life for themselves and their children that they are willing to come into a strange country illegally, risk danger and death, and beg for food and shelter if they need to in order to try to provide something better for their families in the future. Many of them work, and those who do not often want to work in the future, once they learn enough English to be 'useful' in American society.

Another issue that Raynor (2002) brings up is that most people think that the number of illegal immigrants pouring into this country is completely out of control, when this in fact is not the case. Many of the illegals who attempt to cross the border and enter the country are actually caught, but very few reports talk about how many are caught and instead emphasize how many get through, making the issue look much worse than it is. Raynor also says that the economy is in good shape, despite the problems that others say are taking place, and some illegal immigration is needed to take the jobs that Americans do not want - those that are low-paying and unpleasant. According to Raynor, the system is not broken, and does not need to be fixed (2002).

Arguments have been seen in both directions when it comes to the issue of illegal immigration, and there are both pros and cons to the issue. However, when the media does not always report all of the facts it becomes difficult to know what is really going on with the immigration issue. It can be made to sound either good or bad, depending on the person (or media outlet) that is asked about the issue, and because of this illegal immigration is being treated as a hot topic today without providing the American public with all of the information that is truly needed to make an informed decision.

The opinions about immigrants came from some time ago when people first started immigrating to this country in large numbers. In the period between 1860 and 1920, many racial and ethnic minorities immigrated to the United States. White Americans already settled there saw these immigrants as a burden on their society. They were thought to be of little value, and often signs were placed in shop windows that those who had immigrated to this country should not apply for jobs that were available there. This was especially true of the Irish, but the Jewish, Italian, Asian, Polish, and other immigrants had similar difficulties (Lee & Siemborski, 1996).

The Americans saw the immigrants as lazy, and they were suspicious of many of them because of the way that they dressed and the different languages that they spoke. The immigrants often kept to themselves, and they congregated in specific communities. It appeared to many Americans that the immigrants did not want to socialize or learn American customs. The immigrants were having difficulties adjusting to the cultural differences in the new land, and to the seeming disinterest and obvious dislike that many Americans showed to them. This only made them retreat further into their own communities, which worked to make Americans even more suspicious of them (Lee & Siemborski, 1996).

The main characteristic that seemed to trouble Americans was not the fact that the immigrants kept to themselves in regards to where they lived, but that the immigrants came over to America and acted as though they were little children. They did not know about citizenship in the same way that Americans do, and many of them were ignorant and weak, with a hopefulness about their new life that many Americans found pathetic (Hall, 2003).

Because of this, they expected to get good jobs in America. They saw it as the great land of opportunity, and many Americans were put off by this attitude. They had been in America long enough to know that one place was pretty much like another, and much of what the immigrants were seeking was not to be found in America. The freedom that many of them wanted could be found, but that did not mean that Americans would gladly give them good jobs and a lot of money, as many of them thought (Hall, 2003). There were quite a few measures developed to attempt to Americanize these immigrants. An entire movement was started simply for the Americanization of these people. It included such things as patriotic rallies, Fourth of July celebrations, and naturalization proceedings that were also very patriotic (Americanization, 2002).

The goal was to show the immigrants what it meant to be American, so that they would willingly work for little wages and still feel that they were in the greatest country in the world. While it might have been cruel, many Americans did not trust the immigrants, and they felt that these people must be taught to fit in if they were going to have any hope of remaining in America and finding not only work but a decent place to live and food for their children and family members (Americanization, 2002).

To protect themselves, many Americans chose to avoid working with or becoming friends with those who immigrated. A lack of trust permeated everything that the Americans did in regards to the immigrants, at least with the men. This was not always true of the women, as they often got along together and shared the trials and difficulties of raising families. However, many men who owned shops and stores would not hire an immigrant laborer (Glazer, 1998).

They believed that immigrants took jobs away from people in the U.S., and they did not want to catch any diseases that these immigrants might have brought with them. The general attitude during this time period was that immigrants were so different from Americans that they could never mesh into one society, but that attitude has obviously changed, as today America is a mix of all kinds of people (Glazer, 1998; Sowell, 1997).

