next »

[youraisemeup]

Dear all:

Just got a phone call from a school (in which I am really interested)that showed interest in my application while asking me if I either had citizenship or PR (USA). My answer was no to both, and the response was 'we will take that into consideration'. Nothing about citizen or PR only appeared in the original job ads. Any chance for me to get an interview?

Thank you very much for your response!

[placid_casual]

Obtaining visas for non-US citizens can be a little costly and sometimes tricky - small schools in particular may be a bit wary, but generally most places value the diversity of an international perspective, and so it all washes out (the cost and hastle is a negative, but the diversity is a positive). The cost and hastle is also marginal versus the benefits of getting the best candidate, and so non-citizenship should almost never rule you out or be a real factor for an academic job.
As to asking you about your status, for me it is an out of bounds question at this stage - akin to asking whether you are married. So I think whoever asked you is on pretty thin ice, although of course there is no point you making a fuss about it now.
Once you get an offer, of course you have to disclose status and what type of visa you'll need, and you may want to get in writing that they will pay for it.

[youraisemeup]

Dear placid_casual：

Thank you for the quick response. But what if the school itself is the kind of national security and confidential type (the position advertised has nothing to do with this kind of nature). It's just my guess.

Thanks again.

[seniorscholar]

Even when a school is accustomed to doing the visa processing and will pay the fees without a thought, it is now taking a very long time. It may be already too late to arrange a visa for a faculty member who needs to be in the classroom by mid-August. "Taking that into consideration" in the best-case scenario might mean "we'll think about whether we can postpone the start to January."

And of course it's legal to ask about someone's ability to be in the US, and to work in the US, before hiring them. It would be silly not to, since the person is needed to teach classes in the US!

[placid_casual]

Even when a school is accustomed to doing the visa processing and will pay the fees without a thought, it is now taking a very long time. It may be already too late to arrange a visa for a faculty member who needs to be in the classroom by mid-August. "Taking that into consideration" in the best-case scenario might mean "we'll think about whether we can postpone the start to January."

And of course it's legal to ask about someone's ability to be in the US, and to work in the US, before hiring them. It would be silly not to, since the person is needed to teach classes in the US!

Hiring has to be made without recourse to nationality in the same way as it does toward gender, sexual orientation etc. The equivalent to refusing to hire someone due to the cost and hassle of obtaining a visa is refusing to hire a woman on the basis that she may at some point take maternity leave. The only way nationality comes into it is the school has to prove you are better qualified for the job than any US citizen who applied. But this is implicit in their decision to extend the offer.
Ability to work in the US is, for most people, dependent upon having an offer and being sponsored by an employer for a status. So it is circular reasoning for an employer to ask a candidate if they can work in the US - they cannot, until you hire them and sponsor them for a status.
Time depends on what sort of visa you need. If your school pays more, you can get 'premium processing' and have the whole thing done within a month.
All of the above assumes no disqualifying factors (i.e. criminal record, previous immigration violations etc).
This area in particular needs to be handled in close consultation with legal bods at the school - it is quite heavily regulated by law with obligations on both employer and employee. The more general point, as anyone who has served on an SC will recount, is that there are laws pertaining to hiring and one cannot be blase about what can and cannot be asked, communicated etc.

[seniorscholar]

Hiring has to be made without recourse to nationality in the same way as it does toward gender, sexual orientation etc. 

Can you give me a reference for that statement?

So far as I know, for example, "sexual orientation" is part of the Equal Opportunity policy only if covered in the particular school's statement -- it's not a federal policy.

And even the Equal Opportunity Policy at my university -- which does include sexual orientation and a number of other things -- says (as US policies do) "National Origin" not "nationality." That means we can't discriminate against US citizens who were born (or whose parents or ancestors were born) in another country, but there is certainly nothing that requires us to hire someone who has at present no legal right to work in the US and is both a citizen and a resident of another country.

[placid_casual]

Hiring has to be made without recourse to nationality in the same way as it does toward gender, sexual orientation etc. 

