EXEMPT CERTAIN STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT JOBS FROM CAP

Under this proposal, state and local government professional jobs would be exempt from the annual H-1B cap. Typical uses of this exemption could include teaching positions in public schools, doctor positions in public hospitals, and engineering positions in local government.

The Case For 

Supporters argue that the current cap is preventing public-sector employers from finding enough high-skilled talent in critical positions. They argue that school districts struggling to hire qualified teachers, public hospitals seeking physicians (particularly in rural or underserved urban areas), or local governments recruiting specialized engineers should not be subject to the random lottery for positions for which there is such a compelling public interest.

Advocates note that the H-1B program requires employers to pay whichever is higher: the actual wage they pay other employees in that job or the average wage for workers in those jobs with similar qualifications in their geographic region. They argue that these provisions will safeguard US workers in these professions from having their wages undercut by this proposal.

The Case Against

Opponents argue against carving out these cap exemptions from two different perspectives:

Concern For Foreign Workers

Opponents who emphasize fairness to foreign workers make a different argument. If we want professionally trained foreign workers to treat our sick, teach our kids, and provide engineering expertise to local governments, then we should be willing to grant them more of the privileges of working and living here. They suggest we grant them permanent Green Cards, which can lead to citizenship, rather than expand a temporary work visa category to fill critical jobs.
vs
 Concern For US Workers

Those concerned about the impact on native workers argue that it would increase the number of H-1B workers who displace native workers or reduce their pay and labor standards. They note that H-1B positions tend to pay better and are more desirable for American workers than the jobs commonly filled by workers on most other temporary visas. These opponents also maintain that shortages in these sectors would be better addressed by paying native workers more and investing in domestic workforce development. And they contend that the proposal could reduce fairness and transparency by giving public-sector employers an advantage over others.