Plan to Grant More Green Cards to STEM Graduates Resurfaces

The measure has support from the Pentagon but faces hurdles in the Senate.

By
39

Senators have revived an effort to allow more international students who earn advanced science, technology, engineering, and math degrees at American universities to stay in the United States, saying it will boost critical sectors and make America more competitive. 

Lawmakers are looking to the Senate’s upcoming debate on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) as their chance to pass the measure. The amendment, introduced last week by Illinois Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin, would exempt foreign graduates of American institutions with advanced STEM degrees—master’s degrees and higher—from annual green card limits. Admissions would be contingent upon applicants receiving offers to work for a U.S. employer in a field related to their degree.

“America should always be focused on maintaining a strong STEM workforce because it strengthens our economy and enhances our ability to compete on the world stage,” Durbin said in a statement shared with The Dispatch. “By denying international students with STEM degrees from U.S. universities the opportunity to continue their work here, we are losing their talents to countries overseas and won’t see the positive impacts of their American education.”

Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota, a Republican, has also signed onto the amendment as a cosponsor. His office did not respond to requests for comment.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
39
By
Comments (39)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Arrbee

    I've been in the tech industry for decades and I've advocated for allowing foreign born graduates with STEM degrees to get automatic work permits for at least 2 decades.

    I've had some colleagues argue that this will lower pay, and I'm sure that there are always some unethical actors that might take advantage. However, in my experience managing and interacting with a large number of teams composed of both citizen and foreign born workers, I've never observed this. It has always been about merit.

    Do we really want to allow brilliant, foreign born students to be educated at elite universities learning our most advanced technologies only to return to their native countries (especially China).

    Sergey Brin, one of the founders of Google is foreign born.
    Satya Nadella, CEO of Microsoft is foreign born.
    Pierre Omidyar, eBay founder
    Andrew Grove, Intel founder
    Elon Musk, Tesla, SpaceX, Starlink, Neurolink, The Boring Company

    And many more. Geez, even Alexander Graham Bell was Scottish!

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Anne W (Raw5254)

      Let me give you an extra ❤️. I often wonder why some of the really good comments aren’t acknowledged, and my guess is that it has something to do with timing. I don’t usually get to the end, especially in TMD, but this was a bit shorter, and I really like what you have to say.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Arrbee

        That's very nice of you

        Collapse
  2. Raincheck

    An obvious great idea.

    Collapse
  3. Gary

    What rationale is there for voting against this? Interested to hear how its opponents articulate their objections.

    Collapse
  4. Very Old Grumpy Guy

    I apologize if someone else mentioned this, but the Congressional Research Service claims 72% of non-US Doctorates are still in the US 10 years after obtaining their degree. Seems like a no-brainer. Am I missing something?

    Collapse
  5. JC

    Such a logic might dictate if your domestic resources are unable/unwilling to step up to the STEM bar to produce a more robust borne-local workforce, outsource it.

    In this 'neo-conservative' forum one might expect more discussion or revitalizing local resources, clearly there is a flaw in that reasoning.

    Couple to it "we are welcoming to all", "Shame on you; you xenophobe", and of course the favorite "It will make everything better".

    Part of the STEM dearth is far more painful, the waste of public funds for non-productive degrees _studies, History of , Prep work for Tenure at ainstitution, the flagging motivation for students to earn 'hard-deliverable' degrees is sad, especially for the real 'bright stars' among our children.

    And we wonder why the double whammy Activism-as-the-Titanic-sinks & "No-consequence-FreeRide"
    seems to draw us beneath the waves.

    Pass it, perhaps the bottom, operant conditioning style: we'll begin to find our way back up as 3rd class citizens in our own country, the youth will resent the previous generation who holds sway now with their divisive idiocracy, and seek a better way in spite of our self-delusion.

    Collapse
    1. Very Old Grumpy Guy

      I would suggest that given the very strong financial rewards thrown at anyone with a STEM degree, that all those capable of getting one are getting one. While I could certainly be wrong, my intuition is that very few capable people are choosing a degree in Art History because it is "publicly funded" over learning how to code. Happy to learn, something, though.

