• C++ Programming for Financial Engineering
    Highly recommended by thousands of MFE students. Covers essential C++ topics with applications to financial engineering. Learn more Join!
    Python for Finance with Intro to Data Science
    Gain practical understanding of Python to read, understand, and write professional Python code for your first day on the job. Learn more Join!
    An Intuition-Based Options Primer for FE
    Ideal for entry level positions interviews and graduate studies, specializing in options trading arbitrage and options valuation models. Learn more Join!

Senate approves restriction on foreign hires by banks receiving bailout

Joined
5/2/06
Messages
11,764
Points
273
As if we don't have enough bad news in the financial industry, now the senate voted to make it tougher for banks to file for H1-B visa (which a good number of MFE graduates needs to work in the US)

The Associated Press: Senate approves restriction on foreign hires
By FRANK BASS and RITA BEAMISH – 1 day ago

The Senate voted Friday to restrict the hiring of foreign workers by banks that are receiving government bailout funds while undergoing vast layoffs.

The legislation by Sens. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, would require the banks to seek American workers before turning to foreign nationals when they're hiring. It aims to prevent replacement of Americans by foreigners working under the H-1B visa program, which allows employers to bring in workers for high-skilled and advanced-degree jobs.

The measure has a two-year life and if signed into law would apply to the more than 300 banks that are receiving money from the taxpayer-funded Troubled Asset Relief Program.

The Senate added the restriction as part of the massive economic stimulus package lawmakers are crafting as part of President Barack Obama's plan to reinvigorate the economy.

If it becomes law, banks seeking visas to bring in foreign workers would be barred from displacing or replacing American employees for three months before and three months after petitioning the government for the visas.

To win votes, Sanders and Grassley softened what they had originally proposed, a flat-out one-year ban on hiring foreign-visa workers, but extended the measure to two years. They made the banks subject to restrictions that apply to employers whose work force is made up of more than 15 percent foreign visa workers, a category that normally would not include banks.

Sanders said the measure effectively would "make sure that banks receiving a taxpayer bailout are not allowed to import cheaper labor from overseas while they are laying off American workers."

The American Immigration Lawyers Association blasted the Senate action, and derided "knee-jerk, fear-driven policies that will stymie growth."

If it becomes law, the group said in a news release, banks will be hard-pressed to hire foreign nationals or extend visas of current employees for two years, and thus will not have access to "top-flight global talent who can help create jobs for U.S. workers."

Stuart Anderson, director of the National Foundation for American Policy, an Arlington, Va.-based think tank, said: "It seems to be an unwise policy to deny companies access to talented people simply because those individuals weren't born in the United States."

Sanders and Grassley introduced the legislation after an Associated Press investigation found the dozen banks now receiving the lion's share of taxpayer bailout funds had sought a Department of Labor green light for 21,800 foreign worker visa slots over the past six years.

The banks asked the government for permission to hire workers whose jobs ranged from senior vice presidents to junior investment bankers and human resources specialists, at an average salary of $90,751. The banks, however, ended up hiring fewer employees.

Partial data from the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services suggests that the banks ultimately got visas for only about one-quarter of the number of workers they initially sought permission to employ. For example, the banks and their subsidiaries filed more than 5,000 visa applications with Labor Department officials during the 2006 budget year. After that step, they ended up with about 1,200 new workers approved by the Citizenship and Immigration agency.
 
There's a good reason to keep the government out of business; they will politicize it to the detriment of our competitiveness. It has been said before that the best thing about America is its immigrants. That may be a little extreme, but we will pay for this kind of action.
 
Adding to what Doug mentioned, politicians seem to be out of touch with reality.
U.S. was the "promise land" for many years, it attracted top professionals.

However, in last 10 years, things have deteriorated. E.U. has opened its borders, most people from Europe prefer to choose the best companies or universities in that continent rather than coming to U.S.
Booming economies like China and Korea are keeping a lot of their talents. A high percentage of Asian students from U.S. choose to go back to centers like Shanghai, Hong Kong or Mumbay.

I believe it is dangerous for the States to neglect such a trend. These people are not "illegals" they are not profiting or taking something without work. If they cannot work in the States, they can work anywhere else, the loss is not huge for them ...
In 10 years same politicians will have to pass laws for attracting back such people.
 
We will see on Tues how the final stimulus bill comes out. As with everything else, politicians are trying to score with their constituents. There are more back door deals being discussed than we ever know. Hopefully everyone comes to their senses soon to help the economy and make sure the US is the still the best place to study, live and work.
 
You would think those politicians would have the best interest of the country in mind, when they make these decisions. Top MFE programs across the country and top graduate schools have an intimidating amount of foreign born nationals, (the PhD program at my uni. graduated 14 PhD's last year and only two were American) . If these folks can't work here, they can always find jobs in other countries, which is a huge loss to this great country....

