Spike in H-1B workers enrolled at Wash. colleges at in-state tuition rate

Source: KUOW

As the state lawmakers head back to Olympia this month, we take a look at how one bill passed last year is playing out. The bill granted in–state tuition to foreign professionals and their families. Many of these are H1–B visa holders who work at places like Microsoft and Amazon. Since the law passed, new enrollments among this group have shot up at the UW and at community colleges around the region.

... But at the UW, enrollment of new H visa students has shot up 80 percent this fall, compared to last fall. New enrollments at the state's community colleges is also up more than 60 percent during that same period.

On average, resident tuition at the UW is $10,000 less than for nonresidents. The university estimated it would lose $430,000 in tuition this year, due to the law change. That cost will likely go up if H visa holder enrollments continue to climb.

... From Parson's perspective, the bill was specifically carved out to benefit companies like Microsoft and its H1–B workers.

In fact, some nicknamed this legislation the Microsoft subsidy bill. That's mainly because Microsoft is the second largest employer of H1–B workers in the country. But also because the bill's main sponsor was Democratic Representative Ross Hunter, who worked at Microsoft for 17 years.

Read more: http://www.kuow.org/program.php?id=19094

can go pound sand when they can't get into the UW due to declining acceptance numbers. It's more important to admit a H1-B visa holder, after all.

It's not just the money. It's the fact that the UW has been saying for a couple of years now in the local press that they cut the numbers of those admitted to the school in the first place.

:mad:

The fact that they can track enrollment of those who are using the visa residency status loophole suggests that they, in fact, don't -legally speaking- "live in Washington State".

State residency standards are based on a term of 1 or more years of living in the state (and paying state taxes which are used to partially fund public universities) before one qualifies for legal residency for purposes of tuition rates.

If I move to Seattle tomorrow, I will not be a Washington resident. If I move to India, on the other hand, and from there secure a H1-B visa, then move to Seattle, then I will be a resident for tuition purposes.

Pardon my Hindi, but that's some fucked up shit....

The fact that they can track enrollment of those who are using the visa residency status loophole suggests that they, in fact, don't -legally speaking- "live in Washington State".

There is no "visa loophole." Under current legislation visa holders are subject to the same restrictions as all other residents. This bill removed an additional restriction on visa holders. It did not create any special class for visa holders, as you will note in the article below.

State residency standards are based on a term of 1 or more years of living in the state (and paying state taxes which are used to partially fund public universities) before one qualifies for legal residency for purposes of tuition rates.

Indeed. And according to the Seattle Times, that is also the case for H-1B holders:

Under House Bill 1487, which takes effect July 1, the foreign workers would qualify for the same tuition rate as state residents if they have been in the state at least a year on certain kinds of temporary work visas, such as the H-1B.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009366983_tuition22m.html

If I move to Seattle tomorrow, I will not be a Washington resident. If I move to India, on the other hand, and from there secure a H1-B visa, then move to Seattle, then I will be a resident for tuition purposes.

No you wouldn't. You would still have to live in the state for one year, just like anybody else who wants to qualify for in-state tuition.

They were brought to this country in order for Microsoft to save a few dollars, therefore, they "live" here?

Uh, no. They don't. They are residing here during the period of their contracts. They don't live here.

It's documented that H1-B's are taking jobs from American citizens, and now are (most likely) taking college admissions from those who will live here, pay taxes, etcetera, long after they're gone?

I don't think so.

They were brought to this country in order for Microsoft to save a few dollars, therefore, they "live" here?

Yes actually, they do. Just as you or I would "live" in Washington if we moved there to take a job.

Uh, no. They don't. They are residing here during the period of their contracts. They don't live here.

Would you care to enlighten me on the legal distinction between residing somewhere and living there? There is a legal difference between permanent and temporary residence, but both are considered residence. Where would you say an H1-B holder residing in Washington lives?

If so, they should be eligible for in-state tuition.