Can you give me a reference for that statement?

So far as I know, for example, "sexual orientation" is part of the Equal Opportunity policy only if covered in the particular school's statement -- it's not a federal policy.

And even the Equal Opportunity Policy at my university -- which does include sexual orientation and a number of other things -- says (as US policies do) "National Origin" not "nationality." That means we can't discriminate against US citizens who were born (or whose parents or ancestors were born) in another country, but there is certainly nothing that requires us to hire someone who has at present no legal right to work in the US and is both a citizen and a resident of another country.

You are not 'required' to hire anyone other than the best available candidate for the job. If by 'no legal right' you mean someone without current documents authorizing work in the US, then as I indicated before this is circular reasoning as this status cannot be obtained by a candidate on their own - a job offer and the sponsorship of an institution (including them documenting they will pay a fair wage to the non US citizen etc) is required.
Consider this: a candidate is a doctoral student at a US institution but is a citizen of another country. They apply for jobs in the US. They have no 'legal right to work' as their current status is that of a student, with employment prohibited. They can, however, obtain a status change allowing them to work in the US if they are successful in receiving a job offer.
I hope it doesn't need to be pointed out that academia, by definition, should be nationality blind on principle and that, if non-US citizens were not hired at US institutions, we would be impoverished in all disciplines and several (math, some hard sciences) would be untenable given the pool of available talent among the US population.

[draco]

You are not 'required' to hire anyone other than the best available candidate for the job. If by 'no legal right' you mean someone without current documents authorizing work in the US, then as I indicated before this is circular reasoning as this status cannot be obtained by a candidate on their own - a job offer and the sponsorship of an institution (including them documenting they will pay a fair wage to the non US citizen etc) is required.

I don't think it is circular reasoning, rather it is a valid concern for the institution making the hire.  There are lots of costs associated with the immigration process.  Who will pay for the tourist visa when they come for an interview?  Who will pay for the expedited work visa if they land the job?  There is a fast-track for work visas, but it involves at least a $1000 fee. 

Your example of an international doctoral student already in the US is a bit different.  It is much easier to readjust your status than it is to get the initial visa.

I've heard that the new immigration bill is going to severely restrict hiring of foreign nationals for high paying and/or prestigious jobs.  Does anyone know if this provision extends to academic positions? 

[old_school]

Dear all:

Just got a phone call from a school (in which I am really interested)that showed interest in my application while asking me if I either had citizenship or PR (USA).

I too believe this question was out of bounds at this stage of the process.

However, I always recommend those with "ambigious"/foreign sounding names who are PR/US citizens put this on their CV just so not to be tossed out of the pile outright (in case that might happen - which I suspect does).

[placid_casual]

You are not 'required' to hire anyone other than the best available candidate for the job. If by 'no legal right' you mean someone without current documents authorizing work in the US, then as I indicated before this is circular reasoning as this status cannot be obtained by a candidate on their own - a job offer and the sponsorship of an institution (including them documenting they will pay a fair wage to the non US citizen etc) is required.

I don't think it is circular reasoning, rather it is a valid concern for the institution making the hire.  There are lots of costs associated with the immigration process.  Who will pay for the tourist visa when they come for an interview?  Who will pay for the expedited work visa if they land the job?  There is a fast-track for work visas, but it involves at least a $1000 fee. 

Your example of an international doctoral student already in the US is a bit different.  It is much easier to readjust your status than it is to get the initial visa.

I've heard that the new immigration bill is going to severely restrict hiring of foreign nationals for high paying and/or prestigious jobs.  Does anyone know if this provision extends to academic positions? 

