Many political observers are indicating that 2013 may offer the first real chance for comprehensive immigration reform since the Reagan administration. Stung by a large Hispanic gap in the 2012 polls, Republicans - led by new-guard moderates like Florida Sen. Marco Rubio - have been reaching across the aisle with proposed changes that would affect how employers hire, recruit and staff both low-skill laborers and high-skill target workers.
Employer organizations and coalitions are commending such efforts. However, just dealing with landscape as it now lies (both in terms of importing and exporting wage-earners) can be challenging enough. Experts say companies need to carefully consider their staffing needs before deciding whether their workforce needs more foreign nationals or U.S. citizens, both at home and abroad.
This spring, the American Council on International Personnel and the Society for Human Resource Management applauded congressional efforts to fix what it called the dysfunctional U.S. immigration system, in particular singling out for praise the bipartisan "Gang of Eight."
"Immigration reform during this Congress offers a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to fix a badly broken system. We congratulate the Senate 'Gang of Eight' for their work to prepare and introduce this bill," says Michael Aitken, SHRM vice president of government affairs. "ACIP and SHRM look forward to working with both the Senate and the House to make sure that the employment verification system is effective and easy for employers to use and provides certainty in the hiring process."
Increased visa oversight
Joy Hill, international assignment manager at Visteon Corporation and a member of SHRM's global expertise panel, says that verification may be the first decision hiring managers have to make. "If the immigration reform does take place based on what has been outlined and what we can see taking place right now through the Senate," she says, "then it is going to open up a lot of opportunities for doing local hiring with the increase in the H-1B applications." But those specialty occupation visas will come with increased oversight.
"There are a lot of stipulations that are going to go along with that and a lot of additional requirements that are going to be enforced in order to be even eligible to apply for those H-1B applications," Hill says. "So that, in and of itself, is going to change how the organization has to handle the staffing requirements. One of the stipulations is that there will be mandatory use of the E-Verify or a similar system. ... that's going to force [companies] to enroll in the E-Verify system, and then, of course, all the requirements that come with that enrollment. So, each organization is really going to have to take a look at what their staffing needs are and how much they're willing to open up their processes to government inspection."
International staffing, Hill says, is complicated as it is. Companies could hope that immigration reform allows for them to be more competitive globally, particularly against organizations in countries that currently have more friendly laws toward international employment. The L-1 visas, which are open to employees of companies with offices both in the U.S. and abroad, could shift under the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013.
"One of the things that is a benefit that may actually change in the near future is the L visas," Hill says. "We can bring in foreign nationals from one of our other business entities under an L, and we don't have a lot of issues, it doesn't take much time; it's a fairly simple process. That may change. Other countries have a similar process where we have what we call an intercompany transfer, and those tend to go smoother than if you're trying to hire a foreign national who is coming from a particular country going to another country - those just tend to get very complicated."
Reform could clear backlogs
Perhaps few people are as intimately familiar with the 840-plus-page immigration bill as Rebecca Peters. The director and counsel for legislative affairs for ACIP, Peters has been following the act since its conception and, should it pass in its current form, she says it has lots of good news for employers. Reform would "clear the backlogs" on those currently employed in the U.S., she says, who, at present, work here but can't be promoted, change jobs or job locations.
"The green card provisions are some of the most positive and beneficial provisions in the bill," Peters says. "We're getting a lot of new green card numbers, which helps us keep people - who employers already likely have on their payroll - here permanently."
Peters echoes Hill's concerns about visas for "executives, managers and specialized knowledge workers," saying one of ACIP's "largest concerns is with the prohibition on outplacing L-1 workers." The current reform isn't perfect, she acknowledges, and it isn't free. "There's a lot of fees in this bill" for companies, she says, in addition to the slew of them already in place.
"We already have an application fee on the H-1 visa," she says. "We have the anti-fraud fee, we have an education and training fee - these are all fees that most employers are required to pay already. This bill will add several more."
Still, ACIP backs the reform as a whole, saying it contains several needed steps. Peters points to a provision that could completely change university-level recruiting; it allows for "dual-intent" for those seeking to be both educated and to work in the U.S. Essentially an F-1 or student visa could be used directly to seek citizenship. As the law stands now, companies have more to deal with if they recruit a foreign national straight out of college.
"Under our current law, you cannot take a student directly to green card; you have to go through the H-1 visa first as a stepping stone," Peters says, "because students are not allowed to come to the United States and have the intent to immigrate."
She adds: "We train them, we educate them, we should keep them."
Sending workers overseas
Hill says regardless of what happens with immigration reform, U.S. companies face challenges when they send their employees overseas. For multinational corporations, "there really is no way to remain competitive" without hiring foreign nationals, she says.
"The U.S. is one of the few countries in the world that actually tax on global income. ... if we're sending a U.S. national overseas, then that U.S. national is going to be taxed on all of their normal salary-based income, as well as the financial value of any benefits they receive," Hill says. "There's a huge tax cost to any organization that's going to send a U.S. citizen out to another country, and that's just from a U.S.-tax perspective. Depending on where they're going and what the tax rules are for that particular country, there may be a tax responsibility in that country as well."
And once a company's payroll is full of foreign workers, there's always the possibility they might be better suited for work at the home office. In other words, U.S. corporate tax policy itself makes immigration reform a good idea.
"You cannot guarantee that an Albert Einstein is going to be born in your country, right?" Peters says. "The best and brightest could be born anywhere."
Survey: Policy needs big changes
Americans overwhelmingly say the nation's immigration policy is in need of sweeping changes, according to a Pew Research Center survey. Overall, 75% say immigration policy needs at least major changes, with 35% saying it needs to be "completely rebuilt.
"Yet the broad public agreement that immigration policy should be revamped is not matched by consensus on how to deal with illegal and legal immigration.
Among the 1,504 adults surveyed, 73% say there should be a way for illegal immigrants already in the United States who meet certain requirements to stay here. But fewer than half (44%) favor allowing those here illegally to apply for U.S. citizenship, while 25% think permanent legal status is more appropriate.
When it comes to legal immigration, relatively few (31%) see current levels as satisfactory, but there is no consensus as to whether the level of legal immigration should be decreased (36%) or increased (25%).
About one-in-five (19%) are following the immigration debate very closely. Nearly four-in-10 (38%) have no opinion about the immigration legislation before Congress, while 33% favor it and 28% are opposed.
