The Federal government does not collect data on race classifications of foreign-born temporary workers on temporary work visas such as H‑2A (ag), H‑2B (hospitality industry), H-1B, H‑1B1 (professionals from Chile and Singapore), E‑3 (Australia), P‑1 (Entertainers and athletes), O-1 (exceptional), J‑1 (academic researchers, engineers, etc),OPT, and TN – the latter granted routinely for Canadians and Mexicans working in the U.S. ‘
In total, up to 3 million temporary foreign workers may be in the U.S. at any point in time.
The racial/ethnic background of foreign workers is not collected by the Federal government and becomes “invisible” in diversity data.
Hypothetically, a firm could hire many white European or Canadian men on temporary visas. In official reports, they appear as “nonresident aliens,” not as “white males.”
This could make the company’s workforce appear more racially balanced than it actually is, since the “white” category would not reflect those hires.
If they hired an American “white male”, this would increase the number of white males and decrease their workforce diversity metric.
Companies under pressure to diversify could, intentionally or not, mask workforce imbalances by relying heavily on foreign hires.
This provides an incentive for some organizations to hire more temporary foreign workers, such as for H-1B or OPT or TN visa jobs:
- Their race/ethnicity is invisible in official statistics.
- Hiring foreign-born white men does not increase the “white male” count in EEO‑1 reports.
- Hiring foreign-born women shows up in sex/gender counts but not in racial categories, so it can make a workforce look more balanced by gender without affecting racial diversity metrics.
- Companies under pressure to demonstrate diversity may see foreign hiring as a way to expand their workforce without worsening their reported racial imbalance.
Some industries – like media/publishing from 20 years ago, were overwhelmingly staffed by white males. In the past 15 years or so, they began to diversify their staff – which in some examples, flipped from overwhelmingly white male to overwhelmingly female, gay or persons of color. Background on this issue in the media and academic world is here: The Lost Generation | Compact
The Academic World
Foreign hires are generally exempt from federal race/ethnicity tracking requirements in academic hiring. The federal government’s reporting rules on race and ethnicity apply only to U.S. citizens and permanent residents. Colleges and universities do not report race/ethnicity data for foreign nationals on temporary visas (such as H‑1B or J‑1), which means those hires are excluded from the official statistics.
🔎 Why this exemption exists
- Federal reporting framework: The U.S. Department of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) require institutions to collect and report race/ethnicity data for employees. However, these rules explicitly apply only to citizens and permanent residents.
- Foreign nationals: Faculty and staff hired on temporary visas (e.g., H‑1B, J‑1, O‑1) are classified separately as “nonresident aliens.” Their race/ethnicity is not tracked in federal datasets.
- IPEDS (Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System): This is the main federal database for higher education statistics. In IPEDS reporting, “nonresident aliens” are listed as a distinct category, and institutions are instructed not to assign them to racial/ethnic groups like White, Black, Asian, etc.
📊 Implications
- Data gaps: Because foreign hires are excluded from race/ethnicity tracking, official statistics may understate the representation of certain groups in academia. For example, many international faculty are of Asian descent, but they are not counted in the “Asian” category if they are on temporary visas.
- Policy debates: Critics argue this exemption skews diversity reporting, since universities with large numbers of foreign-born faculty may appear less racially diverse in federal data than they actually are.
- Compliance clarity: Institutions must still report the number of foreign hires, but only under the “nonresident alien” category, without racial breakdown.
✅ Key takeaway
The federal government does track academic hiring by race, but foreign nationals on temporary visas are exempt from being categorized by race/ethnicity. They are reported only as “nonresident aliens,” which makes them invisible in racial diversity statistics.
Private Company / Corporate Hires
Private U.S. companies do not report the race/ethnicity of foreign nationals on temporary visas in their mandatory federal filings. Just like in academia, these employees are classified as “nonresident aliens” and are excluded from race/ethnicity categories in the EEO‑1 report.
📑 How reporting works for private companies
- EEO‑1 Report:
- Required annually for private employers with 100+ employees and federal contractors with 50+ employees.
- Employers must report workforce demographics by race/ethnicity, sex, and job category.
- Foreign nationals on temporary visas:
- Classified as “nonresident aliens.”
- Their race/ethnicity is not reported in EEO‑1 filings.
- Employers only report them in a separate headcount category, without racial breakdown.
- Citizens and permanent residents:
- Their race/ethnicity must be reported under the standard categories (White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, etc.).
🔎 Why foreigners are excluded
- Legal framework: The EEOC’s reporting rules are tied to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which applies to U.S. citizens and permanent residents.
- Data consistency: Federal agencies want to avoid mixing temporary visa holders into race/ethnicity categories, since they are not covered by the same civil rights protections.
- Practicality: Many foreign hires come from diverse backgrounds, but their race/ethnicity data is not collected for compliance purposes.
📊 Implications
- Data gaps in diversity reporting:
- Universities and corporations with large numbers of foreign-born employees may appear less racially diverse in official statistics than they actually are.
- For example, many international hires of Asian descent are counted only as “nonresident aliens,” not under the “Asian” category.
- Policy debates:
- Critics argue this skews diversity metrics and underrepresents certain groups.
- Supporters note that the distinction reflects legal jurisdiction and avoids conflating U.S. civil rights categories with global demographics.
✅ Key takeaway
The federal exemption for foreign hires applies across sectors — both in academia and in private corporations. In both cases, foreign nationals on temporary visas are reported only as “nonresident aliens” and excluded from race/ethnicity categories in federal workforce data.
Several studies and reports highlight that the nonresident alien reporting category creates blind spots in diversity data, especially in the tech sector. While no single study explicitly accuses companies of using foreign hiring to “game” diversity statistics, multiple analyses show that the heavy reliance on foreign-born workers in tech complicates diversity reporting and masks racial/ethnic representation.
Public image vs. data reality: Companies can promote diversity initiatives while their official EEO‑1 filings show limited racial diversity, because foreign hires are invisible in those categories.