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

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

That's the only regulation you support? So, a known gang member, after getting out of prison for murder, should have zero problem going and buying 100+ fully automatic weapons? You said "one gun regulation", so that means that anything below self-propelled rounds is good to go. Now, from the viewpoint of "protection against tyranny", that might be a good idea. I'm sure a gang member could find three other members to sign for him. Or someone who is mentally ill, hears voices, thinks many people are "out to kill them", etc. No regulations against domestic abusers, violent felons, etc! Just find three other felons to sign for you!

Re:I've been wondering why it is

[Karmashock]

Bernie was so weak he let Hillary rip him off and then didn't even stick it to her on it.

The system is big and corrupt... whomever you put out there to fix it is going to have balls of fucking steel.

Like or dislike Trump, he at least has that quality.

Bernie doesn't. He got completely cheated by Hillary and didn't do anything about it. He should have ripped her head off for that. But instead he meekly accepted it.

You like Bernie's policies? Fine. But get someone that can actually seal the deal. Bernie is old, tired, and was never really politically crafty enough to be the man he said he was. He's a senator from Vermont, my dood. He has been a joke in the senate even amongst his allies for most of his career. This is not the man you hand the basket with all your eggs in them. He can't protect them.

Whatever you think of Trump as a man or his policies, you can see he's got guts. You can see he is walks into fire... surrounded by people trying to take him down and he stands tall. You might find that annoying because you want him to go down. Fine. But he doesn't.

I'm not saying support trump. I'm saying find someone that is strong like him. Because the presidency has increasingly become an elected emperor. The separation of powers is greatly weakened. The powers of the states are eroded to the federal government all the time. All that power flows to the Federal Executive.

I'd personally like for the presidency to be a lot less powerful. But no one agrees with me apparently. So the presidency is going to get more and more powerful. And if you want your vote to mean anything and for the president to not just be controlled by shadowy forces that didn't run for election... then you want the president to be very strong. You want someone in power that knows he has to fight for the power by taking down people in the executive that were NOT elected that would presume to take his power for themselves.

Bernie is not that man. Bernie is failure. Again, remember what he did when Hillary fucked him in the primary? The DNC was literally biased against him contrary to the bylaws of the institution. They broke the rules to screw Bernie. And what did he do? He sucked it up like a gimp.

That is your champion? Get a better hero.

Re: I've been wondering why it is

[Anonymous Coward]

While income may be an indicator of competence in some areas, this is certainly not the case here. You canâ(TM)t compare an Australian with a Chinese or Indian worker for the simple reason that the latter risk a lot more if they loose their visa status. They will just shut up and avoid complaining, asking for pay rises or changing employers (which they they canâ(TM)t). The former doesnâ(TM)t really care, at worst he may have to go back to Australia (though highly unlikely), where his life style and standard of living will hardly differ from what he has in the US. He is more likely to ask for a raise or change employers. I am not saying there is no difference in competence, just that the salary isnâ(TM)t a reliable indicator in this case.

Re:I've been wondering why it is

[magzteel]

The HR people and hiring managers I've spoken to tell me the climate regarding hiring H1-B's has shifted dramatically. The are very concerned about the increased scrutiny from the government to justify the hires and as a result they are looking elsewhere.

Even infosys is shifting work from visa holders to Americans. Apparently it is possible to find local talent when necessary.
https://www.hrdive.com/news/in...

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.

Re: I've been wondering why it is

[drinkypoo]

Right? That's why the establishment republicans love him.
Oh wait, they hate him because you're wrong... damn.
Make a new theory.

They say they hate him, but they're lying. They lie all the time, we already knew they were liars. And the Republicans fucking adore Trump. They love him all day. Everything he's doing is stuff they would have loved to have done long ago, but couldn't get away with. Trump, however, can get away with anything and his supporters will keep supporting him because he is a cult of personality.

Re:I've been wondering why it is

[serviscope_minor]

That's dyed.

It is indeed, my bad.

Well, remember more carefully. The polls showed Clinton to win early, but as the election wore on, they shifted. The DNC assumed that Clinton could win, just like Clinton did (and then failed to campaign in key states.) But they always showed that Sanders could beat Trump.

Well, not exactly, there are polls that showed Hillary winning. And none of the later polls (after he dropped out) involved Sanders either. And as we both know, polls are something of an er inexact art.

People don't want centrism. If the DNC pushes centrism, it will fail again and again. Centrism has only led us further down the spiral.

But the DNC doesn't represent the people, like any party it represents its members.

There is accounting for idiots, and if the DNC hadn't ignored the many voices clearly visible in social media loudly stating that they would rather vote for Trump than Clinton,

Social media only tells you about noisy people on social media.

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 ;)

Re:Governemnt helping big tech companies

[Ayano]

On the other side, as someone hiring engineers. I'm not going to sugar coat that many of the 'all-american' graduates don't have as strong a grasp on mathematics as the foreign graduates. The interview questions show this glaringly, do you want to lower the bar to fill quotas?

When I'm looking for team members I care about what they're able to do and we pay our American and H1B workers the same salary (just north of 100k). So payment is not the issue as you like to claim. In shortages employees have more bargaining power absolutely and retaining skilled workers is difficult. This does not need to be artificially inflated by causing a deliberate brain shortage unless you're willing to admit sub-par engineers whom are more interested in Tinder and quick library re-use rather than the hard algorithmic nuances of the work we do.

Re:Governemnt helping big tech companies

[AmiMoJo]

In that case the sensible thing to do is make sure migrant workers get paid more than local ones. Then they are available to companies that really need them, and wages are not forced down.

As a migrant worker that's what I expect. Maybe the same wage as locals, but also up front cash for relocation.