What is generally seen to be lost in most of the immigration discussions that take place in this country and others is that the United States is actually losing money because the highly skilled and highly educated people that they need cannot get into the country or stay there very long once they arrive. The U.S. is growing desperate in many areas, and that is part of the reason that so much work is being outsourced to other countries. Certainly it is cheaper, but there are also issues with the lack of qualified people in this country.

For a long time, people have talked about immigration into the U.S. To do jobs that those who already live here as citizens just do not want to deal with. However, Bill Gates suggests that is not the main concern. There is another one, and it is much more dangerous. The country now needs to adjust immigration laws to allow people from other countries to come in and do jobs "that U.S. citizens cannot do themselves." (SN056 ALI-ABA P. 526)

The issue at hand is this: Whether current immigration policies- H-1B visa and permanent-resident visa quotas- for highly skilled workers are solving the problem of the shortage of skilled workers and the effects of these policies on foreign skilled workers, foreign students graduating from U.S. universities, businesses such as Microsoft, and the U.S. economy. How can Congress balance the interests of the U.S. need to retain the brightest and best to compete in the global market with immigration quotas?

While this note only reflects the H-1B visa debate, this is part of a larger issue that affects immigration policy as a whole. The issue this reflects is of a much larger governmental policy failure, which is immigration reform. If the U.S. cannot handle immigration reform to attract highly skilled workers, then how can the U.S. possibly deal with immigration reform as a whole? What does the fact that a private business is now lobbying Congress for immigration reform say about Congress' inaction to reform the system?

History of Immigration Policies/Quotas

During colonial times and also following the Revolution, free and relatively open immigration was encouraged by America. Later in the 19th century, however, that policy was questioned. Most of the people who started to question this policy were the workers in America, because they started wondering about the competition that they were seeing. Congress started passing immigration laws in the 1890s and created a federal agency that could oversee immigration, as well as uniform rules for the naturalization of those who wanted to become citizens (an Immigrant Nation: United States Regulation of Immigration, P 3).

H-1B visa debate

The above problems demonstrate the inefficiencies of the H-1B visa program. However, this is not to say that the H-1B visa program should be scrapped. In fact, the program is a good one overall. There are many good points about the H-1B visa, and this issue will be addressed below.

Among corporations, workers, and politicians, the H-1B visa has long been the subject of many debates as President Bush said, "Immigration is not a problem to be solved. It is a sign of a confident and successful nation" (Carpenter, 2003).

The tradition of allowing immigrants to come into the U.S. has led us to become "the beneficiary of the world's most talented and renowned research scientists, economists, engineers, mathematicians, computer scientists, and other professionals" (Masters & Ruthizer, 2000). If the country stops allowing these individuals to come into the United States it could be seriously stunting the leading role that it still has in these areas.

Those who are critical of the H-1B visa say that it displaces U.S. workers and that it also depresses American wages. When these complaints are compared to how many H-1B visas are issued, though, the complaints are seen to be minimal, at best (Masters & Ruthizer, 2000).

Research that was conducted by the National Foundation for American Policy has shown that hiring H-1B visa holders is actually associated with increases in employment at technology companies in the United States (workpermit.com: New study shows that H-1B program increases U.S. job creation). Critics, though, still believe that the H-1B program is really not necessary and that it actually is harmful to the nation's interests (Carpenter, 2003).

Senator Grassley, for example, argues that "all users of the visa program [should] first recruit Americans for these highly skilled, high-paying jobs, or at least attempt to find if American workers are available, because Americans should come first" (Senator Grassley, 154 Cong. Rec. S2029-05).

Senator Gregg also argued that you cannot "create a uniform rule that says nobody can come here if somebody else can take the job because then you are going to get the bureaucracy behind that which would basically bar those people from ever getting here. That becomes then a bureaucratic nightmare for building those jobs. It makes much more sense to bring these smart, intelligent people here, have them create jobs here, rather than leave them creating jobs in China and India" (Senator Gregg, 154 Cong. Rec. S1917-01)

Administering of the H-1B visa program also involves corruption to some degree, but fact that it is abused does not mean that the country does not need it. There are many programs that are abused every day in this country, but they are still important programs. The key is stopping the abuse, not the program. It is true that the H1-B program has been abused by some companies, but the answer is not to punish the H1-B program, but to punish the abusers. The solution, therefore, would be to implement cost-effective methods that could be used to check the applications more stringently, which would enhance the integrity of the H-1B process.