7.5% sales taxes on just about everything. If these folks buy groceries or clothing etc. They are paying taxes.

and will surly NOT stay here and become citizens or permanent residents.


Hope your Holidays were fun.

:hi:

Many H-1B holders go on to get their green cards and become citizens. I personally know quite a few who have taken this route over the years, despite the fact that certain Americans such as yourself wish to treat them as human scum.

beyond their visa limitations as permanent residents or citizens?


And it's very insulting that you think I consider them human scum. I merely consider them takers of American jobs. BADLY needed American jobs.

...by immigration category. That doesn't mean such information isn't available, but my brain is turning to mush from reading too many poorly formatted government PDFs. I highly doubt that H1-Bs account for very many of the green card applicants because, contrary to popular belief, there aren't that many H1-B visas issued every year and they're only a small fraction of the total number of immigration or dual-purpose visas issued every year - many, many hundreds of thousands total versus perhaps 50k max for H1-Bs at the moment.

Though I don't oppose their being treated fairly while here and can only laugh at how many DUers blame them for all their problems - it is positively Lou Dobbsian.

It is unconstitutional to discriminate against people because of alienage, too.

Though they're technically not an "immigration" class visa, it's perfectly possible to use one to get a green card if you go through the process. Most western countries (at least - I can't say for the rest of the world) allow work visas to be used in this way.

No one is suggesting keeping them out of school. But this is a clear subsidy to favored companies.

They've been here for the ten years we have lived here. They're now separated. It'll be interesting to see what happens next; the wife is a "trailing spouse", who doesn't have the legal documentation to work in this country.

They have no intention of becoming citizens.

>I personally know quite a few who have taken this route over the years<

Nice straw man. I've never met anyone who pursued US citizenship yet, and we live ten miles from Microsoft, which employed the highest percentage of H1-B holders in the US last year.

I live in silicon valley. I know lots of H1-B holders. Some want citizenship, some don't. Some have obtained it, some have been sent back.

Therefore, your word is not law. Again, we live ten miles from the US' leading H1-B visa employers. There are multiple people in this neighborhood (and our former neighborhood,) that are H1-B visa holders. We haven't met one yet that started immigration process to stay here.

Again, I find it comical that you are more interested in extending some of the things American citizens need to succeed -- a good college education and a job -- in a climate of over 10% unemployment, to guest workers, rather than those who actually are US citizens and pay taxes.

whether they are the interests of the H1B holders, Foreign factories, or Foreign products, there is NO patriotism from them, But then I wonder about their patriotism. Most aren't even citizens or are even residing in the US.

Also, helpful hint: there are many US citizens who live abroad; moving to another country doesn't mean you stop being American. (It CAN give you a perspective on things that someone who doesn't even have a passport and has never been outsiode the States lacks, though.)

It's unfortunate for some people, but we live in a more globalised world now. FLows of capital and labour across borders have only increased and will only increase further; eliminating immigration classes for companies like Microsoft to hire foreign workers is more likely to lead to them moving operations abroad than it is to them employing more Americans.

over all things American.

I think that most of them are U.S. citizens, but not all. Whoever is doing all the yacking on this thread is on my ignore list, so I can't tell anything about him/her.

Sometimes it seems that to be considered liberal or progressive one must root against one's own country, at least at DU.

Therefore, your word is not law.

I never said my word was law. I related my experience, which obviously differs from yours.

Again, I find it comical that you are more interested in extending some of the things American citizens need to succeed -- a good college education and a job -- in a climate of over 10% unemployment, to guest workers, rather than those who actually are US citizens and pay taxes.

I don't know how many times I have to say this. H1-B workers in Washington state pay Washington state taxes, the same as everybody else who works there. Furthermore, not all American citizens are entitled to discounted tuition at UW. That's something reserved for residents of Washington state. Now due to this legislation the special category that denied visa holders the same privileges as other WA residents and taxpayers has been removed.

And I'll say this again - if this country is so pathetically weak that it can't handle the relatively tiny number of immigrants (<50k/year) who come here on H1-Bs, then we might as well just give up.