      Collapse
      1. Laura

        I landed in STEM as a roll of the dice. I had options and no one (i.e. my parents) were pushing me hard in any particular direction as a high schooler, deciding what major to go into. And no one (read: parents) was saying "whatever you do, don't do X, that's a bad financial move."
        Just saying, I think you're hypothesis is overly broad. The views of someone's parents can have a big impact on whether that person starts out in STEM in college or doesn't. And if you don't start out in STEM, it can be difficult at some schools to make the switch without delaying your graduation date.

        Collapse
        1. Very Old Grumpy Guy

          My language was not careful. Instead of “all”, I should have said something like “the vast majority” or another term that implies most people capable of getting a STEM degree, get them.

          Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Dave Conant - MO

        I'd say your intuition is working really well.

        Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Frank Lee

    I only have one quibble with this. The universities are denying positions for existing American students and accepting more foreign students instead because of the higher tuition revenue from foreign students. Until that problem is addressed, I am not in favor of adding another hit to American students having to compete for jobs with these foreign students.

    Collapse
    1. Mary Stine

      A valid point, Frank. However one cannot actually "compete" with someone whose basic skills and abilities are far advanced. US schools have been doing a lousy job of teaching basic and higher level math skills for years, often because we can't find enough US born capable of teaching math! Better, more well funded schools often import math teachers for the high school level. Until we fix THAT, American students won't be helped by just blocking foreign students.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Frank Lee

        US teachers are some of the highest paid of all OECD countries, but otherwise I agree.

        I think there is another perspective. My kids had a choice to attend public school in a smaller town vs a larger town. We lived in the country between the two school districts and their territory overlapped. We chose the larger town... a college town... and eventually moved there from the country.

        My kids did not participate in school athletics in the large city as it only had two middle schools and one high school and they were massive and thus the competition for spots on the teams was much more intense. Had they attended the schools in the smaller town, they would have likely participated in more team sports.

        The problem is that by expanding the pool of candidates without expanding the supply of spaces, you cut out participation for people that would otherwise have a slot. The question here is one of fairness for American students to be forced to compete with the kids within the population of 7 billion people in the world vs the kids of 340 million Americans.

        Collapse
        1. Mary Stine

          That's a very good example, Frank. Perhaps we should be paying attention to the supply of spaces across the board from junior high on up. Then we might have answers to why art, music and drama keep getting cut from budgets. If you only allow "10" in band and orchestra, gee, you might not have enough "participation" to actually form a band!
          It's galling to me that state supported institutions, that have maximal donor dollars, are cutting out local scholars for everything except football and basketball.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Frank Lee

            I get your point, but that is not what I see. Title-IX has resulted in many of these cuts as the schools where forced to add other sport team options for girls. Good for girls. Art, drama, music, industrial arts... they have been cut because the cost of administration and faculty has skyrocketed. And again, the US pays teachers at the very high end of all OECD countries. It is not the lack of funding, it is that the money is not well spent.

            But back to the main point... does our government funded education system get to provide services to a global student population at the expense of fewer options for the students of the US? I think if the school is completely private it can do what it wants. If it is getting any funds from taxpayers, it's charter has to be to serve the taxpayers and not foreign students.

            Collapse
    2. Mark Cutis

      Well hold on?! This is America. Everything is organized against that sacred principle of “profit”.

      Collapse
    3. Very Old Grumpy Guy

      I have heard this line of reasoning before. My logic has always been that unless there are absolutely NO slots for a *capable* American at any College or University, I am not sure this matters. My intuition is that capable students with STEM degrees from land grant universities are not handicapped by not having attended an "elite" university. My read of the problem is't that we don't have enough good educational slots for capable Americans. My perception is we don't have enough capable Americans for every slot we need. Thoughts?

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Frank Lee

        Well in the example below, there would be slots available for in-state students as the admissions rate is 38%. If the 18.4% of foreign students were removed, the school would accept 7000 additional non-foreign students. Now some percentage of those would be out of state. However, I understand that for this school that 70% of all non-foreign applications are for in state students.

