The inaugural Thanksgiving celebration took place in 1621 in Massachusetts, organized by the Pilgrims to give thanks for a bountiful harvest. As we gather around our Thanksgiving tables this week, many of us who are immigrants or their descendants, we are reminded of the pressing need for President-elect Obama to address the flaws in our current immigration policy. Instead of a logical immigration system, we witness sporadic immigration raids on businesses suspected of hiring undocumented workers, leading to deportations that can tear families apart. The issue of what to do about the approximately 12 million undocumented immigrants is one of the most contentious aspects of the immigration dilemma. Many people are not likely to go back to their home countries, even with the current difficult economic situation. We don't want them to leave either, as they often work in jobs that Americans don't want to do, both in high-skill fields like scientific research and medical research, and in basic low-skill jobs such as gardening, car washing, and cleaning. President Bush's comprehensive immigration proposals in 2007 were not passed by Congress, despite support from both Democratic and Republican leaders. The question now is whether President Obama will be able to succeed where Bush did not. Obama's proposal closely resembles the bill that was unsuccessful, including measures such as enhanced border protection, increased visas for new immigrants, penalties for employers hiring undocumented workers, and a pathway to citizenship for current undocumented workers after paying a fine. This proposal would be a significant advancement, however, if Congress does not pass immigration reform due to rising unemployment rates, there is still the option to enhance American labor markets through more limited actions. For example, allowing the Department of Labor to independently determine the number of work permits and temporary visas issued each quarter could help improve the system. The Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) follows the law by granting 65,000 H-1B temporary visas to skilled workers, as certified by the Labor Department out of 630,000 approved employer applications. Those holding H-1B visas must leave the US when their jobs end. However, most applicants do not receive a visa, leaving many foreign college graduates who studied in the US without access to American jobs, despite often being funded by American taxpayers. Foreign workers need to depart, bringing along their intellectual accomplishments and valuable expertise. They contribute to the American economy by paying taxes and keeping various businesses and industries operational. If they are forced to leave, these contributions will cease. In 2009, the H-1b visa cap of 65,000 was met just one week after the application process began on April 1, 2008. This accounts for a very small portion of the total U.S. labor force of 154 million. Even if the quota was increased to 150,000, it would still be less than one tenth of 1% of the labor force. This would still result in the majority of applicants being denied admission due to low chances of success. Instead of Congress having to constantly change laws based on economic fluctuations, the Labor Department is better equipped to assess changing labor markets and adjust visa quotas accordingly. It is suggested that Congress should allow the Labor Department to determine the number of visas to issue on a quarterly basis. This would involve issuing fewer visas during periods of high unemployment and increasing them when unemployment decreases. The Department could handle visa management without negatively impacting U.S. workers or community resources like schools and hospitals. Allowing the Labor Department to adjust legal immigration quarterly could be beneficial for America, potentially resolving the immigration controversies that have existed during the Bush administration and setting a more positive tone for the new year under President-elect Obama. That would be a reason to express gratitude next Thanksgiving, according to Diana Furchtgott-Roth, who formerly served as the chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor and is now a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. The views expressed belong to her. For further contact, Diana Furchtgott-Roth can be reached at dfr@hudson.org.