Solution

In order to propose a good solution, all aspects of the issue that have already been addressed must be taken into account. One cannot make suggestions for a good solution without all of the evidence for that solution and for others. There will be more than one solution examined here in order to show which of these suggested solutions would be thought to be the best way to address the issue and the most logical way of fixing it in the long-term. A point-based system is one solution, and there are others, including the proposal that Bill Gates has put out there. Like all other suggested solutions, it has both its good and bad points.

Point-Based System- Some people have proposed this, which is also called a 'merit based' system. Australia and Canada both use it, and they substitute it for the employer-sponsorship system that is used in the employment-based visa selection. Under a system that was merit-based, immigrants who want to come to the United States would petition for a visa on their own and they would get points based on specific attributes which would include their ability to speak the language and their educational level. The needs of any employers in the U.S., though, would not play a factor in determining which of these people were granted a visa (13 MEXUS 45, P52).

Having a point-based system, however, would not really address the needs that the job market truly has. An immigrant who has an advanced degree in a particular discipline could potentially earn many more points than another immigrant with only a bachelor's degree in some other field. The immigrant with the bachelor's degree, though, might actually have more of the skills that employers need and that are in very high demand while the person with the advanced degree might have one that is actually obsolete or might have one in a field where more workers are not currently needed.

Employers also generally petition for a visa for a certain worker because of the skills and talents and attributes that the worker has. This may or may not include that person's degree and other educational and academic qualifications. Either way, however, the point system will not let an employer choose an employee who is the most qualified. The point system, instead, reflects a 'planned economy' where the state decides which immigrant is more desirable. That does not give room for the employers and what they need and want, so that might become problematic for the economy. The point system is something that looks good in theory but does not play out that well in the real world (13 MEXUS 45, P 53).

Even though a point system works well in places like Canada, New Zealand, the UK, or Australia does not mean that they would work well in the United States. Part of the reason that they work well in those other countries is due to the fact that they have a parliamentary form of government, which is not the same as what the U.S. has. In those other countries the legislative powers are not separate from the executive powers so the government can implement and establish policy, including policies on immigration, in a manner that is much faster and easier

Use of Point System for Selecting Immigrants: Hearing Before the Subcomm. On Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and Int'l Law of the H. Comm. On the Judiciary, 110th Cong. 5 (2007))

The Securing Knowledge, Innovation and Leadership (SKIL) Act (S. 1083) was originally designed to be a stand-alone bill in 2006 and it was also considered as an amendment to the immigration reform package for the 2006 Senate. "The SKIL Act proposed increasing the annual H-1B numerical limit to 115,000 and the introduction of a "market escalator" provision whereby, if the H-1B cap is reached in a given fiscal year, the numerical limitation for the following fiscal year would be increased by 20%.

The bill also proposed foreign nationals who earned a master's or higher degree from an accredited U.S. institution of higher learning would be completely exempt from the cap rather than subject to the current 20,000 cap for advanced degree holders. Also, the SKIL Act would extend optional practical training for F-1 students from 12-24 months, however Congress has already taken care of this by increasing the 12 months to 29 months" (85 No. 4 Interpreter Releases 185, P 3).

The SKIL Bill would be able to alleviate the current problems, but the number of H-1B visas made available would likely still be inadequate, and this is particularly true if the demand for these visas increases at a rate any greater than the 20% annual increase which was already built into the bill. There have been other H-1B related bills which have included similar proposals to increase the H-1B cap, recapture unused H-1B numbers from years past, and institute various market escalators (85 No. 4 Interpreter Releases 185, P 3). The problem with only addressing the increase in H-1B visas is that it would soon bump up against the green card quotas unless those quotas were also raised.

