U.S. denials of specialized work visas soar
Foreigners trying to get into the United States through specialized work visas are being denied at a higher rate, nearly fivefold in the past six years, according to a report to be released on Wednesday.
Petitions by U.S.-based companies to transfer their foreign-based employees with “specialized knowledge” into the United States were denied 34 percent of the time last year — compared with a 7 percent denial rate in 2007, according to a new report from the National Foundation for American Policy.
From 2012-13, the number of specialized visas, known as L-1B visas, approved by the federal government fell from 14,180 to 11,944. At the same time, denials increased from 6,068 to 6,242. The visas allow workers to stay in the country for as long as five years.
Stuart Anderson, executive director of the foundation, said it's hard to understand why the denials have gone up so dramatically. But he said the increase lines up with the beginning of the country's recession, meaning officials within the government might have aimed to slow down the flow of workers into the United States.
“Some people may have had the impression that by keeping companies from transferring in employees that that somehow was going to promote American jobs,” Anderson said.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Reports: Actor Ford seriously injured in small-plane crash in L.A.
- Florida woman wields a shotgun in forcing son to jump from window
- Latest winter blast strands airline passengers, motorists
- Young white males replace older black men as OD victims as heroin deaths climb
- Marathon blast survivor testifies to brush with bomber
- Weapon supply vulnerable to hackers, Pentagon official warns
- Feds weighed national standards but let North Dakota set regulations for oil trains’ safety
- Raw milk has little evidence of antibiotics, FDA survey finds
- Hillary email controversy reminiscent of 1996 episode
- Lawmakers move to require schools to teach cursive amid Common Core wrangling
- Dig uncovers ancient stone tool in eastern Oregon