Here we go again...
Politicking and fear tactics prevail in stopping progressive legislation. I am honestly very tired and upset about the misinformation campaigns from my "self-proclaimed" conservative brethren regarding the now dead immigration bill. "Give us your tired, your hungry, your poor, unless they speak Spanish…"
Both as a political participant and as a security professional, I am extremely dismayed by the actions and strong support garnered by the fanatical right-wing talking heads. What they don't get, and never got, was that a comprehensive border security bill must go hand-in-hand with a true immigration reform package. It will never be more cut and dry than that.
The not-so-understated racism and fear-mongering set out by the right was downright offensive. The actions by the 53 senators voting against this bill was a move away from pragmatism and their constitutional duty to create legislation that actually addresses the nation's issues. With no alternative measures being brought forward (Mr. Tancredo), we have ruined our first chance of addressing a problem that has a real chance of hurting our economy and national security. We have waited 21 years for our legislators to move on this issue, and at a time when both the congress and senate are sitting at all-time low approval ratings, our politicians pander to the talk-show hosts and far wings of the right and left without working towards the center on a bill that the majority of this nation is actually for.
I am well versed with this legislation, and after studying each twist and turn for the past two years, I can confidently say this was a path forward -- comprehensive border security, a national ID program with biometric identifiers, and most importantly a way to deal with the "real" problem of 12-20 million illegal immigrants. Bipartisan efforts, collaboration with the executive branch, DHS, and the Commerce Department are things you can't simply dismiss with a one-word backlash like "amnesty."
Please don't come at me with the "unfair for those who didn't break the law" argument. Be realistic here -- if there is not a concrete way to incentivize the current base of illeagls in this country, we will not be able to properly identify and deal with the problem head on. No one is offering citizenship "willy-nilly." Rather, the restrictions imposed on those for vying for full citizenship were very much a life-trial and hardship. Z-Visas are not green cards. Rather, they are simply a way to acknowledge the strong economic impact these workers currently have on our macro-economy. A Z-Visa holder would have to go through red tape and massive document trails (all feeding a centralized database) as well as fines of over $5,000 (a true test for individuals making minimum wage and below). Finally, these people would not benefit from their past discretions; instead they would be taxed, contribute to our national economy, and all the while be forced to the back of the "citizenship" line.
Twenty-one years ago, we did not have the technology to implement a comprehensive tracking program for immigration to the US. No biometric technologies could be employed, no rapid communication systems for transferring large amounts of data, and no real implementation schemas to hold, host, and mine that data. That is not the case now. We have the technology... we just don't have the vision to use it.
To the 53 senators, Tom Tancredo, Rush Limbaugh, Mike Reagan, and all of the others espousing fear and radical loss of national sense, I ask: What do we do now? Can you provide us with a plan that will garner support and realistically address a problem such as this? And most-importantly, when did our great nation become so fragile that bilingual education can threaten our very existence?
Showing posts with label immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label immigration. Show all posts
Friday, June 29, 2007
Monday, April 9, 2007
Protection design offers insight to border security
We’ve been addressing immigration policy in the national press for the past few years, trying to find a balance between protectionism and our “melting-pot” heritage. For me, understanding the complexities of our current system is somewhat mindboggling, but it does offer some intriguing thoughts.
Today, Yuma, Arizona is the site of a “success story” when it comes to immigration management. At least that will be the mantra during President Bush's visit to the southwest border town. However, the question, as correctly raised by Yuma Sun’s editor Terry Ross in his weekend editorial, is "Has the overall illegal immigration issue improved?"
Yuma may serve as a case study to some who believe that security and sheer manpower (increased national guard presence) can solve our border issue, but that would be naive. Yuma more aptly can be likened to the metaphor of a cartoon dam that keeps springing leaks until you run out of appendages to plug all the holes.
