In the age of the Global Marketplace, multinational companies are vying for business not just within our borders but around the world. In many instances this means employing personnel from around the world in order to maintain a competitive advantage and keep their products on the cutting edge.
The U.S. Congress in its collective wisdom identified this Global Marketplace and adapted U.S. Immigration laws to allow multinationals the tools and human power to succeed by enacting the intracompany visa. The classification allowed for the transfer of executives and managers (L-1A) and specialized knowledge employees (L-1B) from overseas offices to the United States. A highly useful integration and innovation program, the L-1 visa classification allowed U.S. companies (whether it be based in or subsidiaries of foreign companies) to draw on the collective wisdom of its international workforce and bring those crucial employees to the U.S.
Over the course of the last 3 years, there has been a sea change in the way the immigration service is interpreting qualifications for these visa classifications. With a critical eye and an assumption that U.S. employers are shirking the immigration laws by taking advantage of the L-1 classification, the USCIS has single-handedly put the squeeze on the international marketplace and by extension the ability of the U.S. to compete on an international level.
Petitions that were approved 3 years ago are now being denied authorized extensions because of the misplaced fear and tragic assumptions of the USCIS. Employers are confused and looking for a more efficient way and place in which to conduct their global outreach and sales. Why battle with time, money and uncertainty when you can run to Canada, Ireland, Finland, Australia and be assured of a certainty, promise your clients a certain talent and achieve your goals without a surprise from the USCIS.
The policy shift threatens congresses ability to regulate the immigration laws of the U.S., contradicts years of agency guidance and interpretation, and interferes with the image of the United States as an economic power player on the global stage. All because of a shift in USCIS interpretation of why employers are using this category and the "we will show you mentality" of government bureaucrats left to their own devices. Nationally very little is understood of the economic implications of decisions by an officer at the California Service Center. Internationally, this malaise is well understood. Countries are capitalizing on our inability to hold true and speak with one voice on immigration policy. Companies are slowly realizing that their own government is hindering their ability to compete, and many are taking action.
On a weekly basis, I read of another multinational opening a North American base of operations outside the borders of the United States. This is tragic not just for the company, but hardworking Americans. Americans that would have been employed at these facilities are now seeing jobs forced outside the U.S. not necessarily because of cheap labor but rather a more stable immigration policy. We see companies moving operations to attractive and competitive international hubs with the capability of cornering the U.S. Market from outside our borders.
As we argue and the xenophobes create a political firestorm, those xenophobes may soon find they are begging for visas and jobs in Canada, Europe and Australia. How many more Detroits will come to bear before we realize the economic battle was loft at the California Service Center?