No state I have lived in has required me to prove US citizenship, or to submit evidence of ever having paid taxes of any kind, in order to be charged in-state tuition.

It's just a residency requirement: "Have you lived in this state for X years?"

One is now a citizen, two are in the process of obtaining citizenship, one just started at the company a few months ago and hasn't decided what they want to do yet.

So it's a straw man when someone suggests they know someone who's taken the route from H1-B to citizenship, but legitimate argument for you to say you don't know such a person?

have trouble getting into UW.

This law was specifically designed to placate companies like Microsoft. I'm sure that it's no coincidence that Bill Gates gives gobs of money to UW.

At Microsoft salaries, they can afford to pay the out of state tuition.

No state that I have lived in requires you to speculate about your future plans in order to be eligible for in-state tuition.

They pay their taxes same as everybody else in WA. Why shouldn't they have access to the same facilities as all other state taxpayers?

that their status as temporary residents should not entitle them to the same benefits as permanent residents receive. That is actually the logic behind charging higher tuition for out of state residents in the first place. Most states require years of residency before one qualifies for the lower tuition rates. In effect, the state is subsidizing the education of permanent residents, an investment they believe will pay off long after the student graduates and moves into a higher tax bracket or becomes an entrepreneur and creates more jobs for the state. Giving the same subsidy to a short-term resident would be counterproductive, would it not?

H1-B is, by definition, a temporary work visa. The vast majority of H1-B holders return to their native countries upon expiration of their visa. If you are really interested in helping H1-B immigrants, it might be better to start by pushing for legislation that will allow them to draw from social security upon retirement, a benefit for which they are actually taxed. This reform appears to be a special gift from the taxpayers to Microsoft, Inc., not a step toward justice for H1-B holders.

If I wanted to go to UW, all I'd have to do is move to WA and live there for a year to receive in-state tuition. I'd be within my rights to move out of WA as soon as I completed my degree.

Most states require years of residency before one qualifies for the lower tuition rates.

WA requires one year. H1-Bs in WA must live in the state for a year before they qualify for in-state tuition, same as everyone else. There is no special status afforded to visa holders.

In effect, the state is subsidizing the education of permanent residents, an investment they believe will pay off through moving the student into a higher tax bracket long term or encouraging entrepreneurship and attracting employers.

No. The state is giving discounted tuition because the resident or their parents pay taxes that go to support education. That's why there's no requirement to stay within the state after finishing the degree. I live in CA. Lots of people come here in order to obtain residency (here it's 2 years instead of 1) to get discounted tuition at the UCs. It's well worth it for the reduction in tuition.

Giving the same subsidy to a short-term resident would be counterproductive, would it not?

No. There isn't any such thing as a short-term or long-term resident at the state level. You're either a resident or you're not.

If you are really interested in helping H1-B immigrants, it might be better to start by pushing for legislation that will allow them to draw from social security upon retirement, a benefit for which they are taxed.

They can do that if they become citizens, which is perfectly doable on an H1-B provided you don't get fired, laid off, or rob a convenience store.

which is that the subsidy is intended as an investment in permanent residents. H1-B workers are, by definition, temporary residents.

...why should someone who pays taxes to support the public education system be barred from using it? You want to preclude them from using it? Fine. Return the portion of their taxes that goes to fund education. Problem solved.

when you have to lie in an attempt to make a point, it's worth considering the idea that your point may not be all that valid.

I have yet to find ANY state that requires more than 12 months before establishing in-state residency (and some like Arkansas and Illinois require less), though in all fairness, I only checked 38 states and DC so far.

tuition.

Visa holders need to be resident for a year before they qualify as well.

an acceptable grade point average. They ended this policy because of over-enrollment. It doesn't seem fair to these students to have to compete with temporary Microsofties for fewer and fewer slots.

>It doesn't seem fair to these students to have to compete with temporary Microsofties for fewer and fewer slots.<

And isn't this the bottom line?