As a simple security consultant, I won’t claim to know all the answers or solutions to the border issue, but I will say that comparisons to corporate security analysis are most certainly there. I have found myself addressing border security and immigration as if it were a modern facility in search of a security survey. Of course, to do this, prior to deciding on the force methods (manpower and technology) and the policy enforcement protocols (laws and punishments), you need to have an understanding of what is a risk and by whom.
Why a facility is at risk is of primary import for deciding how to protect it. There are different motivations for each type of facility. The goals for protecting a data center versus a meat packing plant versus a childcare center vary. All three should have forms of security, but each for different reasons. The data center may expect threats from identity thieves or corporate espionage while the packing plant wants to protect itself from liability of wandering persons, and a child care center worries about unauthorized exits as much as entries. Each requires different tools and technologies to address these issues.
So, why does the United States need protecting and who are the likely perpetrators? This question is very involved, but needs to be addressed as part of the overall immigration reform package set before congress. Our primary concern as a nation is terrorists entering our country. However, efforts to track and identify their entry are masked by the thousands who cross simply in search of a better life. Terrorists are simply a needle in a haystack.
To filter the migration, we must address immigration incentive. “Incentive is the most important issue of illegal immigration, and that is where we need to begin.” Guest-worker programs, tax reform (i.e. fair tax plans), and a clear roadmap to citizenship would go a long way to alleviating the migration of illegal immigrants and would allow our force protection (manpower and technology) to focus on other threats such as terrorist entry. We have the technology to enforce mechanisms; we don’t have to cover it in red tape. Rather, we need to be transparent and consistent in our message.
Today, Yuma, Arizona is the site of a “success story” when it comes to immigration management. At least that will be the mantra during President Bush's visit to the southwest border town. However, the question, as correctly raised by Yuma Sun’s editor Terry Ross in his weekend editorial, is "Has the overall illegal immigration issue improved?"
Yuma may serve as a case study to some who believe that security and sheer manpower (increased national guard presence) can solve our border issue, but that would be naive. Yuma more aptly can be likened to the metaphor of a cartoon dam that keeps springing leaks until you run out of appendages to plug all the holes.
As a simple security consultant, I won’t claim to know all the answers or solutions to the border issue, but I will say that comparisons to corporate security analysis are most certainly there. I have found myself addressing border security and immigration as if it were a modern facility in search of a security survey. Of course, to do this, prior to deciding on the force methods (manpower and technology) and the policy enforcement protocols (laws and punishments), you need to have an understanding of what is a risk and by whom.
Why a facility is at risk is of primary import for deciding how to protect it. There are different motivations for each type of facility. The goals for protecting a data center versus a meat packing plant versus a childcare center vary. All three should have forms of security, but each for different reasons. The data center may expect threats from identity thieves or corporate espionage while the packing plant wants to protect itself from liability of wandering persons, and a child care center worries about unauthorized exits as much as entries. Each requires different tools and technologies to address these issues.
So, why does the United States need protecting and who are the likely perpetrators? This question is very involved, but needs to be addressed as part of the overall immigration reform package set before congress. Our primary concern as a nation is terrorists entering our country. However, efforts to track and identify their entry are masked by the thousands who cross simply in search of a better life. Terrorists are simply a needle in a haystack.
To filter the migration, we must address immigration incentive. “Incentive is the most important issue of illegal immigration, and that is where we need to begin.” Guest-worker programs, tax reform (i.e. fair tax plans), and a clear roadmap to citizenship would go a long way to alleviating the migration of illegal immigrants and would allow our force protection (manpower and technology) to focus on other threats such as terrorist entry. We have the technology to enforce mechanisms; we don’t have to cover it in red tape. Rather, we need to be transparent and consistent in our message.
Friday, April 6, 2007
Visa limit shows lack of planning for immigration
One thing I detest about management is an arbitrary decision-making process. I don’t care if you are a small business, a fortune 500, or the Immigration and Naturalization Service for the United States of America; you need to have some thought behind your decisions.
