Make H-2A and H-2B Labor Certifications and Petitions Valid for Three Years Rather than OneÂ
This proposal would make labor certifications and petitions for certain temporary employment-based visas valid for three years rather than one. H-2A visas are for seasonal agricultural jobs, and H-2B visas are for seasonal non-agricultural jobs. Under current law, employers seeking workers through these visas must first obtain a temporary labor certification from the Department of Labor (DOL) in which the employer must prove there are not enough US workers available and that hiring foreign workers won’t negatively affect the wages and working conditions of US workers doing similar jobs. Then, employers must successfully petition USCIS, which performs a legal and security check, before they can hire and recruit workers each season. This process must be followed repeatedly for each hiring season.
The Case ForÂ
Supporters argue that this proposal would allow businesses to spend more time and effort contributing to their local economies instead of waiting for certification to hire needed workers one season after another. They suggest that it makes it easier for employers to hire the workers they need while maintaining appropriate safeguards to prevent harm to US workers. Proponents contend that re-running the full process annually imposes significant burdens without providing meaningful additional assurances for US workers. Advocates observe that industries heavily dependent on H-2 labor (agriculture under the H-2A visa and landscaping, hospitality, seafood processing, and construction under H-2B visas) often face chronic labor shortages. They argue that the high approval rates for these repeat applications are evidence of how rare it is for a repeated process one year later to identify reasons not to issue the visa. Supporters further contend that three-year approvals increase predictability for employers and allow experienced returning workers to fill jobs more efficiently.
The Case Against
Opponents argue that maintaining the current one-year validity period ensures that US workers have access to jobs with updated wages and conditions. They assert that the labor market can change quickly for a variety of factors, including recessions, regional industry shifts, and natural disasters. Opponents argue that a three-year certification period would lock in foreign labor even if labor market changes make more US workers available for those positions. Opponents also argue that eliminating more frequent recruitment and labor market tests may dampen competitive wage growth, as employers would no longer need to actively test the domestic labor supply each year.