If they are not residents, they shouldn't be paying residential rates, and they SHOULD NOT be taking admission spaces away from those who actually live here full-time.

Then again, I'm sure we'll be called "xenophobes" again.

:eyes:

Where would you say that a person living in Washington state and paying Washington state taxes actually resides? The moon? India? Residence and citizenship are not the same thing.

In other words, it's okay for the US to allow those on visas taking jobs away from American citizens to now ensure other American citizens are going to have even more competition for a few slots at the local state college in Washington State.

Tell me: Do you work in the software industry?

And yes, I work in the software industry and have for my entire professional career.

Most people have to live here for a whole year before they qualify. Why should that be any different for these people?

Visa holders have to live in WA for a year just like everyone else in order to be eligible. There is no special category for visa holders.

Our education system is not doing that well if it's a certainly that they will be beat out for the spot.

...which seem to be happy to deny legal, tax-paying residents of the state of Washington the same benefits afforded all other legal, tax-paying residents of the state of Washington for the simple reason that they hold foreign citizenship.

These people are "stealing" the Americans' jobs, you say! But it's one of those evul corporations!!!! What decent American would work for them!

LOL, DUers rave on about their corporate masters but yet suddenly it's such a great thing to be one of their "slaves"!

Knockout!

...that it's being destroyed by 45,000 skilled immigrants per year out of a working population of hundreds of millions.

You're rather magnanimous with other's resources though, I notice. :hi:

Being H1-B holders, they kinda have to be.

out of state tuition at a public university because there was no law such as this in place, this despite the fact that I was a resident of the state of NC and my father (as I could not work) paid taxes there (this was in the early 90s).

It's not just H-1Bs. Anyone who is a dependent of or an holder of a non-immigrant visa (such as the H-1B, L-1A, E-1, E-2, O-1, etc.) should be allowed to go to school and fulfill the requirements for in-state residency.

Yet more anti-legal immigrant crap on DU unless, of course, said immigrants don't have visas in which case they are welcomed.

I'm wondering if instead this animosity is nothing but xenophobia masquerading as anti-immigration.

...are completely incapable of distinguishing between the actual human beings who hold H-1B visas and the companies that hire them, and thus hate both equally.

consequences. WA is just filled with former IT workers that are lucky to get a job at Wallyworld because M$ replaced them with a H-1(b) slave. State tax revenues are down while expenses continue to rise and the largest software company in the world and other major players have successfully avoided supporting the state that made them possible.

So the backlash is directed toward the people they view (wrongly) as the cause of their pain.

But you are right, they are legal. And it's their kiddies, who didn't ask to come (much like the illegals).

DU insists they are "stealing" "their" jobs by working for less, no matter how many times I link to the Dept. of Labor website which says H-1Bs have to be paid the prevailing wage. Making it highly suspect that it is xenophobia in disguise, since facts seem to make no impression.

I don't know about those other letters, though!

who buy products from Foreign governments that sanction whaling.......

Didn't you know that? :sarcasm:

Another fine product of the American educational system, I suppose.

It's your favorite bit of dung to sling around when you've got nothing clever to say. A more classic case of projection I have not seen! :hi:

On average, resident tuition at the UW is $10,000 less than for nonresidents. The university estimated it would lose $430,000 in tuition this year, due to the law change. That cost will likely go up if H visa holder enrollments continue to climb.

If the difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition is $10,000/year and the university expects to lose $430,000/year that amounts to a whopping... 43 visa holders out of a population of 30,000 undergraduates.

That changes everything then! :silly:

Or is that just the H-1Bs! :evilgrin:

Hey, by the way: Cheap labor! :puke:

Or in state for that matter?

Microsoft can hardly be "fobbing" the cost off on the taxpayers. I've never heard of one of those evil corporations being found liable for the costs of their employees' children's education.

:hi:

I'll ask around.

If you're willing to refund the portion of the visa holder's taxes that go to fund state college education, then that's one thing.

