« March 2007 | Main | May 2007 »

April 28, 2007

Operation Return to Sender


The New York Times reports on ICE raids in California as part of a nationwide sweep. I have already posted on earlier raids. The sweep is called “Operation Return to Sender, in which more than 23,000 people have been arrested nationwide, including more than 1,800 in Northern and Central California.”


April 27, 2007

Can OSHA protect low wage immigrant workers?

This is a question we have to ask after its abject failure to address toxic exposures in microwave popcorn plants, as described this week in the New York Times. “The people at OSHA have no interest in running a regulatory agency,” said Dr. David Michaels, an occupational health expert at George Washington University who has written extensively about workplace safety. “If they ever knew how to issue regulations, they’ve forgotten. The concern about protecting workers has gone out the window.”

Sure, OSHA has made efforts, including some alliances with local organizations close to immigrant-driven industries such as home building. I have posted on some in the past. But like much of America, OSHA seems to be unable to grasp the significance of the huge multi-lingual labor presence in our economy. Mentally, the country thinks as if a tiny fraction of workers are immigrants. Well, over 12% are, and in numerous job sectors the percentage is over 50%.

A main reasons I strongly support the introduction of a guest worker program is that it will provide a foundation for more focused attention to work protections of immigrant workers – not just currently undocumented workers, but all low wage immigrant workers.


April 22, 2007

Progress on Immigration reform law

The New York Times says that a bill is closer to reality than appeared just a few weeks ago. It credits both parties as coming to a compromise over to provisions insisted on by Republicans – (1) triggers, or milestones in tightening up border controls first, and (2) a touchback provision, requiring illegal immigrants to leave the country and then return.

Other news reports says that enough Senate Republicans may change from opposition to support in order to provide a basis for Republican support in the House. The Senate may move on a bill in May' the House in July.

Here is the editorial:

Two important words to remember in the immigration debate in Congress are “triggers” and “touchback.” During last year’s ill-fated wrangling, the terms made the supporters of comprehensive reform bristle. The first refers to tough border-security benchmarks that the nation would have to meet before other parts of reform would kick in. The second refers to the requirement that illegal immigrants leave the country — even if only touching down briefly over the border — before re-entering on a legal footing.

Opponents of both concepts saw them as ways to sabotage a good bill. Triggers were seen as a way to start right away on the popular fence-building and other border-sealing measures sought by Republicans while delaying, possibly forever, the more humane elements of reform: a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants and temporary visas for new workers. The touchback provision was seen as just another unnecessary hurdle for immigrants, proposed to satisfy hard-liners.

The good news is that in this year’s debate, triggers and touchback have become potential areas of compromise. It remains true that maliciously devised triggers can be too onerous, but as The Wall Street Journal reported, Democrats are now saying that they are open to well-written trigger provisions, since that could give a bill broader support among Republicans. Reassuring Americans that border security is improving is reasonable, as long as achieving the benchmarks is not the sole and ultimate aim. Republican leaders, to their credit, have backed away from the narrow, enforcement-only approach that disgraced their efforts last year.

Triggers and touchback have already been conceded by the supporters of comprehensive reform; a bill in the House, the Strive Act, sponsored by Representatives Jeff Flake and Luis Gutierrez, would require immigrants to leave the country and return within a six-year span. It’s not ideal, but if a touchback provision is manageable and reassures people that illegal immigrants are indeed going to the back of the line, then it will be defensible.

The possible breaking of the stalemate was only part of the good news in recent days. The other part came in the form of research showing Americans way ahead of the hard right on immigration reform. The USA Today/Gallup poll found that 78 percent favored earned citizenship.

If passion and conviction were all it took to make good legislation, this problem would have been solved long ago. But progress on an issue this difficult requires hard compromises. With the 2008 presidential election barreling up like a semi — objects in mirror are closer than they appear — time pressures have focused people’s attention. Difficult details still need to be worked out, such as whether illegal workers will have to wait years for the current immigration backlog to clear before getting on a citizenship path, and whether family members will be excluded. But the outlines of a bipartisan deal are becoming clearer.

April 17, 2007

House and White House proposals compared

The Migration Policy Institute issued the other day a comparison between proposals. The Strive Act, proposed by Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ) in March, is the only bill being actively promoted in either the House or Senate at this time. The White House proposal is known only through a Powerpoint presentation which was leaked.

