Skip to main content
Menu

Main navigation

  • About
    • Annual Reports
    • Leadership
    • Jobs
    • Student Programs
    • Media Information
    • Store
    • Contact
    LOADING...
  • Experts
    • Policy Scholars
    • Adjunct Scholars
    • Fellows
  • Events
    • Upcoming
    • Past
    • Event FAQs
    • Sphere Summit
    LOADING...
  • Publications
    • Studies
    • Commentary
    • Books
    • Reviews and Journals
    • Public Filings
    LOADING...
  • Blog
  • Donate
    • Sponsorship Benefits
    • Ways to Give
    • Planned Giving

Issues

  • Constitution and Law
    • Constitutional Law
    • Criminal Justice
    • Free Speech and Civil Liberties
  • Economics
    • Banking and Finance
    • Monetary Policy
    • Regulation
    • Tax and Budget Policy
  • Politics and Society
    • Education
    • Government and Politics
    • Health Care
    • Poverty and Social Welfare
    • Technology and Privacy
  • International
    • Defense and Foreign Policy
    • Global Freedom
    • Immigration
    • Trade Policy
Live Now

Blog


  • Blog Home
  • RSS

Email Signup

Sign up to have blog posts delivered straight to your inbox!

Topics
  • Banking and Finance
  • Constitutional Law
  • Criminal Justice
  • Defense and Foreign Policy
  • Education
  • Free Speech and Civil Liberties
  • Global Freedom
  • Government and Politics
  • Health Care
  • Immigration
  • Monetary Policy
  • Poverty and Social Welfare
  • Regulation
  • Tax and Budget Policy
  • Technology and Privacy
  • Trade Policy
Archives
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • Show More
October 31, 2016 4:34PM

Less Populous States Stand to Gain the Most from State‐​Based Visas

By David J. Bier

SHARE

In 2014, the Cato Institute published a policy analysis that argued that Congress should create a work visa program that would allow states to select some of the foreign workers that the federal government admits—a model that Canada has used for decades. All states would benefit from this approach, since they all suffer from low federal caps on visas and since they all have the best knowledge of their local labor markets. But the states that will likely benefit the most are states with lower populations.

While there is no breakdown of the total number of visas issued to workers by state, we know how many workers enter each state annually. This number is imprecise as a measure of the total number of workers in each state because it double counts people who leave the state and reenter during the year, but it is still useful for looking at the distribution of workers among the states.

Figure 1 presents the distribution of all worker entries and entries of workers under the most important category—the H temporary work visa—by grouping the states into three roughly equal baskets: 1) the very large states with more than five percent of the entire U.S. population, 2) those in the middle with 2 to 5 percent, and 3) those with 2 percent or less. As is readily apparent, the big four states—California, Texas, New York, and Florida—receive a much higher percentage of workers than their share of the population. The middle group of states receives only slightly less than their population share for all worker entries.

On the other hand, the smallest states receive not only fewer workers in absolute terms, but disproportionately less than other states compared to their population. These 34 states are home to 30 percent of all Americans, but receive just 18.6 percent of guest workers overall—an 11.4 percent difference between population share and worker share. A similarly large gap can be seen for worker entries under the important H category.

Figure 1: Difference Between Share of All Worker Entries and Share of U.S. Population; Share of H Worker Entries and Share of the Population in 2014

 

Sources: DHS (Entries); Census (Population)

Figure 2 breaks the third group in Figure 1—the smallest states—into two groups: 1) the 14 states with a population between 1 and 2 percent and 2) the 20 states with a population less than 1 percent of the overall U.S. population. As can be seen, it’s the higher-end of this less populous group that has the greatest disparity between population share and worker share. These are states like Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado, and Wisconsin. The 20 smallest states with populations between 0 percent and 1 of the population also had a difference, but it was a much smaller disparity—2.4 percent compared to 9 percent for states in the 1 to 2 percent range.

Figure 2: Difference Between State Share of U.S. Population and State Share of All Worker Entries and State Share of H Worker Entries in 2014

Source: See Figure 1

We know that this unequal distribution is not explained by differences in state labor market demand since domestic workers are actually moving from larger states to the smaller states. The real explanation is that larger and smaller states have different types of labor demand.