"If you're willing to refund the portion of the visa holder's taxes that go to fund state college education, then that's one thing."

Nonsense. When are you going to get it through your skull that local governments are responsible to their citizens? There is absolutely no requirement that H1B visa holders be treated in all ways the same as citizens and permanent residents. None. :hi:

And I salue them for doing it.

When are you going to get it through your skull that local governments are responsible to their citizens?

When are you going to get it through your head that nobody is a "citizen" of a local government? RESIDENT is not the same thing as CITIZEN. You are a CITIZEN of the US. You are a RESIDENT of whatever state, county, and municipality is unfortunate enough to be graced by your presence.

Should we bill visa holders for firefighters if their house catches fire? Should we let them enroll their children in public schools? Where do you want to draw the line?

Your idiosyncratic definition notwithstanding, mine is the usual definition.

"You are a CITIZEN of the US. You are a RESIDENT of whatever state, county, and municipality is unfortunate enough to be graced by your presence."

You are mixing legal, idiomatic meanings of these term. Nor does any portion of this conversation truly hinge on how you've chosen to parse "citizen". You're simply off base here (nor is this point you're trying to make anything more than tangential.)

that won't be getting in.

Of course, that's not a problem. It's more important to reward Microsoft, isn't it?

:eyes:

Citizenship isn't a requirement for residency. I don't know how many times I have to say this. When I lived abroad I was a RESIDENT of the host country even though I was a CITIZEN of the US. I had the rights of a resident, not the rights of a citizen.

because that's the only way UW is going to continue to "lose" $10k/student tuition per year. So you cry about the poor 43 "real" residents who can't get in to UW...if they're WA residents, UW doesn't get the extra $10k pp anyway, so what's your problem?

dg

Taxpayer will have to make up the gap between the in state and out of state funding. :hi:

:hi:

dg

Nor will the stick around to contribute in the future...

:hi:

:hi:

dg

Seems like the subsidy in question benefits primarily foreign guest workers and their wealthy employers (Amazon, Microsoft.)

that applies to other non-residents who live in WA for one year in order to meet the requirements for in-state tuition. Yet I don't see you whining about that, because after all *those* people wouldn't have paid much into the system &/or may not live in WA after they graduate to keep paying into the system.

:hi:

dg

As long as they are residents of the state, why should their kids be treated differently? Presumably it is their children and not them. They pay their state taxes.

If you don't like them here, that's a different issue. But if they are here legally and paying their taxes, why should they not be treated like any other taxpayer?

(such as freedom of movement, for example.)

They are analogous to indentured servants inasmuch as their visa is "owned" by their employer. So to ask "why are these people with this guest worker status treated differently?" ignores the basic context of the conversation.

Oh, and this is not specifically about children--are you attempting to make it a "won't someone please think of the CHILDREN?" type emotive argument here? :shrug:

...of residents of Washington State. Why is that distinction so hard to understand?

where it is entirely inappropriate. So yes, you are alluding to the rights of citizens and permanent residents when you demand that H1B holders be treated no differently than any other person...

"Why is that distinction so hard to understand?"

It's that you've made a mess of this distinction (perhaps without realizing it.) :hi:

I'm simply supporting the policy change that removed the arbitrary restriction on visa holders' eligibility for in-state tuition. I don't see a fundamental rights issue here.

"I don't see a fundamental rights issue here."

That's not a very good explanation for your "but they're TAXPAYERS!" argument upthread. I'm going to take this response as an attempt to "walk back" some of your more expansive language, upthread. At least we agree that the State of Washington may choose to extend these privileges to H1B holders, or not.

Your opinion on this matter was never in doubt.

Wherever "foreign guest workers" are used, from the brothels of Amsterdam, to the construction sites of Dubai, to the fields of California, both the guest workers and the native workers suffer.

That's the entire point of hiring a "guest worker"--to exploit the differential between their rights, abilities, and expectations against those of the native populace.

"Your opinion on this matter was never in doubt."