Six Republican senators are working with the White House. Four Democratic senators are putting together a Senate bill. Majority Leader Reid wants a Senate bill on the floor in the last two weeks of May.,

To see a more complete comparison of the proposals, go here. I am now going to focus on just the work-related aspects of the bills. Generally speaking, the Strive bill is more generous (or less draconian) than the White House proposals, in terms of current illegal and future legal low wage immigrants will be handled. Both push for more high tech temporary workers (H-1B visas. The White House proposal, modeled in part after Canadian and Australian systems, will place more emphasis on educational achievement of immigration applicants and less on family affiliations.

Here below are some comparisons.

New Temporary Workers. The Strive Act would create a new visa, the H-2C visa, for the entry of immigrant workers. The visa would be valid for three years and renewable for another three years. To become a permanent resident, an H-2C worker could either be sponsored by an employer or could self-petition after five years of US employment. After gaining permanent residency, the worker could petition for family reunification.

The White House proposal, in contrast, would allow workers, but not their families, to enter the United States on a new Y visa to work in a list of approved jobs. The Y visa would replace the current H-2A and H-2B visas (see sidebar).

Those in the main temporary worker program could enter for two years, then would have to return home for six months before returning for another two years. After six years in the United States, some foreign workers could be eligible for adjustment to permanent resident status through the normal channels, but they would not be able to reenter on a Y visa and could not stay in the country if a permanent visa remained pending when their Y visa expired.

H-2C (under Strive Act) — for temporary workers and their families. Capped at 400,000 initially, subject to annual adjustment.

Y (under White House plan) — for temporary workers, with separate conditions for seasonal and nonseasonal workers. Unspecified initial cap, subject to biennial adjustment.

Z (under White House plan) — for current unauthorized population, permitting indefinitely renewable, three-year periods of stay. Number set to accommodate current unauthorized population.

Seasonal workers on a Y visa could enter the United States for up to nine months before returning home for three months. Seasonal workers could renew their visas for as many years as desired.

Both the Strive Act and White House proposal would require various background checks for temporary worker applicants. However, the Strive Act would require a $500 fee, while the White House proposal would require a $1,500 fee.


For the complete analysis, I have pasted it below.

April 16, 2007

House Representatives Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ) introduced comprehensive immigration reform legislation in March. The Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy (STRIVE) Act addresses border security and the unauthorized immigrant population. It would also create a new guest worker program.

On the Senate side, several weeks of meetings between Republican Senators Arlen Specter (PA), Mel Martinez (FL), Lindsey Graham (SC), Jon Kyl (AZ), John Cornyn (TX), Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX), and Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez have resulted in a draft White House proposal that has some similarities to, but also starkly differs from, the Strive Act.

Addressing the Current Unauthorized Population. Both proposals would allow unauthorized immigrants to remain in the country to work if they apply for a visa and pay applicable fines. Under the White House draft proposal, immigrants could apply for three-year work visas, renewable indefinitely at a cost of $3,500 per renewal.

The Strive Act would permit unauthorized immigrants to pay fines of $500 for a "conditional nonimmigrant" status visa that would be valid for six years. Although the visa would not be renewable, it could be extended while an application for adjustment to permanent status was pending.

To become permanent residents under the White House plan, immigrants would have to return to their home countries, apply for a visa through a US embassy or consulate, and pay a fine of $10,000. The immigrant would then be legally permitted to reenter the United States through the same permanent immigration channels open to all foreign nationals.

Under the Strive Act, immigrants would be required to "touch back" by leaving the country, even if just to the Mexican or Canadian border, at some point during the six-year visa period. They would also have to pay a $1,500 fine, applicable fees, and back taxes upon their return.

Both provisions would require immigrants to undergo a criminal background check, be continuously employed (or in school for most of the year if applicable), and pass the English and civics requirements of the naturalization test in order to be eligible to adjust to permanent status.

New Temporary Workers. The Strive Act would create a new visa, the H-2C visa, for the entry of immigrant workers. The visa would be valid for three years and renewable for another three years. To become a permanent resident, an H-2C worker could either be sponsored by an employer or could self-petition after five years of US employment. After gaining permanent residency, the worker could petition for family reunification.

The White House proposal, in contrast, would allow workers, but not their families, to enter the United States on a new Y visa to work in a list of approved jobs. The Y visa would replace the current H-2A and H-2B visas (see sidebar).