Figure 3 groups the states in the same manner as Figure 1, but breaks the H category into its two skill classes: H-1B high skilled workers and H-2s for lower skilled agricultural and non-agricultural workers (H-2As and H-2Bs). As you can see, the less populated states received a share of lesser skilled H-2 workers in proportion to their populations, but received half as many H-1Bs as their share of the population. For the more populous states, the reverse was true—they received much more high than low skilled workers.

Figure 3: Difference Between Share of H-1B Higher-Skilled Worker Positions and State Share of U.S. Population; Share of H-2 (H-2A and H-2B) Lesser-Skilled Worker Positions and State Share of U.S. Population in 2014

Sources: See Figure 1

We can take this conclusion further. Because H-1B and H-2B visas—the nonagricultural part of the H-2 class—are capped, employers actually plan to receive far more workers than they actually get under the federal system. The first step toward applying for an H visa is submitting a certification of need for a certain position to be filled by a foreign worker. The Department of Labor either approves or denies this certification. If it’s approved, then the employer submits a request to the Department of Homeland Security for visas for the workers that it wants, if there are any visas remaining.

This certification process allows a very rough comparison between the demand for workers and the number of workers that each state receives. It is very imprecise because other factors limit the number of certifications that can be filed. All H-1B certifications, for example, have to be filed on the same week six months before the workers arrive in the United States, so it underestimates total market demand. Yet as Figure 1 shows, smaller states received an appreciably lower share of worker entries than their shares of certifications of need. In other words, smaller states need a lot more lesser-skilled workers that they are unable to get under the current system.

Figure 4: Difference Between the Share of Certifications for H Worker Positions and Share of H Worker Entries in 2014 By State Share of U.S. Population

Source: DOL (Certifications), DHS

Overall the statistics on certifications for H workers reveal that every state is losing under the current system. On average, the Department of Labor approved an average of 22,438 certifications of need for H worker employment in 2014, but each state received only about 6,000 H workers in 2014. It is important to remember that this discrepancy is with all the current myriad federal rules and with no year-round visa available for lesser-skilled workers at all. The demand for workers surely far exceeds this amount.

The United States has a demand for foreign workers. While reforms to the federal system would be an improvement, Congress has consistently shown that it is incapable of estimating the needs of the states.

The table below presents all of this information for all 50 states and D.C.

Table: State Share of U.S. Population, Share of All Worker Entries, Share of H Temporary Worker Positions, Share of H-1Bs, Share of H-2s, Number of H-2s, and Number of H-1Bs in 2014

  % of US Pop % of All Entries % of Hs % of H2s % of H1Bs H2 Certs. H1B Certs % H2 Certs % H1B Certs
California  

12.1%

 

14.8%

 

15.8%

 

4.7%

 

19.8%

 

8,752

 

172,318

 

4.1%

 

18.5%

Texas  

8.1%

 

10.1%

 

8.9%

 

11.1%

 

8.9%

 

17,028

 

84,612

 

8.1%

 

9.1%

New York  

6.3%

 

14.0%

 

7.3%

 

2.8%

 

14.0%

 

7,898

 

76,105

 

3.7%

 

8.2%

Florida  

6.1%

 

6.7%

 

4.3%

 

7.9%

 

5.2%

 

20,056

 

29,447

 

9.5%

 

3.2%

Illinois  

4.2%

 

3.7%

 

4.6%

 

0.8%

 

4.9%

 

2,333

 

50,551

 

1.1%

 

5.4%

Pennsylvania  

4.1%

 

2.4%

 

4.6%

 

1.7%

 

2.6%

 

4,397

 

48,550

 

2.1%

 

5.2%

Ohio  

3.7%

 

2.0%

 

2.7%

 

1.1%

 

2.0%

 

2,715

 

28,518

 

1.3%

 

3.1%

Michigan  

3.2%

 

6.2%

 

2.4%

 

1.2%

 

2.8%

 

3,492

 

24,469

 

1.7%

 

2.6%

Georgia  

3.1%

 

