Wall Street Journal
By Dhanya Ann Thoppil
September 2, 2013
Proposed changes to U.S. immigration law in the U.S. Senate could have a severe impact on the business model of information-technology outsourcers.
The provisions in the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act passed by the Senate in June, seek to curb the use of skilled-worker visas used by many companies to send relatively inexpensive foreign employees to the U.S.
The bill is currently stuck in the House of Representatives, which wants to consider immigration reform in a series of smaller bills.
Indian companies complain that the bill targets their business models and helps their U.S.-based rivals.
But it’s not only Indian firms that are feeling threatened by the bill.
New Jersey-based Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp.CTSH +1.62% is one of the U.S. firms caught in the crosshairs of this bill, because it relies heavily on skilled-worker visas to service its U.S. clients at their offices. The company has more than three-quarters of its workforce based in India.
The company’s President Gordon Coburn spoke with The Wall Street Journal recently. He said some of the aspects of the bill creates artificial restrictions against American companies that seek to access the best talent from around the world. But he is hopeful of the bill eventually morphing into something that fixes the problems with immigration while allowing companies to continue to recruit globally.
Edited excerpts:
The Wall Street Journal: Does the immigration reform bill in its present form worry Cognizant?
Gordon Coburn: The immigration bill legislation is playing out as we expected. The Senate has passed the bill. There are some very good proposals in that bill for the American economy, including increase in the visa caps, fixing the green card processes so that U.S. companies can access some of the best talent around the world. But the Senate bill also has clear provisions that are problematic, particularly around restrictions on using skilled-worker H1-B visas.
In the House of Representatives, some of the good parts of the Senate bill have been retained. At the same time, some of the problematic components are not being included in the House discussion. The best example is the one bill that has come out so far from the House judiciary committee, which was not comprehensive immigration reforms but just focused on high-skilled immigration. It increased the visa caps, fixed green card processes and removed the outplacement clause, which bars H1-B reliant companies from placing foreign employees at client sites.
WSJ: Are you happy with the way the bill is currently taken up in the House?
Mr. Coburn: We are optimistic that as the immigration debate continues, we’ll end up with something that’s good for the American economy, good for U.S. companies and good for our industry; fixing the problems with immigration, but not creating artificial restrictions on American companies from accessing the best talent from around the world. We are quite optimistic with what the House has done so far.
WSJ: Do you expect the final version of the bill to be watered down from the version passed by the Senate?
Mr. Coburn: I think it’s too early to know. There is a more fundamental question. Will the House actually pass the comprehensive immigration reforms or will they pass several separate bills each dealing with a component of immigration? That’s a big open question right now. The House leadership has said they will not consider the Senate bill. Rather, they are going to develop their own bill. What they have developed so far does not have the onerous clauses.
WSJ: What’s the feedback from your clients about the bill?
Mr. Coburn: We actually feel quite good about how clients are approaching the question of immigration. Where clients have expressed concerns, we have gone and spoken to them. We have had very mature conversations with clients about the range of possible outcomes and what they would mean to the industry. We have not seen any change in client buying behavior whatsoever. Clients continue to make purchases.
The number of clients that we have actually had a conversation with, is few and far between. It is business as usual with our clients.
WSJ: Have your clients voiced their opinion on this issue?
Mr. Coburn: Selectively clients are weighing in through trade associations or directly. That’s a small number of clients right now which is fine and appropriate. We are actually feeling quite good about how clients are thinking about immigration.
WSJ: Are clients aware of the gravity of the threat from comprehensive bill passed by the Senate?
Mr. Coburn: They are more focused on what the potential outcomes are from this bill and what it means for their business. I think clients are aware of it. But I don’t think clients are viewing it as this grave situation, because they broadly understand that the House will not consider the Senate bill.
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment