H-1B Visa Alternative 'OPT' Grew 400 Percent In Eight Years, Report Finds

theodp writes: Almost 1.5 million foreign students have been allowed to stay and work in the U.S. after graduation as part of the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program, which is now larger than the controversial H-1B program (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source). According to new Pew Research analysis of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement data obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, the number of students authorized to work under OPT has grown 400% since the federal government in 2008 increased the amount of time graduates with science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) degrees could remain in the United States and work. More than half of those working under OPT from 2004 to 2016 were in STEM fields, Pew found, and as a result, were eligible for the so-called STEM extension.

The OPT program added a 17-month STEM extension in 2008, shortly after Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates suggested it in testimony to Congress after complaining that the cap for the H-1B program had caused a serious disruption in the flow of talented STEM graduates to U.S. companies. In 2016, another 12-month extension was added after a Federal judge threatened to torpedo the STEM extension program, saying it "appears to have been adopted directly from the unanimous suggestions by Microsoft and similar industry groups." In its Top Ten Tech Issues for 2018, Microsoft expressed "concern that in 2018 the White House will announce a rollback of the extended period of Optional Practical Training for STEM graduates." Pew also took note of allegations that "visa mills" have sprung up in response to demand driven by the OPT program.

Comments

I've been wondering why it is

[rsilvergun]

that I see tech almost completely dominated by people here on work visas, to the point where companies have completely shut down their training departments because they don't have to train anymore. There's not enough H1-Bs to fill that many positions. The program is big and corrupt but not that big and corrupt.

Thing is, I don't see anything changing. Folks voted for Trump because he said he'd stop all this crap, and now he supports TPP, DACA, and literally told his supporters he wanted workers to come in and do your jobs. Meanwhile Bernie Sanders, the one politician who could have put the brakes on this crap, couldn't even get enough support to overcome a little back stabbing from his party (which let's remember Trump easily did).

What we need is folks to stop giving a crap about pointless shit (Guns, Abortion, Gay Marriage, you know, wedge issues) and pay attention to the economy. But good luck with that.

Re: I've been wondering why it is

[Anonymous Coward]

Try getting any original thinking out of the foreign programmers. They do exactly as instructed and no more.They won't tell you that you asked them to code the wrong thing like an American. As an added bonus, when they go back home to India or China, they'll take your intellectual property with them. There's almost no way to enforce any of America's expansive I.P. theft prohibitions in their home countries.

Re:I've been wondering why it is

[geoskd]

What we need is folks to stop giving a crap about pointless shit (Guns, Abortion, Gay Marriage, you know, wedge issues) and pay attention to the economy. But good luck with that.

While I do agree with most of your post, I strongly disagree that the second amendment is "pointless shit".

I don't own any guns (unless you count paintball, and even then, none that work), but I will never vote for any politician that interferes with the right to own a gun. I don't even much care for gun regulation. I consider it our right (and responsibility unless you have a good reason otherwise, like an autistic child) to own a gun and be prepared to use it in defense of our Constitution (notice I didn't say government). Our founding fathers foresaw a day when this country would get so thoroughly borked that even with democratic norms, it might become necessary to defend our rights against tyranny using the method of last resort. Without the right to bear arms (and by arms, I include military grade weapons), we cannot hope to enforce any of our other rights. The right to bear arms is not about hunting, or sport, or even personal freedoms, it is about our ability to enforce our authority over our government. The only thing that stops a tyrant from declaring themselves dictator for life is the fact that an armed mob will bring that tyrant to justice and restore our rights.

The one gun regulation I can fully support would be a requirement to have 3 people cosign when a person buys a gun. This will help to ensure that any gun nut has to have at least three people who think they are responsible enough to have a gun. That one regulation would have prevented nearly every mass shooting in this country, and would not have interfered with anyone elses right to bear arms. No need for permits, or any other kind of government interference.

Re: I've been wondering why it is

[Anonymous Coward]

The corp I work for (Fortune 50 listed) has an office in Curryland (India) and the place entire place is a shit show. 60% turnover in 24 months. The longest national to work there is 5 years because he's the manager and they pay him stupid amounts of money to put up with the local's bullshit. The manager is American and he likens his job to herding autistic cats.

The code they produce is ok.. not stellar, just do what they are told and could EASILY be done by a just out of Uni grad. The problem is that code isn't the issue. Knowing the ecosystem is.. that takes time to develop.. but the locals jump ship (again 60%+ turnover and that's average) because they want a job with a company that has the POSSIBILITY of a visa to the US. Our corp simply doesn't do visa's.. so they use us as a stepping stone. Don't fool yourself for one second that every Indian in India would eat a cow if it meant coming to the US.

The H-1B visa is a carrot used to get the smart foreign talent. They are generally not that good, but bottom line is that they are CHEAP and *good enough*. Plus you can send them back in a year or two and not have to deal with long term salary/benefits. A dev with 15+ years experience is significantly more expansive than an H-1B monkey.