I am not opposed to normal immigration (even a little).

You're just opposed to immigrants having jobs.

Nice to see that a rather flaccid "Riiiight" is all ya got though. :hi:

what is your motive in defending Foreigners who take Americans jobs? I don't understand why you are so vehemently defending these leeches?

They're human beings trying to support their families, and you call them leeches. It's really quite sad and somewhat pathetic that you feel that way.

what opportunities are available for Americans to work in China and India with comparable skills to the H1B applicants? If you can prove we have equal opportunity there to these people who come here, I'll never debate you on the subject again.


Be well.

since the 14th Amendment applies to all "persons" within a State.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (emphasis mine)

dg

You cannot "guesstimate" your way to Constitutional law--cite a case or it didn't happen. :hi:

why else do you think that non-citizens accused of crimes in this country have the same rights as citizens & legal residents?

Oh, & here's one that close to being on point, except it deals with undocumented people:
Plyler v. Doe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe

(quote) Texas officials had argued that illegal immigrants were not "within the jurisdiction" of the state and could thus not claim protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court majority rejected this claim, finding instead that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful." (quote)

Sets up an "intermediate scrutiny" standard, so if WA wants to discriminate against H1B visa holders, they must show:

In order to overcome the intermediate scrutiny test, it must be shown that the law or policy being challenged furthers an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_scrutiny

:hi:

dg

and a myriad of other "rights" citizens and permanent aliens enjoy.

H1B visa holders don't even have freedom of movement, association. :hi:

:hi:

dg

"Rationalization" isn't an appropriate word in this situation. It has no bearing on the topic whatever.

doesn't mean anything. You're like the pro lifers who say there is no right to privacy because it's not stated in the Constitution. So enjoy the company that you're in! :hi:

dg

Moreover, it is self-evident that tourists, visitors, and non-permanent residents have different rights than citizens and permanent resident. QED.

"You're like the pro lifers who say there is no right to privacy because it's not stated in the Constitution."

What a massive stretch. I can cite the authority for a "right to privacy" off the top of my head. :hi:

Not a stretch, because you're demanding the same thing that the lifers are: that the Constitution specifically say that H1B visa holders are "persons" for the purposes of the 14th Amendment.

And btw, I already showed you that tourists, visa holders, & other non-residents DO have recognized rights & privileges as citizens & legal residents do, but apparently you missed that part due to lack of reading comprehension skills. I also showed you the standard that WA would have to meet in order to deprive H1B visa holders in-state tuition status. Again, lack of reading comprehension skills on your part.

Sorry you feel so uncomfortable with the company you're keeping. :hi:

dg

You don't understand: in Constitutional law, the text of the Constitution and SCOTUS decisions construing the same are both primary sources of authority.

So your argument doesn't work. There is indeed ample citable controlling authority for the proposition of a "right to privacy"--there is simply none for your contention that H1B holders have all the Constitutional rights of citizens.

"And btw, I already showed you that tourists, visa holders, & other non-residents DO have recognized rights & privileges as citizens & legal residents do,"

The part that is tripping you up is the "some" vs. "all" part. It's basic associative logic/

"Sorry you feel so uncomfortable with the company you're keeping."

You mean people who know how the law works? :silly:

:eyes:

What's tripping YOU up is that there are different levels of scrutiny that have to be applied. If, for instance, WA wants to require H1B visa holders, who are here in this country legally & who otherwise meet the in-state tuition eligibility requirements, pay out of state tuition, WA must then show that making them do so "furthers an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest." (wiki link I cited above which you chose to ignore)

dg

Namely, that it is per se Unconstitutional to treat H1B visa holders differently from citizens and permanent residents.

The previous policy of excluding H1B visa holders from "in state" tuition was abrogated by statute not by court order. All of which ineluctably indicates that there is no controlling, (on point!) authority that suggests that denying temporary guest workers some of the rights of citizens (e.g. the right to work for whomever you wish, which is denied to these visa holders) is anything but perfectly Constitutional.