        If we have too few slots for American students then why are we giving them to foreign students? In this case the answer is for the money... a lot of it.

        Collapse
        1. Very Old Grumpy Guy

          With all due respect, I think my original question remains unanswered. Let me rephrase it. Are there more qualified potential STEM graduates than there are slots in the entire US system? Are there US citizens who COULD qualify for a STEM degree, but they are crowded out by foreign students. This doesn't sound correct, but I am open to being educated.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Frank Lee

            I don’t have any exact numbers on this, but almost any university program of any quality is generally rejecting a significant percentage of applicants. It is a meritocracy except when it is not. If it is and they admit foreign students, then a bigger global supply of qualified students only raises the qualification bar… and thus cuts out more below the bar… including local students that might have been accepted if not for the competition of the foreign students. If not a meritocracy, and I believe that there are aspects in most admissions processes that are not… for example, I think some will favor foreign students because of the much greater tuition and fees earned… then it will have a similar impact with the foreign students being more qualified.

            I was accepted to Stanford in 78 but did not attend. My grades and GPA and SAT scores I earned back then today would not qualify me. Some of that is because of grade inflation, and some of it is just more American kids attending college than in 78. But much of it is because the US higher learning industry is fond of high-paying foreign students and it creates more competition at least for the highly sought programs.

            Collapse
    4. Avatar photo
      Rajeev

      Doesn’t this provision/bill mostly apply to graduate students? Graduate students in STEM across the board are almost universally funded via TA positions or research. Regardless of in state, out of state, or foreign, universities make a ton of money off of graduate STEM students.

      Speaking from experience, most graduate STEM students are funded for their thesis programs. The ones that aren’t the elite applicants are still generally accepted just not prioritized for funding. But in general the more of them that come to the US the much greater revenue is generated by these universities legitimately through research as opposed to tuition which is more of a scam when talking about non-STEM graduate students and undergraduates as a whole.

      Collapse
      1. Bob Bell

        Yes, this applies to graduate students. In addition to being funded as Teaching or Research Assistants, it's not uncommon (at least at private schools) for their tuition to be waived as well.

        Collapse
    5. Avatar photo
      Gene Godbold

      How big a problem is this? I mean, how many foreign students vs native-born (or naturalized) Americans.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Frank Lee

        Here is one example I am familiar with because I have a relative that attended. University of California at Davis (UCD) has a 38% acceptance rate. 18.4% of the admissions are foreign with Chinese being 65% of that cohort. Resident tuition and fees are about $13k per year. Non-resident is $44k. There are also extra fees for international students that bring in closer to $46k. The total number of international students is about 7,000. The difference in revenue that those 7000 foreign students bring in compared to it being replaced with local students is $231 million per year.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Gene Godbold

          It seems like the great State of California might have a problem with those numbers.

          Collapse
  7. Nikhil

    As a visa-holding worker trapped in the green card queue because of the country I was born in, I've seen several years of attempts by Congress to propose some legislation or the other only for it to eventually get nowhere. Sometimes it feels like various members just propose these bills to give people false hope, while plotting behind the scenes to ensure it doesn't actually pass.

    Collapse
    1. Ingenero.lux

      You have my sympathy, I understand it feels a bit like something out of Kafka.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Gene Godbold

      I'm pretty sure it's just stochastic processes (which apply to human interactions as well).

      Collapse
      1. Very Old Grumpy Guy

        Yea - these guys and gals aren't that smart.

        Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Dave K

    Another thing that should pass with wide bi-partisan support but won't because too many lawmakers are more focused on politics than what's good for the country.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Gene Godbold

      This just makes sense. Of course it might be politically salient to, in the same bill, encourage *Americans* to get advanced degrees in these fields, too. I work at the border of industry and government contracts. There are more interesting problems to solve than there are people to work on them.

      Collapse
      1. Ingenero.lux

        The salaries are generally more than enough incentive for people interested and capable of doing the work to enter the field. I’m not sure what other incentive is needed - STEM outreach these days is quite extensive.

        Collapse