2,478
edits
Eilberg Amendment (1976): Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[File:Immigration-and-Nationality-Act-Amendments-of-1976-Report-title-page.png|thumb|Title page of the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1976 Report (Eilberg Amendment)]] | [[File:Immigration-and-Nationality-Act-Amendments-of-1976-Report-title-page.png|thumb|Title page of the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1976 Report (Eilberg Amendment)]] | ||
The Eilberg Amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, while largely focused on family reunification and establishing a preference system for visa allocation, added several clauses that significantly impacted the employment-based immigration landscape. By setting quotas and priority dates, it | The Eilberg Amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, while largely focused on family reunification and establishing a preference system for visa allocation, added several clauses that significantly impacted the employment-based immigration landscape. By setting quotas and priority dates, it influenced the availability of visas for high-skilled workers in the science and technology sectors. | ||
The amendment's "special handling" provisions facilitated the hiring of foreign academics, potentially disadvantaging American researchers by allowing universities to prioritize foreign candidates. By allowing universities to prioritize marginally more qualified foreign candidates, the amendment contributed to wage suppression and reduced job opportunities for domestic talent. This policy also risked stifling innovation by incentivizing the hiring of less risky, potentially less innovative candidates, thereby impacting the quality and creativity of U.S. research output. | The amendment's "special handling" provisions facilitated the hiring of foreign academics, potentially disadvantaging American researchers by allowing universities to prioritize foreign candidates. By allowing universities to prioritize marginally more qualified foreign candidates, the amendment contributed to wage suppression and reduced job opportunities for domestic talent. This policy also risked stifling innovation by incentivizing the hiring of less risky, potentially less innovative candidates, thereby impacting the quality and creativity of U.S. research output. | ||