The validity of the concern is separate from the linearity of the reasoning: To refuse to interview someone because they do not have a work visa is to prevent them from being able to obtain a work visa, given that you need a job and institutional sponsorship to do so in many circumstances (ie absent close familiy ties with a US citizen).
Is it a valid concern? Well, the costs, which will be 1-2 thousand for a temporary work visa (depending on whether expedited processing is required) and maybe double that for permanent residency (depending on whether the school can do the legal stuff in house) have to be weighed against the costs of not hiring the best candidate, regardless of nationality.
Quite properly, immigration law requires that foreign nationals can only be hired if they are more qualified for the specific position than US citizens, so no one needs to get all Lou Dobbs here.
Can one inquire into citizenship if the candidate doesn't disclose it in their materials (many do, as a line on the cv) and use it as a basis for selecting candidates for interview (which I took as the OP's scenario)? For me, it is out of bounds ethically, akin, as I stated before, to asking about marital status or the other verboten personal things. Once an offer is made, it is always contingent on obtaining the right to legal employment, and issues of who will pay what can be discussed then. Most schools will offer to pay everything and have done it many times, and consider it strengthens their institution to have a diverse community of international scholars.

[zharkov]

The validity of the concern is separate from the linearity of the reasoning: To refuse to interview someone because they do not have a work visa is to prevent them from being able to obtain a work visa, given that you need a job and institutional sponsorship to do so in many circumstances (ie absent close familiy ties with a US citizen).

This is how it works:

Legitimate question:  Can you please explain your legal right to work in the US?

Legitimate answer:  I am eligible for an H1B visa.

End of story.

[youraisemeup]

Thank you all for the input.

So, at this point, what shall I do? Wait for them to call me again if any? or just call them and let them know that I am eligible for working in USA with a H1 visa if I can be given an offer by them? By the way, it's a pretty prestigious school, so I assume getting an H1 visa won't be an issue if I can be given an offer of course.

Any idea? Thanks again

[wutan]

Legitimate question:  Can you please explain your legal right to work in the US?

Legitimate answer:  I am eligible for an H1B visa.

Perfect, thanks for the summary, Zharkov. This is the strategy I will be taking for my job search next year (especially for the tricky form question if I am legally allowed to work in the US).

Merigan's statement about a change to the immigration law to restrict hiring foreign nationals sounds very troubling to me. I do hope this does not extend to academic positions (certainly not high-paying, but perhaps prestigious).

[placid_casual]

The validity of the concern is separate from the linearity of the reasoning: To refuse to interview someone because they do not have a work visa is to prevent them from being able to obtain a work visa, given that you need a job and institutional sponsorship to do so in many circumstances (ie absent close familiy ties with a US citizen).

This is how it works:

Legitimate question:  Can you please explain your legal right to work in the US?

Legitimate answer:  I am eligible for an H1B visa.

End of story.

*Anyone* is eligible for H1B status assuming a) an academic job offer and b) no criminal record or previous immigration violations. So yes, that is the answer to a legitimate question that can be posed after an offer has been extended. To pose it before that point is out of bounds, although if a candidate is asked it (as if they are asked about marital status) the only rational response is to calmly and gracefully answer.

[placid_casual]

Legitimate question:  Can you please explain your legal right to work in the US?

Legitimate answer:  I am eligible for an H1B visa.

Perfect, thanks for the summary, Zharkov. This is the strategy I will be taking for my job search next year (especially for the tricky form question if I am legally allowed to work in the US).

Merigan's statement about a change to the immigration law to restrict hiring foreign nationals sounds very troubling to me. I do hope this does not extend to academic positions (certainly not high-paying, but perhaps prestigious).

Current H1-B law places academia in a separate category than other prestigious jobs (it is the skills and training needed to perform these jobs that places them in the H1 category - MA and above). There is a yearly quota of H1-B's for business jobs, but academic jobs are exempt from this quota.
It has been an unfortunate side-effect of the policies and rhetoric of the last few years that talented foreign nationals find it increasingly difficult to study and work in the US, due to both tightening of official regulations and the fact that employers (and search committees) either don't understand immigration law or don't want to deal with the extra hassle. This is why it is important that this group is protected from having their applications singled out and having SC's act as self-appointed immigration officials. Of course, there has been a drop of in international applications to grad school, with these applicants instead studying in Europe or, increasingly, China. The long-term consequences for the health of the US economy are quite negative.