Under the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act, the H-1B visa allows technology companies to temporarily employ foreign workers in specialty occupations. This paper presents a case study of Asian Indian engineers on H-1B visas working in technology companies in the United States. They enter the U.S. technology sector through one single H-1B visa program, yet they follow different sub-paths of H-1B visa. Depending on how they enter the U.S. technology sector, Asian Indian engineers differ significantly in their working conditions and socio-economic experiences. The paper is based on both primary data and secondary sources. Primary data comes from a National Science Foundation (NSF) funded study on return migration of Asian Indian engineers from the United States.
more »
« less
Asian Indian Engineers on H-1B Visa in the United States
Under the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act, the H-1B visa allows technology companies to
temporarily employ foreign workers in specialty occupations. This paper presents a case study of
Asian Indian engineers on H-1B visas working in technology companies in the United States.
They enter the U.S. technology sector through one single H-1B visa program, yet they follow
different sub-paths of H-1B visa. Depending on how they enter the U.S. technology sector, Asian
Indian engineers differ significantly in their working conditions and socio-economic experiences.
The paper is based on both primary data and secondary sources. Primary data comes from a
National Science Foundation (NSF) funded study on return migration of Asian Indian engineers
from the United States.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1655366
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10252951
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- American Society for Engineering Education-Gulf-Southwest Section
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
null (Ed.)Foreign-born scientists and engineers are increasingly present in technology companies in the United States. Some of them are immigrants, that is, aliens admitted to the US for lawful permanent residence; others are non-immigrants, that is, aliens admitted to the US for a specific period of time for temporary work. Whether immigrant or non-immigrant, an overwhelming majority of foreign-born scientists and engineers enter the US technology sector through one single H-1B visa program. Using a case study of Indian engineers, this article shows different sub-paths of the H-1B visa program, which leads to significant differences in their immigration, work, and socio-economic experiences. The article is based on the secondary sources and 40 in-depth interviews conducted with Indian engineers working in US technology companies.more » « less
-
Abstract The United States has witnessed waves of immigration throughout its history, with the current immigration policies regulated by the reforms enacted under President Lyndon Johnson in 1965. Immigrants now come from all over the world, with China and India supplying the largest numbers in science and engineering (S&E) fields. Although the US is seen as coping rather successfully with immigration from Europe, that is not the case with Asian immigration. Assimilation theorists have long argued that Asian immigrants face problems in adapting to the American culture and lifestyles; in contrast, multicultural theorists have hailed cultural diversity brought by Asian immigrants. Ethnic organizations can play an integral role in Asian immigrants’ adaptation and integration in the United States. Utilizing 40 in-depth interviews of Indian immigrant engineers working in the US technology companies, the present study examines if they belong to ethnic associations. If yes, why do they feel a need to belong to these associations? If no, why not? It further sheds light on their need to belong to such associations. The findings show that the need to belong to Indian associations varied with the stage of their lives, which can be depicted as a U-shaped curve.more » « less
-
Patient-generated health data (PGHD), created and captured from patients via wearable devices and mobile apps, are proliferating outside of clinical settings. Examples include sleep tracking, fitness trackers, continuous glucose monitors, and RFID-enabled implants, with many additional biometric or health surveillance applications in development or envisioned. These data are included in growing stockpiles of personal health data being mined for insight via big data analytics and artificial intelligence/deep learning technologies. Governing these data resources to facilitate patient care and health research while preserving individual privacy and autonomy will be challenging, as PGHD are the least regulated domains of digitalized personal health data (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2018). When patients themselves collect digitalized PGHD using “apps” provided by technology firms, these data fall outside of conventional health data regulation, such as HIPAA. Instead, PGHD are maintained primarily on the information technology infrastructure of vendors, and data are governed under the IT firm’s own privacy policies and within the firm’s intellectual property rights. Dominant narratives position these highly personal data as valuable resources to transform healthcare, stimulate innovation in medical research, and engage individuals in their health and healthcare. However, ensuring privacy, security, and equity of benefits from PGHD will be challenging. PGHD can be aggregated and, despite putative “deidentification,” be linked with other health, economic, and social data for predictive analytics. As large tech companies enter the healthcare sector (e.g., Google Health is partnering with Ascension Health to analyze the PHI of millions of people across 21 U.S. states), the lack of harmonization between regulatory regimes may render existing safeguards to preserve patient privacy and control over their PHI ineffective. While healthcare providers are bound to adhere to health privacy laws, Big Tech comes under more relaxed regulatory regimes that will facilitate monetizing PGHD. We explore three existing data protection regimes relevant to PGHD in the United States that are currently in tension with one another: federal and state health-sector laws, data use and reuse for research and innovation, and industry self-regulation by large tech companies We then identify three types of structures (organizational, regulatory, technological/algorithmic), which synergistically could help enact needed regulatory oversight while limiting the friction and economic costs of regulation. This analysis provides a starting point for further discussions and negotiations among stakeholders and regulators to do so.more » « less
-
Patient-generated health data (PGHD), created and captured from patients via wearable devices and mobile apps, are proliferating outside of clinical settings. Examples include sleep tracking, fitness trackers, continuous glucose monitors, and RFID-enabled implants, with many additional biometric or health surveillance applications in development or envisioned. These data are included in growing stockpiles of personal health data being mined for insight via big data analytics and artificial intelligence/deep learning technologies. Governing these data resources to facilitate patient care and health research while preserving individual privacy and autonomy will be challenging, as PGHD are the least regulated domains of digitalized personal health data (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2018). When patients themselves collect digitalized PGHD using “apps” provided by technology firms, these data fall outside of conventional health data regulation, such as HIPAA. Instead, PGHD are maintained primarily on the information technology infrastructure of vendors, and data are governed under the IT firm’s own privacy policies and within the firm’s intellectual property rights. Dominant narratives position these highly personal data as valuable resources to transform healthcare, stimulate innovation in medical research, and engage individuals in their health and healthcare. However, ensuring privacy, security, and equity of benefits from PGHD will be challenging. PGHD can be aggregated and, despite putative “deidentification,” be linked with other health, economic, and social data for predictive analytics. As large tech companies enter the healthcare sector (e.g., Google Health is partnering with Ascension Health to analyze the PHI of millions of people across 21 U.S. states), the lack of harmonization between regulatory regimes may render existing safeguards to preserve patient privacy and control over their PHI ineffective. While healthcare providers are bound to adhere to health privacy laws, Big Tech comes under more relaxed regulatory regimes that will facilitate monetizing PGHD. We explore three existing data protection regimes relevant to PGHD in the United States that are currently in tension with one another: federal and state health-sector laws, data use and reuse for research and innovation, and industry self-regulation by large tech companies We then identify three types of structures (organizational, regulatory, technological/algorithmic), which synergistically could help enact needed regulatory oversight while limiting the friction and economic costs of regulation. This analysis provides a starting point for further discussions and negotiations among stakeholders and regulators to do so.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- The DOI is not currently available.