Those in the main temporary worker program could enter for two years, then would have to return home for six months before returning for another two years. After six years in the United States, some foreign workers could be eligible for adjustment to permanent resident status through the normal channels, but they would not be able to reenter on a Y visa and could not stay in the country if a permanent visa remained pending when their Y visa expired.

Both the Strive Act and White House proposal would require various background checks for temporary worker applicants. However, the Strive Act would require a $500 fee, while the White House proposal would require a $1,500 fee.

The cap on H-2C visas under the Strive Act would be set at 400,000 a year, but the cap could be adjusted each year depending on market conditions. The White House plan would likewise set an unspecified initial cap that could be altered every two years by the Secretaries of Homeland Security, Labor, and Commerce.

The Strive Act also stipulates various wage and labor law protections for H-2C workers, and would protect US workers from unfair competition from H-2C workers.

Under the White House proposal, the current employer-sponsored system would be expanded from 140,000 to 700,000 visas and would be converted into a point system in which categories such as education, skills, English proficiency, and employer recommendation, as well as civic ties to the United States, would assist immigrants in gaining entry. The number and mix of visas could be adjusted periodically to best meet national interests.

Existing and Proposed Visas for Low-Skilled Workers
Existing:

H-2A — for seasonal agricultural workers.
Uncapped, but only about 32,000 visas issued in recent years.

H-2B — for seasonal workers in nonagricultural jobs.
Capped at 66,000 a year.

Proposed:

H-2C (under Strive Act) — for temporary workers and their families.
Capped at 400,000 initially, subject to annual adjustment.

Y (under White House plan) — for temporary workers, with separate conditions for seasonal and nonseasonal workers.
Unspecified initial cap, subject to biennial adjustment.

Z (under White House plan) — for current unauthorized population, permitting indefinitely renewable, three-year periods of stay.
Number set to accommodate current unauthorized population.
Seasonal workers on a Y visa could enter the United States for up to nine months before returning home for three months. Seasonal workers could renew their visas for as many years as desired.

Both the Strive Act and White House proposal would require various background checks for temporary worker applicants. However, the Strive Act would require a $500 fee, while the White House proposal would require a $1,500 fee.

The cap on H-2C visas under the Strive Act would be set at 400,000 a year, but the cap could be adjusted each year depending on market conditions. The White House plan would likewise set an unspecified initial cap that could be altered every two years by the Secretaries of Homeland Security, Labor, and Commerce.

The Strive Act also stipulates various wage and labor law protections for H-2C workers, and would protect US workers from unfair competition from H-2C workers.

Family Preference vs. Employment Preference. Both the Strive Act and the White House plan would increase the current cap for employment-based, permanent visas (green cards).

The Strive Act would increase family-based visas by excluding immediate relatives of US citizens from the annual cap, and increase employment-based visas from 140,000 to 290,000 per year.

It would also exempt certain individuals, such as foreign graduate students in technology and engineering fields, from the employment-based visa limits. It would allow each country to use up to 10 percent of total visas each year, up from the current 7 percent. This could help to reduce backlogs of applicants from countries such as Mexico, India, China, and the Philippines, which send the most migrants to the United States.

The Strive Act would boost the nonimmigrant H-1B visa limit from 65,000 to 115,000, keeping existing exemptions for those who have earned an advanced degree in the United States.

The White House plan would convert diversity and 50,000 parent-preference visas to merit-based visas to emphasize competitiveness and education over family ties. The White House plan would also eliminate the preference for siblings and adult children of US citizens.

Under the White House proposal, the current employer-sponsored system would be expanded from 140,000 to 700,000 visas and would be converted into a point system in which categories such as education, skills, English proficiency, and employer recommendation, as well as civic ties to the United States, would assist immigrants in gaining entry. The number and mix of visas could be adjusted periodically to best meet national interests.

Enforcement. Both the Strive Act and White House proposal would require certain "triggers" to be met before other measures could be enacted. Under the Strive Act, the legalization and temporary worker programs could begin only after the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies to Congress that improvements in border security are being implemented, that immigration document security is being improved, and that the first phase of a multiphase implementation of mandatory electronic verification by employers had begun.

The White House proposal more explicitly defines the trigger to include the following: increasing the Border Patrol from about 13,000 to 18,300; installing 370 miles of fencing, 200 miles of vehicle barriers, and at least 300 miles of electronic monitoring along the Southwest border; fully implementing a program that issues secure identification to all Americans and aliens seeking employment; expanding an employment verification system that can be used for all new hires; and registering all unauthorized immigrants in the legalization program's probationary stage.

