Since the early 20th century, the US has been a world leader in innovation and technical progress. In recent decades, however, some experts have worried that the country’s performance on these fronts has been slowing, even stalling. There are many possible explanations for this phenomenon, but one has seemed especially salient in recent years: an immigration system that discourages, and often turns away, the most highly skilled and talented foreign workers. Historically, immigrants have played a vital role in American innovation. As Jeremy Neufeld, an immigration policy fellow with the Institute for Progress, a new innovation-focused think tank, remarked to me, “It’s always been the case that immigrants have been a secret ingredient in US dynamism.” Robert Krol, a professor of economics with California State University Northridge, describes it this way: “The bottom line is that when you look at the impact of immigrants — whether you think about starting businesses or innovating patents — they have a large, significant impact.” Multiple analyses of historical immigration patterns show that more migrants to a region correlates with a higher rate of innovation and related economic growth. By contrast, when immigration is more restricted, companies — especially tech companies and those that conduct innovative R&D work — are less successful, and growth in jobs and wages slows. Studies have also shown that immigrants tend to be entrepreneurial: Based on survey data between 2008 and 2012, 25 percent of companies across the US were founded by first-generation immigrants. Other research shows that immigrants are more likely than native-born US citizens to register patents. As Neufeld points out, the Covid-19 pandemic might have gone much worse if immigration had always been as restrictive as it is now. A number of co-founders and critical researchers with Moderna are immigrants, as is Katalin Karikó, a pioneer of mRNA research — who, if she had tried to immigrate after the 1990 H-1B reforms to the skilled guest worker program, might not have been able to come to the US at all. Those H-1B guest visas are at the center of the issue today, some experts say. Designed in 1990 to bring in skilled professionals to meet labor market shortages, visas through the H-1B guest workers program are sponsored by employers, who submit petitions to bring in particular foreign professionals appropriately qualified for specific, highly skilled roles. Guest workers generally need at least a bachelor’s degree in a relevant field. According to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), there are about 580,000 foreign workers currently on H-1B visas, a small percentage of the US workforce and immigrant population. But they are disproportionately concentrated in STEM, particularly computer-related occupations, often in fields where cutting-edge technologies are being developed. Unfortunately, the H-1B process is falling increasingly out of date and badly failing to serve its original purpose of turning on the talent tap for top innovative companies. Congress sets an annual cap on how many H-1B visa holders can come in, and that cap is now far below what the labor market demands. The crush of applications once the window opens for a given year on March 1 is so intense that, in every year since 2014, USCIS has resorted to a lottery system instead of a first-come, first-serve process. That means that year in and year out, hundreds of thousands of high-skilled workers from abroad try to come to the US and ultimately fail, so that both the prospective employee and the company hoping to hire them end up losing out on their preferred option. That shortfall is a policy problem. The US has long been a desirable destination for young, highly educated foreign workers eager to seek out the best career opportunities. Facing a longstanding shortage of skilled STEM workers, US companies and the overall US economy stand to benefit. But the country risks losing its position to others like the UK or Canada, which have made recent immigration reforms aimed at attracting and retaining high-skilled young people, if the US continues to restrict skilled immigration so heavily. As with many policy problems, there are some nuances here to pay attention to, not least the potential effect any policy changes might have on native-born US workers. And this discussion doesn’t touch on the debate over lower-skill guest workers vital to the US economy and the policies surrounding them. (That’s related, but beyond the scope of this story.) But there is little doubt that from the perspective of speeding innovation, the US system needs fixing. “The big picture is that our ability to recruit talent is directly related to our economic success as a country,” economist David Bier, associate director of immigration studies with the libertarian Cato