Use of H-1B alternative skyrockets

[OhioChick]

Number of foreign STEM students in expanded Optional Practice Training program has grown many fold in six years

March 11, 2014 06:38 AM ET

In 2008, the U.S. government changed the rules on student visas and allowed foreign STEM students to work in the U.S. for up to 29 months without an H-1B visa. The program quickly grew in popularity.

Students could previously only work for 12 months before they had to get an H-1B visa.

The year that President George W. Bush approved the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program extension for science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) students, the U.S. approved 28,500 OPT applications.

In 2009, the number of approved OPT applications shot up to 90,900, and has increased every year since.

After taking office, President Obama also backed the program and expanded the number of fields included.

More: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9246867/Use_of_H_1B_alternative_skyrockets_

[LiberalEsto]

1. This is the opposite of job creation for Americans

And it really pisses me off that the President supports this job-killing, wage-lowering program.

[jsr]

2. We do not have a shortage of technical people in this country.

It's a bullshit program.

[SharonAnn]

3. If we had a real shortage, wages would be increasing. They're not.

Companies just want exploitable, cheap labor.

[BrotherIvan]

5. Bingo!

I'm so tired of the promises but the actual action is 180 degrees. This administration seems to be more corporate friendly that I could have ever imagined.

[ctsnowman]

4. Yup.

[kristopher]

6. Many fold in 6 years? No!! Many fold *as* *Shrub* *left* *office*

Under Bush
2008: 28,500
2009: 90,900

That is a 318% increase in one year

We don't have all the numbers and a quick gooscan told me nothing about number of applications, so going by the article we hear that 560,000 have used the program in total. Subtract the 28.5K for 2008 and it's 531.5k minus 90.9K leaves us 440.6K over the 3 years from 2010-2013.

That's 146.6K per year.

So during the Obama years, it has seen an additional increase of about 50% total when treating it as having occurred in a single year.
There are other ways to break down the numbers if we had more data, but with what we know it is extremely clear that the framing of a many fold increase in six years lays the blame on Obama in an extremely misleading way. It is so misleading that the article really should be seen as a deliberate lie by its author.