A Nation At Risk: Immigration And National Security
While Congress and the
media focus on the problem of illegal immigration, a far more significant
story is playing out with profound implications for
America's future. The
national security of the United
States depends upon our
competitive edge in science and technology. If we lose that, not only will
America be unable to act as a
global superpower in defense of key strategic interests, but also the
fundamental underpinnings of our national economy will be seriously eroded. No
nation can protect itself or preserve its allies without the economic vitality
that makes a robust military possible. While immigration, by itself, is not
nearly enough, it is, or can be if properly deployed, a powerful ingredient
in a comprehensive program of national preparedness to keep Uncle Sam on
top in the flat world of the 21st century.
Congress, not
surprisingly, is thinking about other things, namely money. The Judiciary
Committees in the House and Senate are trying to come up with $60 million
in savings for FY 2006 as part of a larger budget reconciliation package
that will be reported to their respective Budget Committees later this
month. Under the leadership of Representative James Sensenbrenner (
R-Wisc), the House Judiciary Committee voted to impose a $1500
training fee on initial L-1 petitions and first extensions, precisely as is
now done with H-1B submissions. By contrast, the Senate Judiciary Committee
recently increased the annual cap on H-1B visa numbers by up to 30,000 over a 10-year period in return for payment of a
new $500 fee on these visas in addition to current fees.
Senators Arlen Specter ( R-PA) and Patrick Leahy ( D-VT), the Chair and
Ranking Democrat of the Senate Judiciary Committee respectively, originally
sought some 60,000 per year recaptured H visas over this same term in
the hope of generating $300 million in revenue. To make up for the shortfall,
the Senate Judiciary Committee accepted an union-inspired
amendment from Senator Dianne Feinstein ( D-CAL) that levied a $750
fee on L applications. Senator Spector did shepherd through the Committee
his proposal to make available 90,000 employment-based immigrant visas that were
unused in past years due to processing delays with applicants ponying up a $500
supplemental petition fee. Whether these new fees will be adopted by the full
Senate, or survive a conference with the House of Representatives, is very
much of an open question [ Editor's note: this article was written before the Senate floor vote on S.1932 ]. We do not know the extent to which such fees will
close the yawning budget deficit that Congress adds to every day it is in
session. What is worth noting is the fact that both advocates and
opponents of immigration realize that it is a core feature of our national life,
one not likely to go away anytime soon. Indeed, so important is immigration that
it has now become something we seek to tax to fill the national coffers. Such a
proposal would have been unthinkable in years past when immigration was
relegated to the fringes of policy debate on Capitol Hill.
Immigration is more
than a source of potential new revenue. A panel of experts convened by the
National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering and the
Institute of
Medicine of the National
Academies, in response to a bipartisan request, thinks that immigration can
be used to promote new discoveries in science and technology that will serve to
enrich the nation and protect it against enemies, foreign and domestic. That was
one of the recommendations published in a very recent report by the National
Academies entitled Rising Above The
Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing
America for a Brighter
Economic Future. Senator Lamar
Alexander (R-TN) and Senator Jeff Bingaman ( D-NM) asked the
National Academies to
answer the following question: " What are the top 10 actions... that federal
policy makers could take to enhance the science and technology enterprise so
that the United
States can successfully
compete, prosper and be secure in the global community of the 21st Century?" Why
the question, you ask? Are we not the world's leader in science and technology?
Yes, but the tealeaves are not encouraging. Consider some of the sobering
findings in the report whose full text is available at http://www.national-academies.org
:
- For the first time, the most powerful high-energy particle accelerator in the world will, as of 2007, not have an American
address. http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/Welcome.html
- America today has become a net importer of high technology. Our share of global high tech exports has fallen like a stone over the past 20 years from 30% to 17%, while our high tech trade balance went from a $33 billion surplus in 1990 to a $24 billion deficit in 2004. The dollar value of high tech exports in 2004 was $511 billion, while our high tech imports during this same period cost $560 billion.
- Chemical companies shut the doors on 70 plants in the USA in 2004 with 40 more slated for mothballs. Of the 120 chemical plants now under construction worldwide with price tags of $1 billion +, only one is in the United States. Guess how many in China? 50. "No Longer The Lab of the World: US chemical plants are closing in droves as production heads abroad," Business Week ( May 2, 2005)
- In 2003, only 3 American companies placed in the top 10 recipients of patents granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
http://uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/ocip/taf/top03cos.htm
- In Germany, 36% of undergraduates earned degrees in science and engineering; in China, the figure soared to 59%. What about us? A dismal 32%. In 2004, China graduated over 600,000 engineers, India 350,000 and America roughly 70,000.
