Letter writer Jon Cushman mentioned Einstein, Rickover and Tesla; they were immigrants, not temporary workers.
It’s about filling jobs.
Merely saying we’re a country of …
Unlock unlimited access for just $1 for your first month
Please log in to continue |
Letter writer Jon Cushman mentioned Einstein, Rickover and Tesla; they were immigrants, not temporary workers.
It’s about filling jobs.
Merely saying we’re a country of immigrants is an understatement. When discussing pathways for foreign nationals to work in the United States, two terms emerge: the H-1B visa, which allows one to work temporarily, and the immigration visa (or green card), to live here permanently.
While these terms are sometimes used interchangeably in casual conversation, they are fundamentally different in purpose, eligibility and long-term residency. Understanding the distinction is crucial.
The H-1B is a non-immigrant visa designed for highly skilled foreign workers in specialty occupations. It is temporary, employer-specific and intended for skilled professionals to address immediate workforce needs for up to six years.
These occupations typically require a bachelor’s degree or higher in fields such as technology, engineering, health care or finance. Employers in the U.S. pay a sponsorship fee of $2,000 to $8,000 annually for H-1B worker’s visas where qualified domestic candidates are scarce.
It often costs more than a domestic worker because of the additional overhead to manage the system.
The immigration visa is a permanent solution for individuals who wish to establish long-term roots in the U.S.
All fees and requirements are borne by the immigrant along with navigating the immigration system.
The U.S. faces two critical challenges for maintaining its global competitiveness: a shortage of STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) graduates and an overreliance on foreign-born talent to fill the gap.
These issues are intertwined, as the shortage of U.S.-trained STEM professionals leaves employers struggling to meet the demand for skilled workers.
Many college curriculums require courses that seem to serve little purpose beyond sustaining institutional budgets or retaining faculty, often at the expense of students’ time, money and motivation.
One of the most glaring examples is the heavy emphasis on abstract, theoretical math courses in STEM programs — courses that many students view as irrelevant to their career goals. For some, these classes become insurmountable roadblocks, discouraging them from completing degrees in science, technology, engineering or mathematics and exacerbating the already critical shortage of STEM graduates in the U.S.
Students often fail to see how abstract math concepts connect to real-world problems, leaving them frustrated and disconnected.
Instead, universities could tailor math instruction to the practical needs of individual fields. This practical approach to math would not only reduce attrition by making STEM programs more approachable but also prepare graduates with job-ready skills.
Instead of treating math as an academic hurdle, frame it as an indispensable tool for innovation and problem-solving in specific careers.
Expanding access to STEM in our K-12 schools, promoting mentorship programs and fostering variation are essential steps to producing our own workforce. To secure its economic future, the U.S. must adopt a two-pronged approach: reform STEM education to align with industry needs and modernize immigration policies to attract and retain top talent.
Without these measures, the nation risks falling behind in innovation and global competitiveness.
Ray Anderson
Ethel