workingimmigrants.com

Jason Riley, a member of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, has written a book supporting liberal immigration policy. The WSJ’s editorials on immigration reform have been favorable towards reforms envisioned by the defunct McCain/Kennedy initiative. Riley criticizes Republican conservatives who have wrapped themselves in the anti- illegal immigrant flag, calling this cause a non-starter at the polls.

Some excerpts from this review which appeared in the May 16 issue of the WSJ (subscription required):

“Immigrant workers tend to act as complements to the native U.S. workforce rather than substitutes. There is some overlap, of course, but this skill distribution is the reason immigrants and natives for the most part aren't competing for the same positions.”

“Americans may rail against illegal aliens in telephone surveys, but election results have shown time and time again that it's seldom the issue that decides someone's vote. The lesson for the GOP is that hostility to immigrants is not a political winner.”

“Reasonable people agree that illegal immigration should be reduced. The question isn't whether it's a problem but how to solve it. Historically, the best results have come from providing more legal ways for immigrants to enter the country.”

The review in full:

Continue reading "A conservative's endorsement of liberal immigration policy" »

Posted by Peter Rousmaniere at 7:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Recent Congressional attempts to increase the number of temporary workers allowed under the H-1B program (i.e. Bill Gates' programmers) and to pass an AgJobs program (aimed primarily to benefit California farmers) have been stalled by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. the caucus is holding out for comprehensive reform. Both House and Senate members of the Caucus are using procedural rules to keep proposals from coming to a vote. The Caucus is holding out for comprehensive reform.

Posted by Peter Rousmaniere at 6:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

National Public Radio's Morning Edition is running a two part series on the impact of immigration law enforcement on immigrant households. The first of the series was aired on April 7, describing the devastating effect of Julio Cuellar’s return to El Salvador after being caught by the Feds shortly after being taken across the border by a coyote. The story reveals the desperate situation of poor households in Latin America.

On another radio new broadcast, I heard an immigration expert say that despite the recession most or all of illegal workers will stay in the U.S. Even one day of work at $60 as a day laborer yields as much income for an entire month back in Mexico. That’s shows you how important it is for workers to get into and stay in the U.S.

the transcript:

As the U.S. intensified its illegal immigration crackdown in recent years, deportations to El Salvador increased dramatically. Last year, according to El Salvador's immigration ministry, 20,000 Salvadorans were sent back home from the U.S., compared to 3,500 who were deported in 2004.

On a recent blazing hot afternoon, security guards escorted 33 men and nine women from the tarmac at Cuscatlan International Airport in San Salvador into a cramped processing room.

Some deportees look defiant. Others look destroyed and lost. But they all seem to brighten as they file into rows of plastic chairs and find on each one a warm pupusa — the thick tortilla that is El Salvador's national dish. Officials try to bolster the group with speeches welcoming them home.

"Thank God you are here and in much better shape than many others," a police officer tells them. "Some return wounded or dead. But you are very much alive, ready to set off on your next trip if you choose!"

Quiet laughter fills the room as the deportees nod and cheer. Some say they do plan to go back to the U.S. as soon as possible. With few prospects in El Salvador and family still in America, they say they have nothing to lose.

But not Julio Cuellar.

Continue reading "NPR story of a new illegal immigrant returned to El Salvador" »

Posted by Peter Rousmaniere at 1:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

...and with it another round of frenzied applications for 65,000 slots, which are typically oversubscribed in the first day or two after April 1.

This Wall Street Journal article (subscription required) reports that “The visa stalemate has prompted some companies to expand overseas. In September, Microsoft opened its first software-development center in Canada, saying it enabled the company to recruit and retain highly skilled people "affected by immigration issues in the U.S."

The article in full:

Quota on Foreign Workers Worries Companies
March 31, 2008

U.S. businesses are bracing for another round of visa roulette, as applications for high-tech professionals -- accepted by the government starting Tuesday -- are expected to far outstrip supply.

The H-1B visas enable U.S. companies to hire skilled foreign workers for certain jobs that are difficult to fill domestically. Attorneys who help employers file petitions say they haven't seen a decline in interest despite the economic downturn. Last year, the U.S. government received 124,000 applications for H-1B visas, nearly double the congressionally mandated cap of 65,000, so the visas were awarded by lottery.

This year, visas will be granted to 65,000 individuals randomly chosen from a pool of petitions filed in the first five business days in April, as stipulated by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the federal agency that oversees the process. Selected foreign professionals can begin work at the employer that filed for them in the fiscal year starting Oct. 1.

Continue reading "H-1B year to begin again April 1" »

Posted by Peter Rousmaniere at 8:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

According to the NY Times, The New York City metropolitan area is losing financial sector and other high paying jobs which are filled overseas because visas are so difficult to obtain. The primary visa category is the three year H-1B visas for professionals, of which 65,000 visas are awarded annually, plus 20,000 for graduates of American universities. Last year the quota was filled up on the first day, April 1. The article says, “Officials of large investment banks on Wall Street said the difficulty in obtaining visas for foreign workers, many of them graduates of American universities, had caused them to shift dozens of jobs to other financial capitals this year. In some cases, foreign-born professionals have grown weary of the struggle to get and renew a work visa in the United States and moved on to cities like London, where they say they feel more welcome.”

The article in full:

Businesses Say New York’s Clout Is Emigrating, With Visa Policies to Blame
By PATRICK McGEEHAN and NINA BERNSTEIN

New York officials have long taken pride in the city’s status as a global gateway. But lately, senior executives of some of the country’s biggest corporations, like Alcoa, have been complaining that American immigration policies are thwarting New York’s ability to compete with other world capitals.

