It is common for H1-B workers to also be working toward permanent residency while they hold their H1-Bs; this is called "dual intent". I believe a substantial fraction of H1-B holders do intend to gain permanent residency eventually, and if their applications for permanent residency are successful, they don't have to leave.
I find this "analysis" superficial and self-serving. A vocal segment of the high-tech community, including, evidently, the author of this piece, is protectionist and consistently opposes higher visa limits for foreign workers. I, personally, think this is short-sighted; I think continued immigration of the best and brightest from the rest of the world is a positive for the US. But that's not what I'm criticizing in the report.
The author attempts to argue that American students are becoming more interested in engineering, and that foreign students are less so, based on the enrollment numbers into US graduate programs, and thus we don't need more foreign workers. From my experience as a professor, I offer an alternate explanation:
More US students are entering graduate programs because the economy is poor and thus students with bachelors in engineering degrees find graduate study more attractive because finding jobs is difficult. This was certainly true in 2003.
Fewer foreign students are entering US graduate programs because it has become markedly more difficult to get US student visas since 9/11. This trend is of grave concern to US universities (and it should be of equal concern to the technology community); instead the best students from other countries are staying home or going to other nations for graduate study.
I feel this "analysis" is far from objective; the Hudson Institute, a far-right think tank, evidently has quite the axe to grind with immigration (just as they do with Social Security and organic foods).
Slashdot Mirror
It is common for H1-B workers to also be working toward permanent residency while they hold their H1-Bs; this is called "dual intent". I believe a substantial fraction of H1-B holders do intend to gain permanent residency eventually, and if their applications for permanent residency are successful, they don't have to leave.
I find this "analysis" superficial and self-serving. A vocal segment of the high-tech community, including, evidently, the author of this piece, is protectionist and consistently opposes higher visa limits for foreign workers. I, personally, think this is short-sighted; I think continued immigration of the best and brightest from the rest of the world is a positive for the US. But that's not what I'm criticizing in the report.
The author attempts to argue that American students are becoming more interested in engineering, and that foreign students are less so, based on the enrollment numbers into US graduate programs, and thus we don't need more foreign workers. From my experience as a professor, I offer an alternate explanation:
I feel this "analysis" is far from objective; the Hudson Institute, a far-right think tank, evidently has quite the axe to grind with immigration (just as they do with Social Security and organic foods).