Bill Gates also has a proposal for reforming both the education system and the immigration policies by extending the amount of time that foreign students are allowed to stay in the United States connection with the degree program that they are studying. This helps to create a more streamlined path to becoming a permanent resident for those workers who are highly skilled and increasing the caps on visas could help to resolve some of that.

The Senate is obviously very interested in this kind of issue Senator Baird has already spoken regarding the importance of training the next generation of scientists and engineers and of funding critical basic research in applied science. He said "if we want our economies to be strong, we must invest in science" (Senator Baird, 154 Cong. Rec. H1561-02).

With Gates' proposal also comes the idea of reforming the educational system in this country, which is just as important as reforming immigration policies. However, there is not room here to go into a detailed discussion on education reform and how it will be addressed. Touching on it very briefly will be sufficient for the bearing that it has on the immigration discussion. Education reform has been around in what is considered the current era for approximately 20 years.

The basic landscape of education in the United States was changed a great deal by many of the reform ideas and is still being changed. Gathering momentum in recent years has been an idea that the system itself needs to be entirely changed and redesigned. This goes against the old opinion of making the system that is already available operate with more efficiency.

Leadership for collaboration is one of the most important concerns of individuals who are looking at school reform. This does not involve only elementary schools that teach children but colleges and universities that teach adults as well. School administrators have a very strong leadership role if they wish to foster collaboration not only between schools and other agencies but within the schools themselves. Collaboration must be seen between immigration reform and educational reform if the people who have a vested interest in both of these want to make them work with one another for the success of this country.

Extending the amount of time that foreign students would be allowed to stay in connection with the degree program that they are enrolled in is part of Gates' plan. Until just recently they had only twelve months to be accepted for a H-1B visa. Now they have twenty-nine months that they can stay in the United States and still be classified as a student worker (Associated Press: Highly Skilled Foreign Students Can Stay in U.S. Longer)

Not mentioned in Gates' proposal, but still necessary to help address the issue, is that it should realistically be possible for foreign students who are earning advanced degrees in key fields to retain the option at such time as they apply for their visa to declare that they have an interest in living and working in the United States after they graduate. Right now, they are not able to do that, so many of these people are overlooked and they are just 'lumped in' with all the other people who are applying for these same visas and may have education from other countries (nafsa.org: Immigration Reform and Attracting Foreign Talent).

The current law for student and scholar visas prevents the United States from benefiting from the contributions of foreign students who might want to stay here, whether for the long-term or for a few years" (nafsa.org: Immigration Reform and Attracting Foreign Talent). Whether this law is a fair one is certainly up for debate. The problem with that is that most of the people who should be and could be debating the law seem mostly uninterested in talking about it. Instead, there is little that is getting done and virtually no changes that are being made to the problems that are seen with immigration in this country.

Congress should create a streamlined path to permanent resident status for highly skilled workers.' This is one of the opinions that Gates has in his proposal. It sounds like it would be a great idea, but there are some flaws with it. First, it is important to elaborate on what Gates is talking about just a bit. He says the following;

Rather than allowing highly skilled, well-trained innovators to remain for only a very limited period, we should encourage a greater number to become permanent U.S. residents so that they can help drive innovation and economic growth alongside America's native-born talent" (Written testimony of William H. Gates Before the Committee on Science and Technology, United States House of Representatives, P 15).

This idea has been discussed and addressed by others, as well, who feel that, instead of requiring the graduates from top universities who receive jobs from American corporations to go through the tedious H-1B visa process, the U.S. should provide them with a direct path to permanent residence so that they can continue to work and live in the United States and not have to worry about being asked to leave. The United States needs to do all that it can, according to many, in order to attract and keep skilled immigrants as opposed to bringing them here temporarily, training them well, and then sending them home (American.com: America's Other Immigration Crisis).

This is not a feasible proposal because offering students green cards but not H-1B visas would be problematic- if all students were automatically eligible for employment status upon graduation, acceptance at an American university would, in essence, constitute a near guarantee of future citizenship. To maintain its power to control citizenship, the government would have to exercise even stricter control over the granting of student visas which could act as a disincentive if not actual barrier to foreign students interested in studying at American universities.