As I have blogged about earlier, the limit on H-1B visas (the process for foreign citizens to work in the United States) was arbitrarily reduced to 65,000 slots. In 2006 this was filled up within weeks. This year 150,000 applications (more than double the limit) was reached within the first few hours. Most of these applications are from tech firms such as Microsoft, Intel, or staffing agencies looking to fill the gap of qualified design engineers and consultants.
This onslaught of applications prompted the US immigration service to announce that selections would be based strictly on an “ARBITRARY” lottery system. Therefore, the deciding factor as to who will enter our country and possibly add to or detract from our collective economy will be RANDOM. No prejudice towards education or experience, but just sheer luck-of-the-draw.
Now you cannot tell me that in a country with the greatest minds, companies, and ALGORITHMS in the world, we cannot come up with a thoughtful process for ranking, rating, and qualifying the applications for admission. If we are stuck with this absurd cap, the least we can do is qualify who makes the cut.
As I have blogged about earlier, the limit on H-1B visas (the process for foreign citizens to work in the United States) was arbitrarily reduced to 65,000 slots. In 2006 this was filled up within weeks. This year 150,000 applications (more than double the limit) was reached within the first few hours. Most of these applications are from tech firms such as Microsoft, Intel, or staffing agencies looking to fill the gap of qualified design engineers and consultants.
This onslaught of applications prompted the US immigration service to announce that selections would be based strictly on an “ARBITRARY” lottery system. Therefore, the deciding factor as to who will enter our country and possibly add to or detract from our collective economy will be RANDOM. No prejudice towards education or experience, but just sheer luck-of-the-draw.
Now you cannot tell me that in a country with the greatest minds, companies, and ALGORITHMS in the world, we cannot come up with a thoughtful process for ranking, rating, and qualifying the applications for admission. If we are stuck with this absurd cap, the least we can do is qualify who makes the cut.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Does immigration process hinder US innovation?
Does the current H1-B visa immigration system hinder US innovation, dissuade domestic research and development, and create more of a job gap by increasing the demand for off-shoring and outsourcing? This is the question that Congress has been pondering over the past few weeks. On March 7, 2007 Bill Gates (Chairman of Microsoft and Co-Chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation), spoke on this topic as well as education policies during an open hearing to the US Senate committee on Education and Labor.
I want to post some excerpts of Mr. Gates speech on immigration reform. The entire testimony can be found here. Mr. Gates addresses the need to not only increase the number of foreign engineers and developers that may come to the US, but also to retain the engineers that are being trained in our own universities. Mr. Gates speaks eloquently and succinctly on the pitfalls of the current practice and the “backwards” logic of our current regulations.
From Mr. Gates Testimony on 3/7/2007:
“Unfortunately, America’s immigration policies are driving away the world’s best and brightest precisely when we need them most. I appreciate the vital national security goals that motivate many of these policies. I am convinced, however, that we can protect our national security in ways that do less damage to our competitiveness and prosperity. Moreover, the terrible shortfall in our visa supply for the highly skilled stems not from security concerns, but from visa policies that have not been updated in over a decade and a half. We live in a different economy now. Simply put: It makes no sense to tell well trained, highly skilled individuals – many of whom are educated at our top colleges and universities – that the United States does not welcome or value them. For too many foreign students and professionals, however, our immigration policies send precisely this message.
This should be deeply troubling to us, both in human terms and in terms of our own economic self-interest. America will find it infinitely more difficult to maintain its technological leadership if it shuts out the very people who are most able to help us compete. Other nations are recognizing and benefiting from this situation. They are crafting their immigration policies to attract highly talented students and professionals who would otherwise study, live, and work here. Our lost opportunities are their gains. I personally witness the ill effects of these policies on an almost daily basis at Microsoft. Under the current system, the number of H1-B visas available runs out faster and faster each year. The current base cap of 65,000 is arbitrarily set and bears no relation to U.S. industry’s demand for skilled professionals. For Fiscal Year 2007, the supply did not last even eight weeks into the filing period, and ran out more than four months before that fiscal year even began.