Institute, told me. “We don’t know which [immigrant] is going to have the brilliant insight that totally transforms the economy over the next 20-30 years.” Why the H-1B System is FailingThe H-1B visa is a three-year temporary work visa that is generally renewable once for three years. It’s not in itself a path toward permanent residency. (H-1B holders, however, can begin the process of getting a green card to stay in the US for good while already in the country as a guest worker.) Currently, the annual cap is set at 65,000 visas, with an additional 20,000 slots allocated for workers with graduate degrees from US universities. That’s significantly down from the cap set in the early 2000s of 195,000 annually. In the 1990s and early 2000s, USCIS accepted petitions on a first-come, first-serve basis until the annual cap was met. In most years, when the total applications eventually maxed out the cap, it inevitably left out many highly valuable potential immigrants or delayed their visa by a year, but at least the process allowed companies some opportunity to prioritize applying earlier in the annual window for employees they saw as more critical. In 2014, the annual H-1B applications began spiking and the volume of applications received just in the first few days of the window prompted USCIS to switch to a lottery system. For fiscal year 2023, only 26 percent of the 483,000 applications received — more than double the 201,000 petitions submitted for 2020 — were chosen for processing. The Downsides of the H-1B SystemOne unintended consequence of the current H-1B system that experts have flagged is the massive success of a particular business model: offshore “outsourcing” companies, mainly based in India. Outsourcing companies can put in thousands of H-1B petitions for workers they consider interchangeable, mainly junior programmers, and profit by sending the applicants who win the lottery to work for US-based companies as agency contractors. This model is popular enough that outsourcing companies make up a substantial percentage of all H-1B petitions filed. According to Ron Hira, a research associate with the progressive Economic Policy Institute (EPI), 17 of the top 30 companies by annual H-1B applications are outsourcing firms. There are several ways this could harm US workers, US companies, or innovation overall. One concern is that the “outsourcing” firms hold enormous leverage over their employees, effectively having a monopoly on their employment, and could thus exploit and underpay them, potentially undercutting US workers’ salaries. There is an ongoing debate about whether this is happening. According to EPI, the local median wage for an occupation should be a minimum bound for H-1B workers, and with two of the wage tiers below the median, companies can use the H-1B for “wage arbitrage” and hire lower-paid foreign employees at the expense of US citizens. Can Incremental Change Fix a Broken System?How then to create that mechanism and reconstruct the US’s high-skilled immigration system to bring in the world’s top talent while also minimizing potential harms to US workers? The Biden administration has promised to reform the system, and policy thinkers have proposed solutions, none of them perfect.
One idea came from the Trump administration. In 2020, then-President Trump proposed replacing the lottery with a salary-based ranking system. That is, rather than using a lottery to select candidates, USCIS would rank the petitions based on the salary offered by the employer, and start processing at the highest-salary end until the cap was reached. Such a system would in theory prioritize the most skilled and qualified candidates over the more junior workers. That would help innovative companies bring in the most valuable domain experts who play critical roles in their cutting-edge research, rather than being pushed out by outsourcing companies’ huge numbers of applicants. However, Zavodny told me she’s concerned this system would disproportionately disadvantage young recent graduates, many of whom are very driven to come to the US. Some other concerns include the fact that pay gaps along racial and gender-based lines are still a problem in the US; a salary-based system could risk disproportionately shutting out those groups affected by salary bias. And as the cost-of-living gap between regions in the US continues to increase, a system that failed to adequately correct for this in the salary ranking might make it difficult for companies in areas with a lower cost of living to get petitions approved. In any case, the rule was struck down by a federal judge before it came into effect. LOS ANGELES (AP) — A sprawling, privately run detention center in the wind-swept California desert town of Adelanto could house nearly 2,000 migrants facing the prospect of deportation. These days, though, it’s nearly empty.