There's a good reason to keep the government out of business; they will politicize it to the detriment of our competitiveness. It has been said before that the best thing about America is its immigrants. That may be a little extreme, but we will pay for this kind of action.
 
Hopefully everyone comes to their senses soon to help the economy and make sure the US is the still the best place to study, live and work.

Andy, there's immense populist pressure both towards economic protectionism and against immigration, not only in the USA, but also in Europe. Whether this is good or bad is beside the point (though I can probably make an argument for limiting skilled immigration); politicians are going to have to take this populist pressure into account.
 
Andy, there's immense populist pressure both towards economic protectionism and against immigration, not only in the USA, but also in Europe. Whether this is good or bad is beside the point (though I can probably make an argument for limiting skilled immigration); politicians are going to have to take this populist pressure into account.

In Europe the "protectionist" trend from 80s has shifted

You are correct when refering to low-skilled workers that may be considered a burden in Italy or Spain. However, college graduates in engineering can move significantly easier than 10 years ago. Eastern European countries that have joined the E.U. are literally exporting most of their qualified people in Western Europe.
If politically E.U. is not yet unitary, work-force has made a lot of progress.
 
I don't want to comment on what politicians really concern. I think whoever think the US economy is deteriorated by foreign workers is quite offtrack from reality. Though I won't be affected by this stupid bill (?) over 60% of our department (80% of some groups are H1B holders or Green Card pendings AND we received TARP)

I think most of banks not really prefer to hire foreigner over US citizen, if they DO have the choices. The question to be asked here is, why ? why " Top MFE programs across the country and top graduate schools have an intimidating amount of foreign born nationals, (the PhD program at my uni. graduated 14 PhD's last year and only two were American) ". If US-borns can accomplish same education, they definitely have much more advances over H1Bs.

Will the jobs in carmakers...maybe further other industies require US citizen only? So the conclusion is, if those who live on food stamps and social aids now replace those H1Bs works in banks (and other industries), US will be prosperous??
You would think those politicians would have the best interest of the country in mind, when they make these decisions. Top MFE programs across the country and top graduate schools have an intimidating amount of foreign born nationals, (the PhD program at my uni. graduated 14 PhD's last year and only two were American) . If these folks can't work here, they can always find jobs in other countries, which is a huge loss to this great country....
 
Let's wait and see what makes into the approved bill.
 
I think whoever think the US economy is deteriorated by foreign workers is quite offtrack from reality.

I don't think that's what's being argued. Many people against H1Bs for IT workers (for instance) make the plausible argument that there are American IT workers available (e.g., the unemployment rate among over-50 US IT workers was 20% before this crisis even began). So what is the logic of large H1B quotas except to weaken labor's hand and to have docile semi-serf-like foreign workers who won't utter a squeak until their Green Cards are approved? Another argument is that what is the use of all the prosperity that immigrants allegedly bring when it just ends up in a few coffers anyway? In other words, the immigration debate has been subsumed into a larger discussion on who really benefits from the globalisation of finance, industry, and labor flows. I'm not saying this is my opinion, just pointing out that there are arguments on the other side and you need to be ready for them.

Job losses are being understated. For a more accurate picture, look at the first few paragraphs here. These job losses often translate into irrational calls to curb all immigration.

If history is anything to go by, in times of crisis, panicked responses are made.
 
Still that question to be asked: " For IT, why companies hire H1B over US citizen?" Is that ture employers prefer foreign works?"
And, do we have a statistics about how much of this TARP money came from the huge tax these advanced skilled workers salary?
 
I think the idea is to always buy talent cheaply either foreign H1B or US citizen. And I do mean talent. So far we dont know what will happen so we cannot really do anything. But this country was built on immigrants and I feel it will continue this tradition.
 
I have to disagree with this sentiment that assumes that international students are somehow more qualified to get this education than American born. Obviously, if you are selecting students worldwide then you have a bigger pool to choose the best.

It is true that American students are less likely to complete an advance degree because they are less willing to spend X number of years getting such a degree when they can usually jump into the field without it.

In contrast, the international students are less likely to do this as the advanced degree makes it easier to work here.

As for hiring, I have known companies who have relied on significant number of H1B workers but these people are usually payed at a much lower rate than similarly qualified American workers.
 
As for hiring, I have known companies who have relied on significant number of H1B workers but these people are usually payed at a much lower rate than similarly qualified American workers.

I agree. It's no different in IT and finance than it is to tomato- and orange-picking in Florida and California: immigrants (whatever their legal status) are employed because they bring down wage rates and working conditions. They weaken US labor's hand. They strengthen capital's hand, which ideally always wants a reserve army of labor in the background -- to keep wages down and to keep the employed cowed.