For Fiscal Year 2008, H-1Bs are expected to run out next month, the first month that it is possible to apply for them. This means that no new H-1B visas – often the only visa category available to recruit critically needed professional workers – will be available for a nearly 18-month period. Moreover, this year, for the first time in the history of the program, the supply will run out before the year’s graduating students get their degrees. This means that U.S. employers will not be able to get H-1B visas for an entire crop of U.S. graduates. We are essentially asking top talent to leave the U.S. As with H-1B visas, the demand for green cards far exceeds the supply. Today, only 140,000 permanent employment-based visas are available each year, which must cover both key employees and their family members. There is a massive backlog in many of the employment-based green card categories, and wait times routinely reach five years. Ironically, waiting periods are even longer for nationals of India and China – the very countries that are key recruiting grounds for the professionals desperately needed in many innovative fields.
In the past, we have succeeded in attracting the world’s best and brightest to study and work in the United States, and we can and must do it again. We must move beyond the debate about numbers, quotas, and caps. Rather, I urge Congress to ask, “How do we create a system that supports and sustains the innovation that drives American growth, economic opportunity and prosperity?” Congress can answer that question by acting immediately in two significant ways.
First, we need to encourage the best students from abroad to enroll in our colleges and universities, and to remain in the United States when their studies are completed. Today,
we take exactly the opposite approach. Foreign students who apply for a student visa to the United States today must prove that they do not intend to remain here once they receive their degrees. This makes no sense. If we are going to invest in educating foreign students – which we should and must continue to do – why drive them away just when this investment starts to pay off for the American economy?
Barring high-skilled immigrants from entry to the U.S., and forcing the ones that are here to leave because they cannot obtain a visa, ultimately forces U.S. employers to shift development work and other critical projects offshore. This can also force U.S. companies to fill related management, design, and business positions with foreign workers, thereby causing further lost U.S. job opportunities even in areas where America is strong, allowing other countries to bootstrap” themselves into these areas, and further weakening our global competitive strength. If we can retain these research projects in the United States, by contrast, we can stimulate domestic job and economic growth. In short, where innovation and innovators go, jobs are soon to follow.
Second, Congress should expedite the path to Permanent Resident status for highly skilled workers. The reality for Microsoft and many other U.S. employers is that the H1-B visa program is temporary only in the sense that it is the visa we use while working assiduously to make our H1-B hires – whether educated in the U.S. or abroad – permanent U.S. residents. Rather than pretend that we want these highly skilled, well trained innovators to remain for only a temporary period, we should accept and indeed embrace the fact that we want them to become permanent U.S. residents so that they can drive innovation and economic growth alongside America’s native born talent. These reforms do not pit U.S. workers against those foreign born. They do not seek to make or perpetuate distinctions among the best and brightest on the basis of national origin. They simply recognize the fact that America’s need for highly skilled workers has never been greater, and that broad-based prosperity in America depends on having enough such workers to satisfy our demand. Far from displacing U.S. workers, highly skilled foreign-born workers will continue to function as they always have: as net job
creators.”
I want to post some excerpts of Mr. Gates speech on immigration reform. The entire testimony can be found here. Mr. Gates addresses the need to not only increase the number of foreign engineers and developers that may come to the US, but also to retain the engineers that are being trained in our own universities. Mr. Gates speaks eloquently and succinctly on the pitfalls of the current practice and the “backwards” logic of our current regulations.
From Mr. Gates Testimony on 3/7/2007:
“Unfortunately, America’s immigration policies are driving away the world’s best and brightest precisely when we need them most. I appreciate the vital national security goals that motivate many of these policies. I am convinced, however, that we can protect our national security in ways that do less damage to our competitiveness and prosperity. Moreover, the terrible shortfall in our visa supply for the highly skilled stems not from security concerns, but from visa policies that have not been updated in over a decade and a half. We live in a different economy now. Simply put: It makes no sense to tell well trained, highly skilled individuals – many of whom are educated at our top colleges and universities – that the United States does not welcome or value them. For too many foreign students and professionals, however, our immigration policies send precisely this message.