A better proposal "would be to make it possible for foreign students earning advanced degrees in key fields to have the option at the time they apply for their visa to declare an interest in working in the United States after graduation" (Nafsa.com: Immigration Reform and Attracting Foreign Talent).

The increasing competition that is seen for H-1B numbers, when coupled with the random nature of the selection process for capping the visas that are available, has introduced a very high level of unpredictability and volatility into the H-1B program. It has made it more difficult for employers to plan any kind of H-1B employment and for them to secure the employment of the individuals who they feel are the most highly skilled. As employer competition for such a limited pool of cap numbers increases, the immigration community has advocated more strongly for some kind of legislative solution (85 NO. 4 INTERREL 185, P 2-3).

If Congress would increase the number of visas that it grants each year, it could help the U.S. industry meet the near-term need for workers who are qualified, and then the long-term workers could be built up through education reform (Written testimony of William H. Gates Before the Committee on Science and Technology, United States House of Representatives, P 15)

Senator Gregg is in favor of expanding the H-1B program. He said "even though there may have been abuses in the program; I don't think they were at the core of the problem; that the primary energy of this program has been to create jobs in the United States by bringing smart people here. We should be going across the world and saying to the best and the brightest in the world, if you want to come to the United States and be a job center that adds to the value of our economy, we would like to have you come. We would like to consider you as being a participant under an H-1B visa program." (Senator Gregg, 154 Cong. Rec. S1917-01)

In addition to making adjustments like raising the caps and allowing for a more a streamlined path to permanent residency (although not the one that Gates proposes), the H-1B program itself needs to be reformed in conjunction with increasing numbers so that the abuse that occurs from employers can be minimized. If the Department of Labor is given more power over this program it could be changed and adjusted so that it would be better for everyone (Senator Grassley, 154 Cong. Rec. S2029-05)

Gates has had much to say about this issue, including: "I want to emphasize that the shortage of scientists and engineers is so acute that we must do both: reform our education system and reform our immigration policies. This is not an either-or proposition. If we do not do both, U.S. companies simply will not have the talent they need to innovate and compete" (Written testimony of William H. Gates Before the Committee on Science and Technology, United States House of Representatives, P 15).

Policy Implications

There are several things that have to be considered when it comes to implications for policy where reform of the H-1B visa and other immigration policies are concerned. It is important to touch briefly on each one of these because they all affect the country and how it will be run in the future. If there are still so many problems with illegal immigration it is easy to see why people might feel that more immigrants are a bad idea. However, there is a big difference between an illegal immigrant who will end up on welfare and a highly-skilled engineer who happens to have been born and raised in another country. Not all highly-skilled people will help out the United States and not all illegal immigrants will end up on welfare, but these are the stereotypical ideas and they are the most accurate overall.

One of the main implications for policy is that there should be more integration and less enforcement if the private sector is asked. If the government sector is asked, however, the thought is that there will need to be more enforcement and less integration. No matter which of these ends up being the case it is clear that there will be some people who will be unhappy with it. Since the government has more control over things like immigration policy, it is likely that the private sector and companies like Microsoft will end up on the losing end of the battle to reform immigration.

What does Microsoft's influencing immigration policy say about the current U.S. immigration policy? It says a lot, actually. It is a pretty strong reflection of where this country's broken immigration policy is at. It is so ineffective that Microsoft and other businesses have to speak up. When things work correctly where government policies are concerned the private sector does not feel the need to get involved.

The private sector also does not argue with the government and it simply goes along with the policies because they are good for everyone. Unfortunately, the policies that are out there at the moment where immigration is concerned are not good for everyone. That is the reason that Microsoft and other companies feel that they need to start speaking up and telling the government what they want and need so that they can get more workers that they can use.

America seems to be xenophobic even of the model immigrant worker. The United States government has proposed a 10-point action plan to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) for addressing the profusion of racist, xenophobic, and anti-Semitic propaganda on the Internet. The plan urges OSCE states to prosecute criminal threats of violence on the Internet and to collect and publish data on hate crimes, while nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are urged to increase their monitoring of the Internet and parents are urged to avail themselves of filtering software that enables them to exercise greater supervision over their children's use of the Internet.