In addition to the triggers (although not part of the trigger mechanism), the Strive Act would increase enforcement staffing at the border and for the US interior. It would also require infrastructure improvements at ports of entry and along the border, and require DHS to develop an improved border security strategy.

The Strive Act would require greater cooperation with Mexico and Central American countries on security issues, improved security features on immigration documents, and compensation for state and local enforcement agencies that assist in immigration enforcement.

The Strive Act would increase penalties for gang membership, as well as those for failure to depart after removal orders, reentry after deportation, drunk driving, and immigrant smuggling. The act would also increase federal detention space, and both the Strive Act and the White House plan would increase penalties for employers found with unauthorized employees.

Under the Strive Act, mandatory employment verification would be phased in beginning with critical infrastructure employers, such as airports or chemical plants, followed by other employers based on their size.

Senators Drafting Bipartisan Reform Bill

Building on the White House reform proposal, as well as last year's Senate-approved immigration bill, a group of 10 senators plan to draft and introduce a compromise bill that they hope will become the point of discussion in the Senate for immigration reform this year.

The group leading the effort includes the six Republicans involved in drafting the White House plan, and Democrats Patrick Leahy (VT), Edward Kennedy (MA), Ken Salazar (CO), and Bob Menendez (NJ).

The senators are aiming to meet Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) goal of debating immigration on the Senate floor in the last two weeks of May. The 10 senators met with White House officials during the last week of March, and are expected to continue meetings later in April.

Democrats have expressed their opposition to a number of proposals in the White House plan. However, one experienced Democratic staffer said that if the proposals were "just a temperature read" rather than intractable positions on the issue, there might be a chance of successfully moving ahead with a compromise reform plan.

Although a bill has already been introduced in the House, senators remain hopeful that they will approve immigration legislation before the House, where positions on the issue are more extreme.

April 15, 2007

Republicans continue to be divided.

The NY Times ran last week an editorial congratulating President Bush for his support of immigration reform while noting retrograde proposals by Senate Republicans. It seems this division is holding up a reform package by the Administration. Reform cannot happen without bipartisan support.

Here it is:

President Bush went to the Mexico border in Arizona on Monday and showed once again that immigration is an issue he understands. He said America suffers from a system that exploits people who come to do jobs that citizens won’t do. He said the country needed “a practical answer” that promotes an orderly flow of legal immigrants, eases pressure at the border and opens a path to citizenship for the hidden 12 million who keep our economy humming. And he urged Congress to find that answer through a “serious, civil and conclusive debate.”

It was good that Mr. Bush made these points, as he periodically does. But there was a dissonance in his speech, because it came only two weeks after he and a group of Senate Republicans circulated a list of “first principles” about immigration that amounted to a huge step backward for efforts to fix a broken system in a reasonable, humane way.

It proposed new conditions on immigrant labor so punitive and extreme that they amounted to a radical rethinking of immigration — not as an expression of the nation’s ideals and an integral source of its vitality and character, but as a strictly contractual phenomenon designed to extract cheap labor from an unwelcome underclass.

New immigrant workers and those already here would all be treated as itinerant laborers. They could renew their visas, but only by paying extortionate fees and fines. There would be a path to legal status, but one so costly and long that it is essentially a mirage: by some estimates, a family of five could pay more than $64,000 and wait up to 25 years before any member could even apply for a green card. Other families would be torn apart; new workers and those who legalize themselves would have no right to sponsor relatives to join them.

In a country that views immigrants as its lifeblood and cherishes the unity of families, the Republican talking points were remarkable for their chill of nativism and exploitation. They were also unrealistic. The hurdles would create huge impediments to hiring and keeping a stable work force, while pushing the illegal economy deeper underground.

The thrust of Mr. Bush’s speech leaves little room for a vision as crabbed and inhumane as the one he and his party have circulated. It’s hard to tell whether his plainspoken eloquence in Yuma was meant to distance himself from those earlier and benighted talking points, or whether he has simply been talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Mr. Bush should clear up the confusion. He should reaffirm the importance of family-based immigration and of an achievable path to citizenship for those willing, as he put it, “to pay their debt to society and demonstrate the character that makes a good citizen.”