Increase the price of the visa and require that visa applicants get paid the same a native counterparts... you'll see H-1B workers dry up in a second.

Re: I've been wondering why it is

[Reverend Green]

The attitude displayed by this troll is a major cause of all the security breaches we keep seeing.

He pays peanuts, and he absolutely DOES NOT CARE that he is getting monkeys. He profits, and society picks up the bill.

Governemnt helping big tech companies

[oldgraybeard]

force down wages of their technical workers. I love the whining that they can not find workers. Truth is they can not find workers willing to work under their terms and conditions for the amount of money they want to pay.
I really struggle to believe there is a shortage of workers in STEM in the US at all. I really think this is all about forcing down wages.

Just my 2 cents ;)

I also went thru the OPT program

[stikves]

A few years ago, OPT was not strictly necessary, hence I used it for a few months. However now with much more people applying for H1-B, and having a significantly smaller chance to get one, people tend to stay on OPT for longer periods. They have been living here in US for long periods (school + work), maybe 7-8 or more. And I would believe most have already proved their benefit to this country.

I had friends who were contributing members of our society who had to leave for other countries due to losing the H1-B lottery several years in a row. They tend to hang on to OPT as much as possible than have to leave, at least for another year.

For this reason I would prefer merit based, or "auction" based H1-B system. If the company finds the candidate to contribute significant amounts, then they can also "bid" by giving higher salaries. This also answers the question about skilled labor being replaced with foreign unskilled ones. If you cannot pay in the top so much thousand (50K?) positions for a foreign employee, it means the company does not actually value their work so much.

(I would also support separate quotas for engineers, and lower paying important jobs, like skilled teachers).

Tell me again about "Ugly America"

[mi]

Tell me again,please, how stupid, unfriendly, obnoxious, and otherwise unpleasant America is, and how badly degrading and oppressive and otherwise unfortunate the life here...

Re:Tell me again about "Ugly America"

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that America is stealing highly educated people from other countries in no way erases America's problems with racism, sexism, and how historical inequities have been distributed across different races, genders, religions, abilities, and sexualities. Every 28 hours a black person in the United States is killed by someone employed or protected by the government of the United States. Privilege, white supremacy, homophobia, toxic masculinity, and gender normativity are issues which demand action and yet are going unaddressed.

Re:Tell me again about "Ugly America"

[_Sharp'r_]

I guess mi technically asked you to tell him that, and you did.

But still, maybe read a little about Race and Justice in the U.S. before spouting off on it. For example:

New York City data suggests no bias of officers towards shooting black suspects compared with their representation among dangerous police encounters, and if anything the reverse effect. ... There is no support for the contention that white officers are more likely than officers of other races to shoot black suspects.

Compared to most countries, America is a paradise of opportunity, welcomes immigrants and foreign workers, and has non-existent issues with racism, sexism, historical inequities, etc... You probably also think Americans invented slavery...

So you oppose standing armies, right?

[rsilvergun]

because that was a big part of why the founding fathers wanted everybody armed. They wanted the militias to handle defense. Even back then it was understood that untrained citizens couldn't beat trained soldiers. We didn't really 'win' the revolutionary war so much as Britain gave up to go focus on the French (who wanted us split from the Brits to weaken their enemy).

As it stands you're weapons are pointless against the US Military. Even if we removed _all_ restrictions and let you have rocket launchers, grenades and fully automatic rifles you'd run out of supplies and your lack of military discipline, training and supply lines means you'd be gunned down. A few like you might live up in the wood and occasionally come done and blow up a school bus like they do in Afghanistan. But you'd never kill anyone who really mattered.

The above sounds harsh because, well, it's the truth, and the truth is bloody fucking _harsh_. If you want to prevent oppression though the good news is it's not hard. Fight bigotry in all forms. It's the #1 tool of oppressors to divide the working class. Make sure _everyone_ is taken care of. Food, Shelter, Healthcare and education. The #2 tool of oppressors is scarcity. It keeps us at each other's throats.

But please, abandon this notion of fighting back with violence. It doesn't work. Best case you get to change out the oppressors. Worst case you become a terrorist.

Re: So you oppose standing armies, right?

[Reverend Green]

You should definitely tell those armed civilians in Afghanistan - who have fought the US military to a standstill for a decade - that they have absolutely no chance against the US military.

Re:So you oppose standing armies, right?

[Bruinwar]

because that was a big part of why the founding fathers wanted everybody armed.

This is way off topic but I keep seeing people spouting off about gun ownership opinions of the founding fathers. The founding fathers agreed on very little. Yes, many of them did fear having a standing army & believed in a "well-regulated militia". Everyone armed? Hardly. Firearms were expensive. Regular folks did not own them. There was something like 14% gun ownership (googled it) & half of those didn't work. There were not enough firearms to arm the standing militias. They had severe shortages & the state actually regulated firearms. Can you imagine.. they confiscated firearms from folks that couldn't use them.

Our founding fathers likely did not conceptualize "everybody armed".