Even with doing all of that, they do not seem to do much regarding other xenophobic tendencies. There are always going to be problematic things on the Internet. They cannot be completely controlled and with freedom of speech it is hard to regulate them completely. If the government is so serious about xenophobic issues on the Internet it seems as though it would also be serious about them within its borders, but this unfortunately does not appear to be the case. Even though these workers are highly skilled there is still an apparent fear that others will come in and take away what 'belongs' to America. By not reforming immigration policy, the government is only perpetuating stereotypes that people have been working to avoid.

Conclusion

The current restrictions on the employment of highly skilled foreign workers are hurting the economy in America. Many occupations that require workers with more advanced skills are at full employment. There are just not enough domestic workers with the advanced skills that are needed who are available to fill positions that businesses need filled. Many of these companies have been forced to expand their operations overseas and outsource their work instead of keeping it in the United States. This is sometimes due to monetary concerns, but it is most often due to the shortage of highly skilled workers for the key positions that these companies are interested in filling.

Congress should, therefore, raise the H-1B cap to allow businesses to expand their operations in America and also to create jobs for Americans. "Each highly skilled H-1B employee at a high-tech company supports the jobs for four Americans. The increased demand for workers with complementary skills both raises wages and reduces inequality" (Heritage Center Report, P 4).

It is possible that federal legislators will consider other immigration provisions, but insiders predict that there will be no immigration legislation until Fall 2009 and that any future H-1B relief proposals would need to be part of a larger comprehensive immigration reform package. With the change of administration there may be some immigration reform coming, and this is mostly under consideration because of the talk about education reform. In many ways, these two tie in together. There have also been books and articles written about this issue and they address many of the same issues that have been examined here in an effort to draw conclusions regarding what should be done, why and when it should be done, and how it can be done so that the reform proceeds smoothly and does what it was intended to.

In "The Alien Payoff" (1997) for example, writer Paul Glastris discusses people that immigrate to the United States from other countries such as Mexico. He mentions both sides of the argument about whether they should be allowed to keep doing this. On one hand, they often take the lower-end jobs that others do not want, and they help to provide revenue for America. On the other hand, they cause a tax burden on the states that have the most of them, such as California and Florida, because many of them use government programs such as food stamps and Medicaid (Glastris, 1997).

Whether these people should be allowed to continue to come into the country is certainly an important question, but there is more to it than that - there are also some subtleties that are involved. As has been noted, some of the highest-skilled of our computer programmers, doctors, and engineers have come here from other countries. If we stop letting people in, that means they will not be allowed in either. One of the suggested solutions to that kind of problem is to let in only higher-skilled workers and keep the lower-skilled ones out of the country. This seems horribly discriminatory, and is almost the equivalent of saying "you are not good enough to live here" to the foreign people who do not have highly marketable skills. It is very clear, though, that something more should be done so that the burden of the immigrant population can be eased in states where there are many immigrants who are not that highly skilled.

Glastris (1997) makes some very good points about immigration -- "both good and bad. First of all, he brings up the fact that there are only a handful of states that are suffering because of the amount of immigrants that they contain. All of the other states are actually making money off of these immigrants, and there is money coming in at a federal level as well (Glastris, 1997). This money comes from the property taxes, social security taxes, and other state and federal taxes that are required of people who live in the United States.

Because the immigrants also pay these taxes, they are helping to contribute to the tax base and the revenue of the United States, as well as the states that they live in. Some of them, especially those with larger families, contribute even more as their children grow up. Their children move out on their own and buy houses; they pay property tax, income tax, etc. When this happens it generates even more money.

The problem with this is largely confined to a few states, where the immigrant population is so high that they are using more than they are putting back.

