CREATE A NEW VISA CATEGORY FOR NON-SEASONAL/NON-DEGREE JOBS

This proposal would create a new visa category modeled on the H-2B program but designed for non-seasonal, non-degree occupations. The visa would be valid for three years. A worker could renew it twice, staying for up to nine years in total. Before hiring, the employer would have to attest that no equally or better-qualified US worker had applied, or that the job had gone unfilled for more than 60 days. They would also have to pay at least the prevailing wage for the occupation and could not lay off US workers to bring in visa holders. The visa could only be used in areas where unemployment is low and local workers are especially hard to find. At least a quarter of the slots would be reserved for small businesses.

Visa holders would have the same wage and workplace protections as US workers, and an employer could not punish them for reporting unsafe or unfair conditions. A worker could also move to a different approved employer rather than being locked to the one that hired them.

Unlike the H-2B program, the employer would not need to show that the job is seasonal or that it would end. In the first year, 65,000 new visas would be available. After that, the yearly cap could rise or fall between 45,000 and 85,000. It would move up or down with employer demand, rising in years when visas were used up quickly and falling when they aren’t.

The Case For

Supporters argue that shortages of US workers for year-round, non-degree jobs are pronounced and chronic in sectors like caregiving, construction, hospitality, and food processing. They point out that our immigration system has no pathway suited to these jobs. The H-2B program is built for seasonal work, and the H-2A farm-worker program is limited to agriculture. Steady, year-round work that doesn’t require a college degree falls through the cracks, even as the population ages and the need for these workers grows.

Advocates argue the payoff for Americans would be substantial and . Filling these roles would help businesses grow, reduce the costs and delays caused by worker shortages, and support the families and communities that depend on these industries. Because a worker could stay for up to nine years, employers would keep experienced people rather than constantly retrain new ones, and workers could build skills over time, increasing overall productivity.

Supporters also emphasize that the program is built to protect US workers. Employers could not use it where local unemployment is high, could not lay off Americans to hire visa holders, and would have to pay at least the going wage.

Advocates add that the visa is built to protect foreign workers, too. They would earn the same wages and have the same workplace protections as US workers, could not be punished for reporting abuse, and could move to another approved employer rather than being stuck with one unscrupulous employer.

As with other returning workers, supporters argue it is fairer to offer foreign workers a temporary but non-seasonal visa that can multiply their income than to deny them that choice because we will not grant permanent status. Many of these supporters would support a Green Card path, but recognize the political opposition makes it an unrealistic alternative.

Finally, proponents contend that a legal, vetted channel for these jobs would reduce illegal employment and ease pressure at the border.

The Case Against

Opposition to this visa comes from two contrasting perspectives:

Concern For Foreign Workers

One camp argues it would be unfair to foreign workers. Supporters point to protections on paper — equal wages, the right to report abuse, the ability to change employers — but these opponents argue the protections are weak in practice. The visa is still tied to approved employers, and a worker who leaves a bad job has only 45 days to find another before losing their status and having to leave the country. Opponents argue that a worker weighing a complaint against the risk of losing their place in the US will usually stay silent, whatever the rules promise. They note this pressure can last for years, since the visa can be held for up to nine. Many in this camp would welcome more foreign workers, but through permanent visas that carry full rights and a path to citizenship.
vs
 Concern For US Workers

The other opposing camp argues the visa would harm US workers by opening another channel for cheaper foreign labor. Supporters point to the program’s safeguards, but these opponents argue the safeguards are porous. An employer can qualify a position simply by leaving it unfilled for 60 days, and the government largely takes employers’ claims on trust rather than verifying them. They contend the result would be downward pressure on pay and fewer openings for Americans in steady, blue-collar jobs (See What the Evidence Says—Wages and What the Evidence Says—Jobs and the Economy). Instead of importing labor, they argue, employers should raise wages and improve conditions to attract the workers already here.