- In 2001, the most recent year for which we have solid data, US businesses spent more on tort litigation ( about $205 billion) than research and development ( about $184 billion)
http://www.nam.org/s_nam/bin.asp?CID=216&DID=227525&DOC=FILE.pdf
Much of what the
National Academies’ report tells us is not news. Rather, it serves to
reinforce what we already know. In his most recent book
entitled The World Is Flat: A Brief
History of the Twenty-First Century, Thomas Friedman explains
that digitally speaking we are no longer the only game in town. We learn this
from many things. Graduate enrollment of Americans in science and engineering
peaked in 1993 and remains today below the levels of a decade ago. The federal
budget for FY 2005 cuts the funding for the National Science Foundation by 1.9%
or $105 million. That same year, a Task Force on the Future of American
Innovation found that federal dollars for research in physical and
mathematical sciences and engineering, as a share of the global domestic
product, actually dropped by 37% between 1970 and 2004. The only reason
that America has the scientists and engineers it needs today is because
of immigration. According to a 2004 report by the National Science Board
entitled Science and Engineerng Indicators,
the percentage of foreign-born students earning PhD degrees at
American universities soared from 24% in 1990 to 38% today. This
might not last for long. On December 21, 2004, the New York
Times reported that
applications by foreign students to US graduate programs plummeted by 28%
this year; enrollment of foreign students on all levels of American higher
education declined for the first time in 30 years; Chinese applications
alone fell by 45% at a time when several European nations announced a sharp
rise in Chinese enrollment. Tom Friedman echoes the National Academies
sad findings when he reminds us that, precisely at a time when the Japanese and
Chinese share of industrial patents is going up, the American slice of the
patent pie is shrinking- down from 60% in 1980 to only 52% today. Since American
kids do not regard science and technology as an attractive career choice, the
only way to prevent further slippage is to expand the pipeline of very smart
people coming to the United States and make sure that they stay here. How can we
do that?
The National Academies
have a way to attract and retain the world's best scientific and engineering
talent. Among their many other recommendations to develop home-grown talent,
they advocate the following: "Provide a
1-year automatic visa extension to international students who receive doctorates
or the equivalent in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, or other
fields of national need at qualified US institutions to remain in the United
States to seek employment. If these students are offered jobs by United
States-based employers and pass a security screening test, they should be
provided automatic work permits and expedited residence status.
If students are unable to obtain employment within 1 year, their
visas would expire." The intent is clear- every PhD in the listed disciplines is
important to this nation and their continued presence here is, by definition,
manifestly in our national interest. They should be able to get green card
status not withstanding visa retrogression that has now backlogged so many
employment-based categories, particularly from China and India, but soon for all
graduate degree holders regardless of nationality. No labor certification or any
national interest waiver petition should be required. This is a pre-determined
national need, much as Schedule A nurses and physical therapists currently are.
What about the budget shortfall that is now so worrisome to Congress? Can we
relate these two national needs? We can. Instead of seeking to generate tax
dollars by imposing visa fees on H or L petitions, which serves either to
penalize employers, discourage them from visa sponsorship, or both, there is a
better way: Impose a 10% surcharge on
the first year salary of all green card applicants who earn their permanent
status after getting the PhD sheepskin. This will actually bring
in more dollars without having a punitive effect on employers. While the
individual will not relish having to make such payment, it is, all things
considered, a minor inconvenience when compared with the ability to conduct
cutting-edge research and create the world of tomorrow in their
country of choice.
The strongest
rationale for more employment-based immigration in science and technology is not
what it does for business or for the aliens themselves, but the fact that it
makes America stronger, safer and more secure in a very dangerous world. The
conclusion to the National Academies report reminds us that we are no longer the
unchallenged king of the hill and urges action, while there is still
time:
It is easy to be
complacent about US competitiveness in
science and technology. We have led the world for decades, and we continue to do
so today. But the
world is changing
rapidly, and our advantages are no longer unique. Without a renewed effort to bolster the
foundations of our competitiveness, we can expect to
lose
our privileged position.
A targeted immigration
policy, one that works in harmony with our economy and serves to provide
America with the scientific
and technical brains on which our entire way of life depends, ensures that
America will be able to
capitalize in full measure when opportunities present themselves. It is
more than that. It is an expression of renewed commitment to the nation's
security and also a way to keep faith with our parents and grandparents whose
hard work and sacrifice made our present prosperity possible. That is the least
we owe to them and to our children.
About The Author
Gary Endelman practices immigration law at BP America Inc. The opinions expressed in this column are purely personal and do not represent the views or beliefs of BP America Inc. in any way.
The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.
Copyright © 1999-2005 American Immigration LLC, ILW.COM
|
Add to del.icio.us