This proposal would let states petition for H-2A and H-2B seasonal work visas based on their own population and labor needs. Instead of each employer running its own labor market test, a participating state would assess shortages statewide, petition the federal government for a set number of visas, and distribute them to employers within the state under federal rules. The state would have to justify the number of visas it requests for each occupation, using data on how many jobs in that occupation cannot be filled by US workers. Visas granted this way would not count against the national H-2B cap. Because H-2A visas are not capped, the benefit for agricultural employers is simply that they would no longer have to run the labor market test themselves. Existing federal requirements on wages and working conditions would still apply for these jobs under the state opt-in.
STATE OPT-IN FOR EXISTING TEMPORARY WORK VISAS
The Case ForÂ
Supporters argue that the state opt-in model would boost economic benefits by matching foreign workers to local shortages as they happen. Some states have industries that rely heavily on temporary foreign labor. California, for example, uses H-2A visas extensively for seasonal farm work, and states like Alaska, Maine, and Maryland rely on H-2B visas for their seafood processors. Other states don’t face the same pressures. They note that the demand for foreign workers is uneven across states, growing in some while easing in others. Supporters argue that this is exactly why a state-by-state system would more accurately place workers where they are truly needed than uniform national caps. It is also a way to make more H-2B visas available where they are genuinely needed. States can make it easier for employers in their key industries to get the workers they need. States with fewer shortages or fewer industries that rely on foreign labor can simply choose not to opt in, while their employers can still individually petition for needed workers.
The Case Against
Critics of this proposal often oppose increasing employment-based immigration generally. They note that because the state opt-in visas wouldn’t count against the national caps, this proposal would raise the total number of temporary work visas granted in the US. They oppose this for the same identity, safety, and economic reasons they oppose other proposals that increase immigration. More specifically, they argue that dropping the individual-employer labor-market test removes a key safeguard for American workers. Even where an industry in a state faces broad shortages, they argue, there is value in making each employer prove, each time, that it cannot find a qualified American for that specific job. Even where local US workers are scarce, they argue, US workers elsewhere in the country might move for the work if given the incentive, rather than an employer turning to a foreign worker. They further argue that the continued reliance by industries on foreign labor is not in the country’s interests.