So what is your argument? That a court in the future will find the practice Unconstitutional? I'm simply not interested in predictions. :hi:

of how things should run. Good thing there are better, less bigoted, minds in the Washington State Legislature than yours. :hi:

dg

or all other dependents of other visa categories? I know for a fact that Microsoft also employs a large number of workers in O-1 status (that's extraordinary ability aliens) as well as L-1As (intracompany transfer executives from MS foreign subsidiaries).

So, do you want to distinguish among visa categories or not? After all H-1Bs are not the only employment visas out there. So, in essence, aren't you (by you I mean those of you upset by this legislation) saying that all foreign workers -regardless of visa category- are stealing American jobs? Don't tell that to baseball players, researchers, professors, entertainers, teachers, accountants and the many others who just happen to have a non-immigrant visa.

What are the children and dependents of these workers supposed to do while paying taxes in the U.S. and complying with in-state eligibility? Are you denying them the chance to an education?

After all, if a child of an H-1B or O-1 or E-2 or L-1A holder is qualified enough to gain admittance to a public college, how can s/he be 'stealing' someone else's space???

Obviously, in Washington Microsoft is a major employer of foreign workers and so it makes sense that it would benefit it.

Here in NC, when the same issue arose back when I was an undergrad at NC State (and paying out-of-state tuition, despite meeting in-state eligibility), the major lobbies to have the in-state tuition rules changed for foreign visa holders were the major universities: NC State, UNC-Chapel Hill, Wake Forest and Duke, because all four of them have huge foreign populations among their professors, researchers and students ranks.

As to the temporary nature of non-immigrant visas... indeed ALL non-immigrant visas are called as such (non-immigrant) because they don't last an eternity. However, some of these visas (not the L-1B, for instance) allow for dual intent, which means that one can pursue permanent residence while still maintaining non-immigrant status. That's allowed by law.

As to citizenship, no one is required to become a U.S. citizen in order to live in the U.S. I have no intention of ever becoming a U.S. citizen. Indeed, only my father (among my mom, my sister and I) is now a dual citizen, and only because he was trying to help me up the ladder in my 10-year long pursuit of lawful permanent residence.

In fact, many celebrities who have O-1 visas keep extending them forever, never even seeking a green card (they can do that). Many H-1Bs and L-1As and E-1s and E-2s eventually get a green card and some may seek naturalization, but I guarantee you that you can remain a lawful permanent resident all your life without needing to become a U.S. citizen.

The U.S. has many agreements with many countries, especially in Europe, to allow to collect pensions regardless of where one lives as long as one contributes to a country's pension system. For instance, my dad will be able to collect on his U.S. pension/social security when he returns to Italy.

Make it easier for foreign workers to get a Green Card. I really dislike the H1-B program. As an IT worker I've seen H1B's treated like slaves. In fact that's pretty much what it is, corporations enslaving people or sending them back to a their country. The worker has little recourse.

Enough said.

:wtf:

pay out-of-state tuition despite being a NC resident for well over the required one-year period; and (2) these are tax-paying people who should, if qualified, be admitted to colleges and universities on par with all other admitted students if they meet in-state eligibility.

The fact that Microsoft is a major employer in Washington state does not deter from the rightful legislation. In NC, the same legislation was lobbied for by the major universities (Duke, UNC-Chapel Hill, NC State, Wake Forest).

If you are so against this for dependents of H-1B holders or H-1B holders themselves, are you also against illegal immigrants being able to attend public colleges/universities paying in-state tuition?

Is it just H-1B holders and their dependents or O-1, O-3, L-1A, E-1, E-2, I, P, Q, L-1B, TN, H-1C, H-1B3 visa holders/dependents as well?

need to really take a good look at their priorities, because the more jobs WE lose, the worse off OUR country becomes. I don't care if it's H1B or illegals, defending them over Americans is simply wrong.


