1/ DoD and our national labs are working with the private sector on AI and other critical technologies for national security. But we need the world's top scientists & engineers to make it happen. In a new NBER paper, I explain why we need more foreign-born advanced STEM grads.

2/ Read all about it here:

RT @catehall: one thing IFP clearly gets right: they never seem to miss with their hiring

@SpeakSamuel No, new flights will not happen for screened, vetted, and resettled refugees.

There is at least a theoretical controversy on whether 243(h) of the immigration statute firmly establishes that the executive branch (now DHS) has authority from Congress to identify which noncitizens can work in the US, or whether Congress needs to directly provide work authorization in the immigration statute. Most immigration law and policy experts agree that 243(h) codified in 1986 the long-established authority of the executive branch to identify which noncitizens can receive employment authorization.

All H1B employers including universities must pay at least the prevailing wage for the occupation (meaning job duties and level) in the locality. In addition, Congress said that if you’re an H1B dependent employer (which universities are not) it was reasonable to question if you were engaging in active recruitment in the US, so there was a further obligation - either satisfy a wage floor or satisfy pre-recruitment and non-displacement obligations.

Some common questions and statements, with short answers and reality checks. In no particular order. Question How can any immigration-related policy be in budget reconciliation? Answer The real answer is probably that no one knows the outer limit other than the Senate Parliamentarian. In 2021, the Parl ruled that statutory provisions that create brand new groups of individuals entitled to live and work in the US (or not) cannot be included in budget rec regardless of significant, even direct, budgetary impacts because the right (or bar) to live and work in the US is too valuable, too fundamental such that any budgetary impact is by definition incidental. The policy regarding H-1B dependent employers and their H-1B employees, however, is not new - Congress already laid it out. Statement These types of budgetary impacts cannot be included in reconciliation because of the Byrd rule. Reality check Congress can do/vote/approve whatever it wants with or without the Byrd rule - in 2005 Congress recaptured some immigrant visa numbers previously allocated and never utilized and assigned them solely to Schedule A nurses as part of reconciliation, with Sen. Byrd voting for it, but the Parl in 2021 said that was not precedent because no point of order had been raised and, instead, there was bipartisan agreement to include - which could be the case here. Question Even if new groups of noncitizens are _not_ identified as being able to live and work here, how is the statutory change to update the 60k salary figure to 120k one that has significant budgetary impact such that it could be included in reconciliation? Answer Back of the envelope calculations suggest that without dynamic scoring, CBO could find a significant increase in tax revenue. Over a ten-year budget window, the proposed revision is expected to raise about $11.15-$12.42 billion in additional federal payroll taxes. Statement “Easier" to have an auction, or high filing fee, for each H-1B slot. Reality check This would require a dramatic policy shift that is _not_ merely following a statute Congress already enacted to identify which noncitizens can live and work here - so not something that can move quickly to add to reconciliation. Further reality check Moreover, every year there are about 50k unique employers that file an H-1B petition (both initials and continuation, both cap subject and cap exempt) of which 90% seek 1-9 H-1B approvals (and 60% of all unique employers seek just 1 H-1B approval), another 9% of employers receive between 10 and 99 approvals, with a little less than 1% of employers receiving more than 100 approvals but less than one half of one-tenth of a percent (.0004)(less than 30 employers) receive more than 1,000 approvals. Auctions and high filing fees will price out small organizations, nonprofits, government, rural employers, startups, employers seeking 1 H-1B hire, and many others (and this is even if you _exclude_ from the auction or high fee all employers currently cap exempt (not subject to the 85k numerical limits) like higher ed, nonprofit research, and government research).

1/ It may be best policy prescription to not consider Masters, but reality is that the standard Congress id'd requires the agency to find equivalency to a US Masters and DHS is up on how to do that. 2/ Moreover, usually H1B dependent employers are not hiring individuals with Masters (they hire Bachelors) and are not engaging in fraud to pretend otherwise. 3/ It may be that an auction system is ideal to consider (economists have been talking about it for a decade+), but in budget rec a new policy that dramatically adds (or subtracts) immigrants permitted to live and work in the US beyond what Congress already has identified is a no-no because Senate Parliamentarian has said that the value of that _that_ will always outweigh any budgetary impact. 4/ An auction system or a high fee system would have dramatic and negative impacts on many employers who currently use H1B as the _only_ means to hire foreign-born professionals, including VA hospitals, rural health clinics, start ups not in SV, small advanced manufacturing enterprises. So, it won't be easy to get agreement on either auction or high fee approach. 5/ Idea is to consider what can we do _now_, to make a downpayment toward making the immigration system we have work better. How about implementing the policy Congress already enacted, 26 years ago?

@young_opsimath @AlecStapp In 1998 Congress said 60k, when computer-related occupational median wage in the US of A = 59,850. If we keep same policy this should be computer-related occupational median wage now = $113,140. Turns out 60k in 1998 is now $116,400. So 120k + auto escalator is same policy.

@levie Meanwhile, how about we do something that Congress already said was supposed to be the law of the land? No H1B dependent employer is supposed to hire H1B without pre-recruitment and non-displacement, unless paying at least computer-related median+prevailing.

@levie Second of all, may be good idea to change allocation of existing training fees that H1B employers already pay (this also was in 1998 law) so it all goes to STEM education - but might not fit in budget rec.

@levie First of all, there are ~50k employers every year that file for H1B (initial and continuing) and 40k request 1, 5k request 2-5, and of the remaining 5k only a few request thousands. Can't strike H1B access for rural,small,nonprofit,research,startup employers.

@purebredpleb @AlecStapp And, we're talking about _two_ requirements here: A minimum of computer-occupation median (need to update 1998 law) _plus_ already existing law mandating that wage paid equates to occupational wage in the locality (that's already on the books).

@Ami_Marisol @marcidale @AlecStapp @Parthion Over 10yr window this would generate $11.15-$12.42 billion in additional federal payroll tax revenue (per back of envelope calculation). If Arrington+Graham asked CBO for score, it should show this significant revenue feature?

@marcidale @AlecStapp @Parthion In 2021, Parl said that imm policies don't belong in budget rec if they id new individuals who can (or cannot) live and work in the US as that identification outweighs any budgetary impact. Here we have revenue generator and no new policy - has a chance.

@DanielDiMartino @AlecStapp Could do, in theory, if you can figure out the "right" age and locations, but in budget rec you have to limit imm-related policies to what Congress already announced.

@emre_mayo @AlecStapp In order for imm-related policy to be in budget rec, it needs to announce nothing new. In 1998, Congress said H1B dependents have wage floor of at least the computer-related median salary (60k) which in today dollars is 116,400 (120k). Nothing new.

@purebredpleb @AlecStapp In order for an immigration policy to be in reconciliation, it needs to announce nothing new. In 1998, Congress said H1B dependents should pay the computer-related occupation national median as a floor (60k), which today is 116,400 (120k).Same policy.

@young_opsimath @AlecStapp No, the 120k floor for H1B dependent entities would have no impact to universities or think tanks - it only applies to employers where at least 15% of their US workforce are H-1B visa holders.

@Johann_Harnoss @AndrewCurran_ With regard to international STEM talent, this restates what was in the AI EO 10/30/23 at sec 5.1 - which I do think will ultimately lead to O1A and EB1A and H1B Modernization improvements.