This should be deeply troubling to us, both in human terms and in terms of our own economic self-interest. America will find it infinitely more difficult to maintain its technological leadership if it shuts out the very people who are most able to help us compete. Other nations are recognizing and benefiting from this situation. They are crafting their immigration policies to attract highly talented students and professionals who would otherwise study, live, and work here. Our lost opportunities are their gains. I personally witness the ill effects of these policies on an almost daily basis at Microsoft. Under the current system, the number of H1-B visas available runs out faster and faster each year. The current base cap of 65,000 is arbitrarily set and bears no relation to U.S. industry’s demand for skilled professionals. For Fiscal Year 2007, the supply did not last even eight weeks into the filing period, and ran out more than four months before that fiscal year even began.
For Fiscal Year 2008, H-1Bs are expected to run out next month, the first month that it is possible to apply for them. This means that no new H-1B visas – often the only visa category available to recruit critically needed professional workers – will be available for a nearly 18-month period. Moreover, this year, for the first time in the history of the program, the supply will run out before the year’s graduating students get their degrees. This means that U.S. employers will not be able to get H-1B visas for an entire crop of U.S. graduates. We are essentially asking top talent to leave the U.S. As with H-1B visas, the demand for green cards far exceeds the supply. Today, only 140,000 permanent employment-based visas are available each year, which must cover both key employees and their family members. There is a massive backlog in many of the employment-based green card categories, and wait times routinely reach five years. Ironically, waiting periods are even longer for nationals of India and China – the very countries that are key recruiting grounds for the professionals desperately needed in many innovative fields.
In the past, we have succeeded in attracting the world’s best and brightest to study and work in the United States, and we can and must do it again. We must move beyond the debate about numbers, quotas, and caps. Rather, I urge Congress to ask, “How do we create a system that supports and sustains the innovation that drives American growth, economic opportunity and prosperity?” Congress can answer that question by acting immediately in two significant ways.
First, we need to encourage the best students from abroad to enroll in our colleges and universities, and to remain in the United States when their studies are completed. Today,
we take exactly the opposite approach. Foreign students who apply for a student visa to the United States today must prove that they do not intend to remain here once they receive their degrees. This makes no sense. If we are going to invest in educating foreign students – which we should and must continue to do – why drive them away just when this investment starts to pay off for the American economy?
Barring high-skilled immigrants from entry to the U.S., and forcing the ones that are here to leave because they cannot obtain a visa, ultimately forces U.S. employers to shift development work and other critical projects offshore. This can also force U.S. companies to fill related management, design, and business positions with foreign workers, thereby causing further lost U.S. job opportunities even in areas where America is strong, allowing other countries to bootstrap” themselves into these areas, and further weakening our global competitive strength. If we can retain these research projects in the United States, by contrast, we can stimulate domestic job and economic growth. In short, where innovation and innovators go, jobs are soon to follow.
Second, Congress should expedite the path to Permanent Resident status for highly skilled workers. The reality for Microsoft and many other U.S. employers is that the H1-B visa program is temporary only in the sense that it is the visa we use while working assiduously to make our H1-B hires – whether educated in the U.S. or abroad – permanent U.S. residents. Rather than pretend that we want these highly skilled, well trained innovators to remain for only a temporary period, we should accept and indeed embrace the fact that we want them to become permanent U.S. residents so that they can drive innovation and economic growth alongside America’s native born talent. These reforms do not pit U.S. workers against those foreign born. They do not seek to make or perpetuate distinctions among the best and brightest on the basis of national origin. They simply recognize the fact that America’s need for highly skilled workers has never been greater, and that broad-based prosperity in America depends on having enough such workers to satisfy our demand. Far from displacing U.S. workers, highly skilled foreign-born workers will continue to function as they always have: as net job
creators.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