2.4%

 

4.1%

 

4.5%

 

2.5%

 

12,166

 

34,841

 

5.8%

 

3.7%

North Carolina  

3.1%

 

2.1%

 

3.8%

 

6.2%

 

1.9%

 

18,380

 

24,539

 

8.7%

 

2.6%

New Jersey  

2.8%

 

3.9%

 

6.0%

 

1.1%

 

6.6%

 

3,252

 

65,505

 

1.5%

 

7.0%

Virginia  

2.6%

 

1.8%

 

2.8%

 

2.6%

 

2.4%

 

6,631

 

25,742

 

3.1%

 

2.8%

Washington  

2.2%

 

2.9%

 

3.7%

 

3.5%

 

4.4%

 

10,026

 

32,010

 

4.7%

 

3.4%

Massachusetts  

2.1%

 

3.7%

 

3.2%

 

1.0%

 

4.2%

 

3,230

 

33,473

 

1.5%

 

3.6%

Indiana  

2.1%

 

0.9%

 

0.9%

 

0.4%

 

0.8%

 

1,980

 

8,028

 

0.9%

 

0.9%

Arizona  

2.1%

 

2.8%

 

1.7%

 

17.0%

 

1.2%

 

5,710

 

13,382

 

2.7%

 

1.4%

Tennessee  

2.1%

 

1.0%

 

1.4%

 

1.6%

 

0.7%

 

3,426

 

12,868

 

1.6%

 

1.4%

Missouri  

1.9%

 

0.7%

 

1.2%

 

1.0%

 

0.7%

 

2,992

 

10,938

 

1.4%

 

1.2%

Maryland  

1.9%

 

1.4%

 

1.7%

 

1.5%

 

1.5%

 

4,436

 

14,788

 

2.1%

 

1.6%

Wisconsin  

1.8%

 

0.8%

 

1.2%

 

0.2%

 

0.8%

 

842

 

13,088

 

0.4%

 

1.4%

Minnesota  

1.7%

 

1.0%

 

1.8%

 

0.6%

 

1.3%

 

1,867

 

18,190

 

0.9%

 

1.9%

Colorado  

1.6%

 

1.3%

 

1.5%

 

2.2%

 

1.0%

 

5,225

 

12,263

 

2.5%

 

1.3%

Alabama  

1.5%

 

0.7%

 

0.4%

 

1.1%

 

0.3%

 

1,911

 

2,586

 

0.9%

 

0.3%

South Carolina  

1.5%

 

0.8%

 

0.9%

 

1.5%

 

0.4%

 

4,885

 

4,977

 

2.3%

 

0.5%

Louisiana  

1.5%

 

0.9%

 

1.3%

 

5.3%

 

0.3%

 

12,106

 

2,450

 

5.7%

 

0.3%

Kentucky  

1.4%

 

0.8%

 

1.2%

 

3.2%

 

0.4%

 

7,438

 

6,166

 

3.5%

 

0.7%

Oregon  

1.2%

 

0.7%

 

0.8%

 

0.6%

 

0.7%

 

1,639

 

7,505

 

0.8%

 

0.8%

Oklahoma  

1.2%

 

0.4%

 

0.4%

 

0.8%

 

0.3%

 

1,890

 

3,154

 

0.9%

 

0.3%

Connecticut  

1.2%

 

1.1%

 

1.8%

 

0.2%

 

1.6%

 

857

 

20,183

 

0.4%

 

2.2%

Iowa  

1.0%

 

0.4%

 

0.6%

 

0.5%

 

0.4%

 

1,267

 

5,885

 

0.6%

 

0.6%

Mississippi  

1.0%

 

0.4%

 

0.5%

 

2.1%

 

0.1%

 

5,131

 

868

 

2.4%

 

0.1%

Arkansas  

0.9%

 

0.5%

 

0.9%

 

2.0%

 

0.4%

 

5,203

 

5,355

 

2.5%

 

0.6%

Kansas  

0.9%

 

0.4%

 

0.5%

 

0.6%

 

0.4%

 

1,789

 

4,122

 

0.8%

 

0.4%

Utah  

0.9%

 