And we're done. I will not continue this since you feel they are more important than we are.

than U.S.-born students. All the legislation does is to allow students of visa holders (and visa holders themselves) to go to a public (for which they also contribute, by paying taxes) institution and, if eligible, pay in-state tuition like all other students.

The legislation does not say they have preference in admissions.

I guess you consider me to be one of these 'they' people, since I'm not U.S. born and I'm a legal immigrant, right?

Well, I'll have you know that my father's Italian employer provides nearly 1500 good jobs with good benefits to people in a shitty rural NC town, all of whom would otherwise be working in chicken processing plants. Like U.S.-owned companies abroad, this Italian company needed an Italian engineer to head its U.S. operations. Hence, my dad was chosen and I came along (since I was 15), all of us with an E-2 visa (treaty trader/treaty investor).

He has two international patents for his inventions. He, along with other foreign workers in the U.S., contributes to the wealth of this nation. Whose job of an equally talented U.S.-born Italian-fluent (not to mention familiar with Italian procedures and processes) engineer did he steal?

Do you want to send every qualified non-U.S. born person home? Then say goodbye to a lot of good hard-working people -scientists, engineers, artists, and so on- and please don't come whining that the U.S. can't come up with enough researchers, engineers, nurses and scientists.

to becoming a permanent resident of the U.S. and, if so chosen, a U.S. citizen.

The H-1B is NOT the only employment visa out there; it belongs to a class of visas collectively known as 'non-immigrant' visas, as opposed to immigrant visas.

The H-1B, like many other employment visas including the L-1A and the O-1 and the E-1/2 visas, allows for something that is defined legally as "dual intent."

This means that a person who is in the U.S. legally in L-1A, O-1, E or H status (among others), which have a finite duration of X amount of years, can, AT THE SAME TIME, seek to become a lawful permanent resident of the U.S. (that is, a green card holder, in common parlance).

This is allowed by law and it is the most common process by which immigrants become permanent residents and, later on if wanted, naturalized U.S. citizens.

At the same time, non-immigrant workers pay all taxes (including social security, medicare, etc.) that all other workers pay. Some dependents of some of these visa classifications are given employment authorization (for instance, dependents of E and L-1A visa holders can receive an employment authorization document and, thusly, work).

The H-1B, like all visas for employment in the U.S., is a legitimate pathway for immigrating to the U.S. It is by no means the only one.

If you don't like 'dual intent' take it up with USCIS and get the law changed. See, the difference between me and you is that I actually know what an H-1B is and what an E visa is and what an O is and so on because (1) I am an immigrant myself and, more importantly (2) I am an immigration specialist.

visa only--there is not a "path" to permanent immigration associated with the H1B--the worker is expected to return home after the visa expires. :hi:

some pursue green cards. If H-1Bs and other visas are not a path to permanent immigration in your mind, then can you explain to me how in the hell you define that 'path'?

The worker is only expected to return home if s/he does not fulfill the requirements of permanent residence. Indeed, non-immigrant visas like the H DO GIVE THE ONLY PATH to permanent residence, outside of marrying a US citizen.

Once again, why your emphasis on H visas??? they're not the only visas for work in the U.S. Why not direct your anti-immigrant vitriol to O-1 visa holders? What about those damn Canadian and Mexican TN visa holders? And those awful Australian E-3 visa holders? Oh, and let's not forget those Yurpeens holding E visas? All those are for jobs on U.S. soil, jobs that you think someone in the U.S. could do.


:wtf:

the visa holder avails themselves of some other pathway to immigration. I simply won't parse "path" with you--it's silly.

"Once again, why your emphasis on H visas???"

Did you read the OP? :shrug: It answers a lot of your questions.

That doesn't make any sense.

That one may apply through the usual channels for a permanent resident status doesn't change this fact.

Honestly, it is always reassuring when one's debate partner is so misinformed.

Why are they going to community colleges? Aren't they elite workers who have been brought over here because Americans can't do their jobs?

Good Lord, why on earth would I want to expand my horizons? :eyes:

And M$ is making them take classes because they are subpar.