Clarity and forcefulness from Mr. Bush are important because the prospects for a good immigration bill this year are so uncertain. The Senate plans to take up the issue next month, but there is no bill yet, and the talking-points memo shows the debate drifting to the hard right. Edward Kennedy, the Senate’s most stalwart advocate of comprehensive reform, has been left in the lurch as the Republican presidential hopefuls John McCain and Sam Brownback have run away from sensible positions to court hard-line voters. A decent bipartisan House bill, sponsored by Representatives Jeff Flake and Luis Gutierrez, may not get the hearing it deserves.

Mr. Bush made a strong case for comprehensive reform on Monday. He should keep it up — publicly and forthrightly, as he did this week, and forget about backroom negotiations that produce harsh political manifestoes to appease hard-liners.

April 6, 2007

Huge demand for H-1B visas this month

The media (including this article) reported that within two days of the beginning of the new year for temporary H-1B working visas (April 1), 133,000 applications were filed for the 65,000 available slots. These visas are generally designed for computer scientists and engineers. There are other, much smaller, channels for foreign high tech workers to enter the U.S. – for instance through academia. But the immensity of the application volume indicates how much American employers want these foreign workers. These visa applications require sponsorship by American employers. Right now, about half of computer programmers in the U.S. are foreign born.

Immigration reform legislative packages usually include a large increase in the H-1B slots.

April 4, 2007

Senate to address immigration reform in late May, per Sen Reid

The Houston Chronicle reports that in late May “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid intends for the Senate to kick off what's sure to be a contentious debate over fixing the nation's dysfunctional immigration system. The Nevada Democrat says he's reserving the last two weeks of May to take up legislation that would have a powerful effect on employers and millions of immigrants, legal and illegal. But as that date nears, there's still no consensus among the differing factions, no bill and no plan yet for action in committee.

“And last week's leak of a White House immigration draft that proposed less generous treatment for illegal immigrants and future arrivals than what's under consideration by Democrats further muddied the waters as both parties grope for an as-yet elusive compromise.”

April 1, 2007

STRIVE Act introduced in House, 3/22

Shusterman’s Immigration Update provides a summary of a House bill introduced on 3/22 by two pro-reform Congressman, Luis Gutierrez and Jeff Flake - H. 1645. find a copy of the bill here.

“The STRIVE Act is clearly a political compromise between those who want tougher border and interior immigration enforcement, and those who maintain that our immigration problems cannot be solved solely by increased enforcement,” writes Shusterman.

Per Schusterman:

On March 23, the STRIVE (Security Through a Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy Act of 2007) Act of 2007 was introduced in the House of Representatives by Representatives Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and a bipartisan group of co-sponsors.

Border: The bill would create a "virtual" fence along the border between the U.S. and Mexico; increase the number of border patrol agents and immigration inspectors at the border; allow for cooperation between the border patrol and the Department of Defense as well as the government of Mexico. The bill would increase the size of the Border Patrol between 2,000 and 2,400 each year between 2008 and 2012.

Interior Enforcement: It would increase the number of ICE agents by 1,000; increase penalties for gang violence, failure to depart, alien smuggling, drunk driving, firearms possession and sale, unauthorized employment of illegal aliens, and money laundering; and expand expedited removal.

Employment Verification: The bill would create a system for employers to electronically verify workers' employment authorization; establish criminal penalties for employers and workers who operate outside the system; and would implement strong enforcement mechanisms. It would create significant criminal penalties for individuals who falsely attest to being authorized to work and create significant civil penalties for employers who do not comply with the new system's requirements. It would establish serious criminal penalties, including a possible three-year prison term for employers who knowingly hire unauthorized aliens.

Guest Workers: It would create an "H-2C" guest worker program with an initial cap of 400,000 guest workers annually. 2,000 additional inspectors from the Department of Labor would be hired to enforce the labor standards portion of the law.

Earned Citizenship: Persons who worked in H-2C status for five years would be able to apply for conditional permanent residency and eventual citizenship. They would have to meet the following requirements: (1) show physical presence in the U.S. and evidence of employment; (2) complete criminal and security background checks; (3) pay $500 application fee; (4) meet English and civic requirements; and (5) show admissibility (certain bars to admission related to undocumented status are waived; security- and criminal-related bars may not be waived).

The bill also incorporates the DREAM Act and the AgJobs bill. It would provide for significant increases in the number of H-1B, employment and family-based immigrant visas.