What the Evidence Says—Jobs and the Economy

Credible research indicates that immigrant workers can sometimes take the place of some native workers, which economists call the substitution effect. These substitution effects tend to concentrate among US workers with whom immigrants share similar skills, such as lower-skill minorities and prior immigrants, although the size of the effects on minorities is contested. Evidence also shows that when businesses can’t hire temporary workers in jobs for which it’s especially hard to find native-born workers, the businesses shrink and hire fewer native workers too. In the opposite scenario, reputable studies also confirm that when businesses are able to hire immigrant workers into hard-to-fill jobs, they expand more and hire more native workers in other jobs needed at that business, which economists call the scale effect. A growing body of research suggests that the scale effects are much larger than the substitution effects, meaning that hiring immigrants generally has no broad negative effect or creates more jobs for native workers, not fewer. Studies consistently find that immigrants are about 50% more likely to start new businesses than natives, from small businesses to industrial giants. Because entrepreneurs on average create jobs, a workforce with relatively more immigrants creates jobs for native workers more than a workforce with relatively fewer immigrants. According to the best available evidence the net effect of immigrant workers is to stimulate the creation of more jobs for native workers and significantly grow the economy, but evidence is less conclusive on the impacts for concentrated groups of US workers who may compete more directly with new immigrants. While some claim that higher numbers of undocumented immigrants in an industry can lead to worse working conditions, and negatively impact US workers as a result, there is little evidence indicating that these spillover effects are common or related to the presence of undocumented workers. While a greater supply of undocumented labor puts downward pressure on the wages of natives who remain in directly competing roles, it puts upward pressure on the wages of natives who shift into complementary tasks. In the best evidence we have, these effects roughly balance for workers at the same firm, with a negligible positive effect on the wages of native coworkers. Studies suggest that undocumented workers themselves face lower wages and are not compensated as much when working in dangerous conditions. The evidence suggests that unscrupulous employers may take advantage of workers’ lack of legal status to cut corners on wage and safety laws, since undocumented workers are less likely to file complaints out of fear of deportation. It’s clear that undocumented workers themselves are the most disadvantaged by their lack of legal status, and evidence indicates that overall impacts on US workers are not substantial.

What the Evidence Says—Native Workers’ Wages

The effect of immigrants on Native Workers’ Wages is among the biggest concerns expressed in Congress and among Americans, and as a result economists have rigorously studied this topic. The best economic analyses consistently show that the long-run, total impact of increased immigration on Americans’ average wages is nearly zero (NAS 2017, Peri 2014, BPC 2014). One of the best analyses of 27 different economic studies finds that in 19 of these 27 studies, a 1% increase in immigrants’ share of the labor force predicted changes to Native Workers’ Wages narrowly ranging between -0.1 and 0.1 percent. Applied to today’s economy, these findings indicate the median American family could see their income change, rising or falling, by about $63 a year if 1.67 million more immigrants enter the workforce. The best studies may show a negative impact or a positive one, but the size of these impacts is consistently very small. There may be few issues in all of economics on which there is stronger consensus. Because many immigrants arrive in the US with lower levels of formal education, there is special concern among policymakers about the impacts of immigration on Americans whose highest educational level is a high school degree or lower. Under a strict series of economic assumptions (primarily about the degree to which different US and immigrant workers act as substitutes to each other in the labor market) some economic studies find a larger negative effect of immigration on wages for Americans without a high school degree. Using these same assumptions, the effects on the wages of those with a high school degree are positive and outweigh any total negative wage effects from immigration. Under equally plausible economic assumptions, research has even found positive effects on the wages of Americans with less than a high school degree. Using real-world data from a massive influx of Cuban immigrants into Miami in 1980, economists found a near-zero impact of the rapid increase in immigrants on the wages of native workers, even on those with only high school degrees. While there is mixed evidence regarding the impacts of immigration on the relatively small number of Americans with less than a high school degree, economic evidence consistently demonstrates that other factors have been far more responsible for declining wages among the much larger group of those with a high school degree or less. Between 1979 and 2019, these Americans saw their median real (inflation adjusted) wages decrease by 13.7% while wages for Americans with a bachelor’s and advanced degree increased by 9.2% and 27.2% respectively. The best economic studies attribute these relative wage losses mostly to technological shifts (two studies here and here) and somewhat to changes in international trade (especially with China). These studies generally conclude that immigration was not an important factor in the relative wage losses of Americans with high school degrees. Finally, evidence indicates that the effects of immigration policy choices depend on other policy decisions by the government. For example, the small labor market effects of immigration on the least-skilled natives are most benign in states that have adopted the strongest labor-market protections for all workers, native and immigrant alike.