The Adelanto facility is an extreme example of how the U.S. government’s use of guaranteed minimum payments in contracts with private companies to house immigrant detainees might have a potential financial downside. In these contracts, the government commits to pay for a certain number of beds, whether they’re used or not. The government pays for at least 1,455 beds a day at Adelanto, but so far this fiscal year reports an average daily population of 49 detainees. Immigrant advocates say the number of detainees at Adelanto is currently closer to two dozen because authorities can’t bring in more migrants under a federal judge’s 2020 pandemic-related ruling. The U.S. government pays to guarantee 30,000 immigration detention beds are available in four dozen facilities across the country, but so far this fiscal year about half, on average, have been occupied, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement data. Over the past two years, immigration detention facilities across the United States have been underutilized as authorities were forced to space out detainees — in some cases, such as at Adelanto, by court order — to limit the spread of COVID-19. “The government is still paying them to keep the facility open,” said Lizbeth Abeln, deportation defense director at the Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice in Southern California. “It’s really concerning they’re still getting paid for all the beds every single day. It’s empty.” At a facility in Tacoma, Washington, the guaranteed minimum is 1,181 beds and the average daily population so far this fiscal year is 369, according to official data. A detention center in Jena, Louisiana, has a minimum of 1,170 beds, with an average daily population of 452. ICE currently reports 23,390 detainees in custody, official data shows. The agency has long spent money on unused detention space by including guaranteed minimum payments in its contracts, according to a Government Accountability Office report focused on the years before the pandemic. The minimum number of beds the government paid to guarantee rose 45% from the 2017 fiscal year to May 2020, the report said. Officials at ICE’s headquarters were asked to comment and initially did not. On Monday, an agency spokesperson said in an email that ICE doesn’t comment on pending litigation and is complying with the court’s order regarding Adelanto. In annual budget documents, officials said the agency aims to use 85% to 90% of detention space generally, and pays to have guaranteed minimum beds ready to go in case they’re needed. Officials wrote that they need flexibility to deal with emergencies or sudden big increases in border crossings. They said safety and security are the top priority at the detention centers, while acknowledging the pandemic “greatly decreased bed utilization.” The average cost of a detention bed was $144 each day during the last fiscal year, the documents show. Immigrant advocates say the pandemic is proof that the U.S. doesn’t need to detain immigrants as much as authorities have claimed. Deportation agents have ramped up use of a monitoring app to keep tabs on immigrants heading for deportation hearings instead of locking people up, they said. As of June, the agency was tracking more than 200,000 people using the SmartLink app, the government’s data shows. “The federal government, probably like all of us, didn’t think COVID would go on this long,” said Michael Kaufman, senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, which sued for the release of detainees in Adelanto. “This has been an accidental test case that shows they don’t need a detention capacity anywhere near what they’re saying.” The Adelanto facility — which is run by Boca Raton, Florida-based The Geo Group — is one of the biggest in the country and often houses immigrants arrested in the greater Los Angeles area. It has long been subject to complaints by detainees of shoddy medical care, and on a 2018 visit to the facility inspectors also found nooses in detainees cells and overly restrictive segregation. Private Prison Industry Shifts Focus to Immigrant Detention Centers, Funding Immigration Hawks6/22/2022
Early in his term, President Joe Biden signed an executive order barring the Department of Justice from renewing existing contracts with for-profit prisons. Many activists and prison reform advocates hoped this signaled the beginning of the end of private prisons in America. But the private prison industry instead shifted focus to a different form of for-profit detainment: private immigration detention centers. This shift toward immigrant detention, which is now estimated to be a nearly $3 billion industry, comes at a time when for-profit prison companies have spent tens of thousands of dollars donating to politicians who support border security and immigration enforcement policies that would increase the number of detained immigrants in Immigrations and Customs Enforcement facilities. The Turn to Immigration DetentionAs of June 2022, more than 24,000 immigrants are being detained by ICE and Border Patrol. However, these agencies do not have the necessary infrastructure to house those detainees. Instead, the Department of Homeland Security – which Biden’s executive order ban does not extend to – contracts this responsibility to private companies. As a result, 79% of detained immigrants are held in facilities that are privately owned or operated. Many immigrant rights activists contend that these private detention centers lack the necessary accountability and oversight to prevent abuse. Inadequate access to medical services and other alleged human rights abuses are well-documented in for-profit immigration detention centers. Some of the most egregious claims of medical abuse occurred at the Irwin County Detention Center in Ocilla, Ga., owned by the private company LaSalle Corporations, where multiple detained immigrant women reportedly underwent forced hysterectomies and other invasive and unnecessary gynecological surgeries. Nevertheless, the federal government’s