MAKE H-2A AND H-2B VISA CERTIFICATIONS AND PETITIONS VALID FOR THREE YEARS RATHER THAN ONE
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 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 confirms legal compliance and performs a security check, before they can hire and recruit foreign workers each season. This process must be followed repeatedly for each hiring season. Under the proposal, the certifications and petitions would remain valid for three years, though the visas would remain valid only for the season for which they were issued.
The Case For
Supporters argue that this proposal would let businesses spend more time contributing to their local economies, rather than waiting for certification to hire workers each season. They suggest that it makes hiring easier while keeping safeguards that protect US workers. Re-running the full process every year, they contend, is a major burden that adds little real assurance for US workers. Industries that depend heavily on H-2 labor often face chronic labor shortages. These include agriculture under the H-2A visa, and landscaping, hospitality, seafood processing, and construction under the H-2B visa. Supporters note that these repeat applications are approved at high rates. They argue this is evidence that a second review a year later rarely turns up a reason to deny the certifications or petitions. Supporters also point to the programs’ track record. Demand for H-2A and H-2B workers has risen steadily over the past decade. Even during the COVID-19 downturn, when unemployment spiked sharply, approvals for these seasonal foreign workers barely dipped before climbing again. Supporters argue this shows the labor shortages are deep and lasting, not something that reverses from one year to the next. Finally, they contend that three-year approvals provide employers with greater predictability and enable experienced returning workers to fill jobs more efficiently.
The Case Against
Opponents argue that keeping the one-year period ensures US workers have access to jobs at current wages and conditions. They acknowledge that demand for these workers has generally risen but note that conditions vary by state and sector. Some states have seen their use of these visas fall for several years, even as national totals climbed. A nationwide three-year certification, they argue, could lock in foreign labor in places where local demand has actually dropped. Opponents also argue that the yearly labor market test is valuable even when demand is not falling. Requiring employers to re-test the domestic labor supply each year is what keeps the door open for US workers and guards against wage stagnation. Without it, an employer would have no obligation to look for available US workers for three years at a time.