I'm always amused to listen to the arguments of fat-cat employers who insist on higher quotas for migrant workers, pleading their companies can't survive without access to the global talent pool, claiming there aren't enough American workers. What they really mean is there aren't enough American workers at the pittance wages they're willing to pay. Pay fruit pickers $15 an hour, and Americans will be lining up for the jobs. Be willing to pay $80,000 a year for IT workers -- instead of $45,000 -- and suddenly companies will discover the rich load of American talent. If you look at the history of American capitalism over centuries, it's always been about bringing in low-cost labor and weakening the hand of domestic labor.

"Globalisation" has been an unmitigated disaster for the American worker.
 
... and I'd take money for sex if the price was right (maybe not; I can't say I've thought much about it). Is it possible the industry is not economical at the higher price American workers are asking for?
 
So the conclusion is, if those who live on food stamps and social aids now replace those H1Bs works in banks (and other industries), US will be prosperous??

I think the idea is to always buy talent cheaply either foreign H1B or US citizen. And I do mean talent. So far we dont know what will happen so we cannot really do anything. But this country was built on immigrants and I feel it will continue this tradition.

Hey, you never know. For one thing, if they were employed, then they wouldn't rely on food stamps because of the many opportunities that would be available. They could then afford college, pursue a degree, gain quantitative skill sets, and obtain a better future just like any other H1B. Communicating in English shouldn't be a problem either. Who in an MFE program would be happy work at a bank for 30-40K to start, nobody, but the more unfortunate will jump on that with the quickness. Is it so hard to believe that people who grew up on food stamps/social aid are not capable of getting into an MFE program and becoming successful for example. Without the opportunity, talent remains stagnant like a track runner stuck in a cage. Ghetto prisoners rise.
 
I'm always amused to listen to the arguments of fat-cat employers who insist on higher quotas for migrant workers, pleading their companies can't survive without access to the global talent pool, claiming there aren't enough American workers. What they really mean is there aren't enough American workers at the pittance wages they're willing to pay. Pay fruit pickers $15 an hour, and Americans will be lining up for the jobs. Be willing to pay $80,000 a year for IT workers -- instead of $45,000 -- and suddenly companies will discover the rich load of American talent. If you look at the history of American capitalism over centuries, it's always been about bringing in low-cost labor and weakening the hand of domestic labor.

"Globalisation" has been an unmitigated disaster for the American worker.[/quote]


If I were to run a company, I will definitely take those with same (or even better advanced skills) and ask for lower pay. Fruits have to be picked and there're always people be happy to pick fruits with low pay, rather than stroll around doing nothing and ask for aid from the community.

At least good news is, Old Mack just made statement yesterday, MS would like to repay that TARP money------that means to me, my friends working hard on the floor, who need to extend their H1Bs don't have to worry too much about the restriction from the "bill".
 
MS would like to repay that TARP money------that means to me, my friends working hard on the floor, who need to extend their H1Bs don't have to worry too much about the restriction from the "bill".
The "bill" does not say that all current H1B employees should be fired. It only limits hiring new H1Bs. So, your friends will be safe in any case.

Also, the bill says: “…would require the banks to seek American workers before turning to foreign nationals when they're hiring.”

I believe the same requirements exist for IT hiring for long time. However, most of the employers found the way around the law. They can publish job requirements in the news paper adding the line at the: “proficiency in Chinese/Hindi/Russian is a must”. After that it will be easy to claim that it was impossible to find an American worker who qualified.

Therefore, this bill is another populist move like everything else what is going on now in Washington. It will not change anything, but Senators Bernie Sanders (Vermont ) and Charles Grassley (Iowa) can claim that they protected interests of American workers.
 
I believe the same requirements exist for IT hiring for long time. However, most of the employers found the way around the law. They can publish job requirements in the news paper adding the line at the: "proficiency in Chinese/Hindi/Russian is a must". After that it will be easy to claim that it was impossible to find an American worker who qualified.

Not just IT even; anyone applying for a green card must show that they uniquely possess the ability to do their job among Americans. This is determined by putting out an ad and interviewing them yourself; I know someone who did electronics repair and would flip to a page in a textbook and ask random questions. Nobody knew all the answers, so he could reject them that way. In the worst case, you determine that nobody has identical credentials as you do, so that is disqualifying as well.

"Form over function." You gotta love it.
 
Therefore, this bill is another populist move like everything else what is going on now in Washington. It will not change anything, but Senators Bernie Sanders (Vermont ) and Charles Grassley (Iowa) can claim that they protected interests of American workers.

You are right.
 
Back
Top