These government programs can be a great help to people in times of need, but very often the people on them stay on them for a long time and do not have the prospect of getting a higher-paying job, going back to school, or doing something else to better themselves and get off of government assistance (Glastris, 1997). Some also become lazy and do not make any effort to get off of the welfare system (Glastris, 1997). It should be pointed out that this is also true of people who were born and raised in this country, not just immigrants who moved here from somewhere else.

Immigrants also take many of the menial jobs that are hard to fill (Glastris, 1997). When they come to America and know that they do not really have any skills that could get them a high-paying job, they often stay and work as janitors, sellers in open-air markets, and other kinds of jobs that do not require college education (Glastris, 1997). It is not that these jobs are not important, because they are very important to the economy of the nation. But it is true that these jobs usually do not require a lot of education, and the immigrants find these jobs easy to get and hang onto.

The downside of this is that the people who were born and raised in America and need a job cannot get these lower-paying jobs (Glastris, 1997). Teenagers right out of high school, young people who want to work part-time while they go to college, young mothers who are bored and want a small second income; all of these people often take these low-paying jobs (Glastris, 1997). If the immigrants have taken them all then the American people cannot have them, and that is most of the fear when it comes to letting in so many immigrants.

According to Glastris (1997) it is also true that many immigrants will work for minimum wage, where an American might not be willing to. Because of this the low-end jobs are moving farther and farther away from the high-end jobs, meaning that the gap between the rich and poor is getting larger and that the Americans who take low-end jobs are being paid about 5% less than they would be if the immigrants were not here in this country (Glastris, 1997). The American people suddenly have to compete for their jobs with people who came here from somewhere else and are essentially undercutting them.

There is an up-side to the wage disparity issue, however. Some immigrants are highly-skilled, and therefore highly paid. These people are often engineers, doctors, computer programmers, hardware and software engineers, etc. Because there are a lot of good jobs for people with these skills, almost everyone in those fields gets paid very well -- "immigrant and American alike. When this happens, people with those skills all win because the price for anyone with those skills goes up. The people who work around these people also make better money, because they are needed for support.

The bottom line is that immigrants both help and hinder the United States. They bring money into the country and help raise revenue, but they also take many of the lower-end jobs away from people who need them -- "and they work for lower wages then the average American would require, so people like to hire them. It helps keep their costs down, so they make more profit. It also helps keep their prices lower, so more people shop there. The people are happy because they get good deals, and the business owners are happy because more customers mean even more profit for them.

But what can be done to help the states that need it most, without taking anything away from the states that benefit from the influx of immigrants? There are several ways to approach the problem, and none of them really cover it as fully as would be needed. Stopping immigration is one way to help the states plagued by troubles, but would actually hurt the national economy, not to mention the United States' relations with other countries.

Only letting in selected immigrants is another suggestion, but there is a high likelihood of a lot of hurt feelings and ill will toward the United States if the country is seen as only letting in the people that it thinks will help it to profit more and have higher revenues. If it is seen as being all about money, that will greatly hurt the national image of the United States as a country of liberty and freedom for all of its inhabitants.

Another way to help would be for the government to start a relocation program to help disburse immigrants, instead of having them settle in only a few states. The problem with this is that many of the immigrants come here to be with family, and they would not want to be separated again. They tend to live in groups very near each other, and moving them might cause some complaints. It is an option however, and one that some of the immigrants might take if the government foots the bill. The biggest issue for immigration where technology and the economy is concerned, however, is that the people who can and want to take the high-paying and high-skilled jobs are not allowed to stay long enough to get these kinds of jobs and keep them. That causes companies to send their work overseas instead, and the extra American jobs that would have been created around the immigrant's job are gone as well. That is hurting our economy, which makes immigration overall a very delicate issue.

There is obviously no easy fix to the issue of immigration reform. There are ideas and solutions, but even the best of those are not foolproof. The ideas that Bill Gates has, for example, and that he has proposed to correct the problem are good ideas, but - as was pointed out - there are still problems with them. Giving those who come to school here and want to work here permanent residency can interfere with the green card issues, and it can also allow too many people to come into this country who are not really going to be contributing to the economy of the United States. While this is not the answer it is a start, and it will pave the way for more ideas and solutions to come out in the future.