0.4%

 

0.5%

 

0.7%

 

0.4%

 

1,644

 

3,905

 

0.8%

 

0.4%

Nevada  

0.9%

 

0.6%

 

0.4%

 

0.9%

 

0.2%

 

2,138

 

2,305

 

1.0%

 

0.2%

New Mexico  

0.7%

 

0.2%

 

0.1%

 

0.1%

 

0.1%

 

241

 

1,328

 

0.1%

 

0.1%

West Virginia  

0.6%

 

0.1%

 

0.1%

 

0.0%

 

0.1%

 

136

 

574

 

0.1%

 

0.1%

Nebraska  

0.6%

 

0.7%

 

0.4%

 

0.3%

 

0.7%

 

1,604

 

3,032

 

0.8%

 

0.3%

Idaho  

0.5%

 

0.2%

 

0.4%

 

1.0%

 

0.1%

 

4,013

 

1,007

 

1.9%

 

0.1%

Hawaii  

0.4%

 

0.4%

 

0.1%

 

0.0%

 

0.2%

 

39

 

615

 

0.0%

 

0.1%

Maine  

0.4%

 

0.6%

 

0.3%

 

1.4%

 

0.1%

 

1,767

 

1,583

 

0.8%

 

0.2%

New Hampshire  

0.4%

 

0.3%

 

0.3%

 

0.6%

 

0.3%

 

497

 

2,879

 

0.2%

 

0.3%

Rhode Island  

0.3%

 

0.2%

 

0.5%

 

0.1%

 

0.3%

 

293

 

4,896

 

0.1%

 

0.5%

Montana  

0.3%

 

0.2%

 

0.1%

 

0.3%

 

0.0%

 

1,130

 

248

 

0.5%

 

0.0%

Delaware  

0.3%

 

0.3%

 

0.5%

 

0.2%

 

0.3%

 

359

 

5,139

 

0.2%

 

0.6%

South Dakota  

0.3%

 

0.1%

 

0.2%

 

0.4%

 

0.1%

 

1,675

 

479

 

0.8%

 

0.1%

Alaska  

0.2%

 

0.2%

 

0.1%

 

0.2%

 

0.1%

 

1,194

 

301

 

0.6%

 

0.0%

North Dakota  

0.2%

 

0.3%

 

0.2%

 

0.5%

 

0.1%

 

1,844

 

748

 

0.9%

 

0.1%

Vermont  

0.2%

 

0.3%

 

0.1%

 

0.4%

 

0.1%

 

1,074

 

637

 

0.5%

 

0.1%

D.C.  

0.2%

 

1.0%

 

0.5%

 

0.0%

 

0.9%

 

1

 

5,848

 

0.0%

 

0.6%

Wyoming  

0.2%

 

0.1%

 

0.1%

 

0.3%

 

0.0%

 

594

 

135

 

0.3%

 

0.0%

Averages  

4,141

 

18,297

Sources: See Figure 1, Figure 4

Related Tags
International Economics, Development & Immigration

Stay Connected to Cato

Sign up for the newsletter to receive periodic updates on Cato research, events, and publications.

View All Newsletters

1000 Massachusetts Ave, NW,
Washington, DC 20001-5403
(202) 842-0200
Contact Us
Privacy

Footer 1

  • About
    • Annual Reports
    • Leadership
    • Jobs
    • Student Programs
    • Media Information
    • Store
    • Contact

Footer 2

  • Experts
    • Policy Scholars
    • Adjunct Scholars
    • Fellows
  • Events
    • Upcoming
    • Past
    • Event FAQs
    • Sphere Summit

Footer 3

  • Publications
    • Books
    • Cato Journal
    • Regulation
    • Cato Policy Report
    • Cato Supreme Court Review
    • Cato’s Letter
    • Human Freedom Index
    • Economic Freedom of the World
    • Cato Handbook for Policymakers

Footer 4

  • Blog
  • Donate
    • Sponsorship Benefits
    • Ways to Give
    • Planned Giving
Also from Cato Institute:
Libertarianism.org
|
Humanprogress.org
|
Downsizinggovernment.org