Re:Governemnt helping big tech companies

[molarmass192]

The FAANGs hire a tiny fraction of a percent of the people who apply there. There's no shortage of skilled people. There is may be a shortage of people who can pass their filters and interviews, but shortage of CS grads? No, absolutely not. If the FAANGs hired everybody who applied and still needed more people, then it would be a shortage. When you can afford to be so selective as to turn away 99.9% of the people who apply to your company, then you're facing anything but a shortage. Now, if you're looking for a senior engineer under 30 with 20 years experience in machine learning, 3 published works, and at least 4 patents to their name, you're going to pay through the nose. Complaining there's a shortage of Bugatti Veyrons available to buy for your car pool service is pretty disingenuous when there is a virtually unlimited supply of Chrysler Minivans that could absolutely do the job that needs to be done.

Re: Governemnt helping big tech companies

[Reverend Green]

Here in Vietnam, foreign workers earn at least 3x as much as a local doing the same job. Many earn more than that.

So as you can imagine, companies do NOT hire foreigners for any job that could be done by a local. If they don't have 10-15 years of serious experience in a profession, the only job open to a foreigner is language teacher.

That is bad for inexperienced foreigners hoping to work in Vietnam. But it's very good for the local economy and local society. There is no anti-immigrant sentiment here, because there are few of us and we aren't taking anyone's jobs.

I think we should adopt a similar policy in the United States. The law should require any imported foreign workers to be paid at least three times as much as their American counterparts. That single simple rule would be enough to end H-1B abuse overnight.

Re: Governemnt helping big tech companies

[Reverend Green]

The pay rates you quote are most unimpressive relative to the cost of buying property in major American cities. That's why you can't find skilled US citizen workers.

Thank you again for using imported H1-B labor to put downward pressure on local wages. Without the diligent efforts of people like you, we might have a thriving middle class.

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).

Re: I also went thru the OPT program

[AHuxley]

Its not a good deal for any American with skills who took on debt to get a good education.
US citizens have to accept a low wage in the USA to stay competitive with workers from other nations who got a "free" university education.

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"

[_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...

Re:Tell me again about "Ugly America"

[_Sharp'r_]

America didn't invent slavery, but it was the last western nation to make it illegal

You mean, besides Spain, Portugal, Cuba, Brazil, Italy, France, Netherlands, Russia, Germany, among others? Don't forget to include their full colonies and territorial possessions.

Re:Tell me again about "Ugly America"

[mjwx]

America didn't invent slavery, but it was the last western nation to make it illegal

You mean, besides Spain, Portugal, Cuba, Brazil, Italy, France, Netherlands, Russia, Germany, among others? Don't forget to include their full colonies and territorial possessions.

First off, you are so incorrect you deserve a QI klaxon

By western, he meant European and you knew that.

Germany as a unified state did not exist until 1871 and has never permitted slavery (if we exclude the Nazis).
Spain made slavery illegal in 1818 (did not take effect until 1820) as part of a treaty with the United Kingdom (plus we had kicked their arses in the Napoleonic war).
Portugal eliminated slavery in 1818 due to a treaty with the United Kingdom (we did this a lot).
Italy was the same as Germany, it didn't unify until 1848 and never permitted slavery.
France, Slavery was abolished in all French territories and possessions in 1794.
The Netherlands made slavery illegal in their colonies in 1863.
Russia abolished slavery in 1723 but retained serfdom until 1861.

The last actual slaves in the US were emancipated in 1865... Seeing as I've counted serfdom, systemic mistreatment of blacks continued under US law until 1964 (as in the Civil Rights Act of).

Ironically the one nation you could have mentioned that would have earned you points was the United Kingdom... Slavery here was not ruled illegal until 2012. Of course there was a reason for this, we never really tolerated it. We never really had a mass of slaves so it never occurred to anyone that we needed a law against it. Hell, even serfs (whom had to be paid and cared for by their lords, lords who mistreated serfs were punished) were emancipated in 1574 by Elizabeth I.

It pays to know what you're talking about, before talking about it.

Re:Tell me again about "Ugly America"

[_Sharp'r_]

Germany: Why wouldn't slavery under the Nazi's count? They ran the country at the time...
Spain: The 1818 treaty banned the slave trade, not slavery. They didn't ratify the slavery convention until 1927.
Portugal: Slavery wasn't abolished in all territories until 1869. Again, you seem to be confusing the slave trade with slavery. The United States banned the international "slave trade" in 1807.
Italy: Ratified the 1926 Slavery Convention in 1954. Until then, Italian Somaliland (their colony) still allowed slavery.
France: I missed. 1794 is right.
Netherlands: So the same time as the emancipation proclamation and when slaves were freed in the United States.
Russia: You're forgetting about the Soviet forced labor camps during WW II, among other things.

So you're 1/7 right. Does that mean you get a klaxon? It pays to know what you're talking about, before talking about it.

P.S. The UK had plenty of slaves, especially in colonies, but they also essentially were the first to lead the fight to abolish it around the world, including in their colonies and territories, so it seems churlish to try and get them on a technicality.

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?

[Cederic]

It's amazing what people will endure to stay free.

Sadly it's also amazing what people will endure to avoid having to fight to stay free.

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".

Re: So you oppose standing armies, right?

[drinkypoo]

There are some more reasons for that than "they had weapons".

You seriously think that nobody would be willing to sell arms into the USA to keep insurgency going? We, the USA, sell arms into every other country for the same purpose, what causes you to imagine that nobody would do it here?

US citizens accepting their lifestyle? Keep dreaming.

You seriously imagine that humans in the US are inferior to those in Afghanistan? Because humans are humans. The great depression proved that Americans could live in the mud. They can do it again.