immigrant detainment policy has continued to be a boon for private prison companies including GEO Group and CoreCivic, the two biggest companies in the field. In an SEC filing from November 2021, GEO Group detailed how despite the loss of $125 million in contracts due to Biden’s executive order, “record increases in migrant flows at the U.S. border have acted as a tailwind” have more than made up for the profits lost. In the fiscal year 2021, GEO Group and CoreCivic grossed $551 million and $552 million respectively from contracts with ICE alone. Contracts with ICE now make up the majority of both GEO Group and CoreCivic’s annual revenue, constituting 36% for GEO Group and 30% for CoreCivic. ICE also started piloting “Alternative to Detention” programs that use electronic monitoring such as GPS ankle monitors to detain and surveil immigrants without formerly incarcerating them. Currently, there are an additional 266,000 immigrant detainees being monitored on such programs. More than 75% of these immigrants are monitored by GEO Group’s subsidiary electronic monitoring company BI Inc. after the company inked a five-year, $2.2 billion deal with the DHS in 2020. Private Prison Interests Boost Pro-border Security PoliticiansAs the the private prisons profit from immigrant detention, the private prison industry has also poured money into political contributions to Republican politicians at the federal level who advocate for increased border security and the expansion of interior immigration enforcement. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), the overwhelming top recipient of private prison industry money for the 2022 election cycle at over $62,000, has been a longtime party leader on strengthening border security. In November 2021, Rubio was one of five senators who signed onto a ”Dear Colleague” letter saying they would not under any circumstances vote for a 2022 budget that did not allocate proper funding for border security and border patrol. Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), the second biggest recipient of private prison industry money at almost $27,000, is also a staunch border security advocate. In 2021, Moran introduced an amendment to the proposed 2022 budget that would have created a reserve fund for the strengthening the enforcement of immigration laws within the United States’ borders by ICE agents. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Rep. Chuck Fleischmann (R-Tenn.), who have received $21,765 and $12,500 respectively from the private prison industry, are also noted immigration hawks who support ICE. McCarthy has made multiple visits to the U.S. southern border in the past two years, lambasting the surge in migrants and unaccompanied children as the “Biden border crisis.” The House Minority Leader most recently voted “no” on both the American Dream and Promise Act and the Farm Workforce Modernization Act, two bills that would have provided amnesty and a path to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children – also known as “DREAMers” – and undocumented immigrant farm workers. Fleischmann has used his position on the Congressional Homeland Security subcommittee to advocate for maintaining and expanding funding not only for ICE’s interior immigration enforcement programs, but also for the number of beds for detained immigrants. The private prison industry directly profits from these zero tolerance immigration policies. “ICE is beginning to implement their interior enforcement strategy,” GEO Group Senior Vice President and former ICE Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations David Venturella said in a 2017 shareholder conference call. “We’ll start to see the benefits of that through increased apprehensions and increased detention in the interior part of the United States, not necessarily along the Southern Border.” GEO Group and CoreCivic Give to Candidates Touting Immigration EnforcementWhile the numbers for prison industry money backing federal politicians are telling, GEO Group and CoreCivic have also given considerable amounts to several gubernatorial candidates who are staunch border security and immigration enforcement advocates.
Among current gubernatorial candidates, the largest recipient of GEO Group and CoreCivic money is Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp’s 2022 re-election campaign. Kemp has received over $25,000 from the two companies, $18,000 from CoreCivic and $7,000 from GEO Group. Cracking down on illegal immigration has been a central part of Kemp’s platform. In one of his 2018 campaign ads, Kemp stated that he would “round up criminal illegals” himself in his pickup truck. Kemp is one of 10 Republican governors in October 2021 who urged Biden to enact their 10-point immigration plan that called for the deployment of more Border Patrol and ICE agents nationwide as well as the end of “catch and release” programs that allow immigrants to enter the U.S. pending their immigration hearings. Additionally, Georgia is home to the CoreCivic-owned Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin County, the largest ICE detention center in the country. It houses on average over 1,080 detainees per day. There are also plans in place to expand the GEO Group-owned Folkston ICE Processing Center in Charlton County to nearly twice the size of the Stewart Detention Center facility. While Kemp has been an advocate for private prisons, Kemp’s opponent in the general election Stacey Abrams has instead vowed to end all state contracts with private prison companies. Other notable campaign contributions from GEO Group and CoreCivic include two other pro-ICE governors running for re-election in 2022: $5,000 to Idaho Gov. Brad Little and $2,500 to Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt. Little and Stitt, like Kemp, are also among the 10 Republican governors who traveled to the U.S. border to express their support for the aforementioned Republican 10-point immigration plan that would increase the nation’s number of Border Patrol and ICE agents. |