That is not correct. The G. W. Bush administration, just before leaving the office, gave all the legal immigrants "Job Mobility" (i.e., their H1B visa was not anymore tied to the employer). It is minor and easy step President could take under his executive power.
Reference for this? I see that Bush proposed something like this in 2004, but I can't find any reference for it ever having been implemented.
Bush Administration made the "priority date current" for a short window; this allowed legal immigrants waiting in the line for Permanent Residency to file and obtain 485-EAD.
https://www.murthy.com/2012/10/26/using-the-ead-as-an-option...
So, I tried to keep it simple by mentioning "job mobility".
The priority dates became current abruptly for a month in July 2007 (see [1], [2] and [3] for Visa Bulletins for Jun/Jul/Aug 2007; "C" means current, "U" means unavailable). This was also the time period when "labor substitution" [4] was possible - i.e the employer could substitute a new prospective employee in the place of another who has an approved labor certification. Together, this enabled many people on H-1B to get an EAD [5]. EADs offer more or less the same flexibility as Green Cards for the purpose of employment.
This is probably what suryacom meant.
Labor substitution provision has since been revoked.
[1] Visa bulletin for June 2007: https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/law-and-policy/bul...
[2] Visa bulletin for July 2007: https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/law-and-policy/bul...
[3] Visa bulletin for August 2007: https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/law-and-policy/bul...
[4] http://www.kenreyeslaw.com/blog/2014/october/labor-certifica...
[5] https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-processes-and-pr...
The incoming administration has targeted the H-1B program and thanks to their control of the legislative arm and their embrace of the "southern strategy" I would expect things to get significantly worse for H-1Bs, especially those with the wrong skin color.
Here is a concrete example of something the Obama administration - the executive arm - did actually do for H1Bs - clarifying that there is a 60 day grace prior for switching jobs:
https://www.uscis.gov/news/news-releases/uscis-publishes-fin...
It was not. Please see my sibling comment.
Furthermore, Obama administration has explicitly declined to allow such provisions despite being well aware of this situation and after publicly promising relief.
In a memo[1] dated 11/20/2014 (right after the President's State of the Union address [2]), Jeh Johnson (Secretary of Dept. of Homeland Security) stated:
As you know, our employment-based immigration system is
afflicted with extremely long waits for immigrant visas, or
"green cards," due to relatively low green card numerical limits
established by Congress 24 years ago in 1990.
...
The resulting backlogs for green cards prevent U.S. employers
from attracting and retaining highly skilled workers critical to
their businesses. U.S. businesses have historically relied on
temporary visas- such as H-1B, L-1B, or 0-1 visas-to retain
individuals with needed skills as they work their way through
these backlogs. But as the backlogs for green cards grow longer,
it is increasingly the case that temporary visas fail to fill
the gap.
...
To correct this problem, I hereby direct USCIS to take several
steps to modernize and improve the immigrant visa process.
> clarifying that there is a 60 day grace prior for switching jobs
Notice how little the actual action was compared to the lofty initial rhetoric.
[1]: Executive Action: Support High-skilled Business and Workers - https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/14_1120...
[2]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/28/presi...
[3]: USCIS Publishes Final Rule For Certain Employment-Based Immigrant and Nonimmigrant Visa Programs - https://www.uscis.gov/news/news-releases/uscis-publishes-fin...
It is rather disappointing that more action has not been taken to remedy this increasingly byzantine process. Its rather frustrating to jump through all the hoops and then be told to wait for 10+ years for the legal right to work after having contributed thousands of dollars in taxes, social security etc.
Yes. The content of the actual rule can be found at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-11-18/pdf/2016-27540.p.... It says:
Nonimmigrants in certain high-skilled, nonimmigrant classifications may
be granted grace periods of up to 10 days before and after their validity
period, and a grace period upon cessation of employment on which the
foreign national’s classification was based, for up to 60 days or until the
end of their authorized validity period, whichever is shorter, during each
authorized validity period.
It is this conflation that hurts the legal immigrants the most. I believe if a bill was introduced to reform the legal immigration process to permit more highly skilled workers to immigrate more easily, neither of the houses (nor the public) would have a problem with it.
When the Democrat leadership argues for "comprehensive immigration reform" they are shooting down separating skilled from low-skilled immigration.
"Senate lawmakers who are most involved with immigration legislation--the so-called Gang of Eight--would prefer to see a comprehensive deal. That's also the position President Obama has taken. The trick lies in corralling enough Republicans to support a total-package process, as opposed to striking a set of smaller agreements. Carving out skilled immigration might lead to an easy bipartisan win, but it would give ammunition to piecemealers and risk fracturing the Gang of Eight."
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/democrat...
I disagree. I think that a lot of politicians would refuse to sign any legislation with the words "permit" and "immigrant" in them. The public at large as misinformed enough that they're probably right to do so, too, if they want to be re-elected.
Yes, the executive branch got stalled on immigration reform, but it was executive branch's choice to roll all of the issues (illegal immigration per se, illegal immigrants with children legally granted US citizenship status, illegal immigrants who overstayed their temporary worker visa, F1 students with no path to immigration status, H1 temporary workers who faced employment loss, immigrant investor green cards) into one giant overarching "immigration reform".
It certainly did not have to be approached that way, unless someone specifically was looking for a way to get blocked on such omnibus approach and then throw up their hands at "lack of cooperation".
This is true for many, many things under Obama. For those of us who elected him as a "change agent" we are largely disappointed.
The part that says "the outgoing administration" is demonstrably false. The facts are that the immigration policy of the US has not changed much under Obama (with a few notable exceptions like Cuba but that is not really related to the tech industry). Please stop spreading FUD.
The immigration policy is nonsensical, but Obama has little to do with it. Perhaps the only legitimate criticism you can make is that he was not able to reform it properly.