Every big employer in the city, it seems, can cite an example of high-paying jobs that had to be relocated to foreign cities because the people chosen to fill them could not gain entry to the United States.

In Alcoa’s case, one of its chief financial executives, Vanessa Lau, who is from Hong Kong, is working from the company’s offices in Geneva when she should be at headquarters on Park Avenue, according to Alain J. P. Belda, the chairman and chief executive.

Continue reading "New York City area losing jobs due to visa barriers" »

Posted by Peter Rousmaniere at 7:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Last year ICE raided a textile factory in New Bedford, MA, hauling away hundreds and splitting families apart. (I have posted on this.) The Wall Street Journal (sub required) reported on 3/19, “Boston Financier Steps In to Bail Out Illegal Immigrants; Textile-Factory Raid Spurred Him to Act; 'Un-American' Images”. Bob Hildreth, who runs a financial company in Boston, had spent time in South America, He put up $200,000 to release 40 people from jail. “The raid broke families apart," says the diminutive 57-year-old, who once taught high-school history. "This was extremely un-American."

The full story:

NEW BEDFORD, Mass. -- One frigid March morning last year, federal agents raided a factory in this old whaling town, arresting hundreds of illegal immigrants as they sewed vests and backpacks for U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Most were shackled and sent to a detention center in Texas, where they faced rapid deportation unless they could post thousands of dollars in bail -- money they didn't have -- to buy time to mount a defense.

Then, a mystery benefactor appeared. The anonymous donor ponied up more than $200,000 to spring 40 people from detention.

The payments, which until now haven't become public despite extensive news coverage of the raid itself, came from Bob Hildreth, a Boston financier who made his millions trading Latin American debt. He was "infuriated" at the televised images of workers being shipped to Texas, he says. Helping them make bail is "payback."

Continue reading "New Bedford raid follow up: Boston millionaire puts up bail for 40" »

Posted by Peter Rousmaniere at 8:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

According to the NY Times, a Congressional confrontation has resulted in a severe reduction of seasonal immigrant workers, badly hurting the summer hospitality and restaurant industry. These workers enter through H-2B visas, 66,000 in a year. The times reports that since 2005 an override as been authorized by Congress allowing over 120,000 such workers. These include the Poles and Brazilians who staff the local summer ice cream parlor and wait at summer resort restaurants and stay at employer-provided housing. Cape Cod alone will be almost entirely bereft of 5,000 such workers, who cannot be replaced easily by Americans, as few candidates live nearby due to high housing costs. The Hispanic Congressional caucus has engineered to cripple this override this summer in order to put pressure on Congress to enact an comprehensive immigration reform bill.

The article:

Businesses Face Cut in Immigrant Work Force
By KATIE ZEZIMA

HYANNIS, Mass. — For years, William Zammer Jr. has relied on 100 seasonal foreign employees to turn down beds, boil lobsters and serve cocktails at the restaurants, golf course and inn he owns on Cape Cod and in nearby Plymouth.

This summer, however, the foreign workers will not be returning, and Mr. Zammer, like other seasonal employers across the nation, is scrambling to find replacements.

“It’s a major crisis,” he said. “We’re very short on work force. We’ll be looking at opening a little later, closing a little earlier, looking at how we do our menus.”

Mr. Zammer is caught up in a Congressional standoff over immigration overhaul that is punishing employers who play by the rules and that, advocates of change say, could cost small companies billions in lost business.

Continue reading "Seasonal immigrant workers severely cut back, pawn in immigration bill struggle" »

Posted by Peter Rousmaniere at 9:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Bush administration is set to make regulatory changes to the temporary farm worker – H-2A – program, changes that do not require legislation. The plan is designed to increase the use of legal temporary workers, which today account for about 2% of American farm labor. Upwards of 70% of farm workers today are estimated to be illegal.
Senator Diane Feinstein had sought to enact her AgJobs program either as part of comprehensive immigration reform or separately, to help California farmers. That program, on which I have posted, would legalize the status of hundreds of thousands of illegal farm workers.

A Los Angeles Times article says, in part, “The proposed changes, which would take effect after a 45-day period of public comment, would modify how foreign laborers are paid and housed, and slightly expand the types of industries that can use the program. The administration would also ease the standards farmers must now meet to show they have tried to hire U.S. citizens first.”

The article also reports:

“In addition to the Labor Department, the departments of State, Homeland Security and Agriculture have a role in the program. Labor and Homeland Security focused on making the program easier for growers to use, strengthening worker protections and improving enforcement, but critics questioned how these proposals would actually work.

'It's going to be a question of execution,' said a Senate aide briefed on the changes. The aide, who was not authorized to speak on the record, expressed concern about some proposals, including a change to the way workers are paid.

One of the proposed changes would set wages based on a worker's occupation and skill level. 'Depending on how it's done, it has the potential to lower farmworkers' wages, potentially significantly,' said the aide. [Wages are not set to local prevailing wages.]

Other changes would give workers more time to search for a new H-2A job after their existing one ends. Employers would have to certify under penalty of perjury that they wouldn't change the terms of work after they hired the temporary workers.

Homeland Security would create a pilot program to track whether H-2A workers leave the country when their visas expire.

Employers that violate the program's regulations would face substantially higher fines and penalties. Growers would also be forbidden from passing along to workers any costs incurred from participating in the program.

Posted by Peter Rousmaniere at 9:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The very informative Siskind Immigration Bulletin issued this informative analysis of laws going into effect 1/1/08. I have posted on the Arizona law but not the Tennessee law so far. Siskind writes,” The Arizona and Tennessee rules are similar in sanctioning employers who violate immigration laws with the revocation of their business licenses. This punishment is seemingly much more serious than the federal punishment of a fine since loss of a business license is really the death penalty for a business….2008 is likely to be a year of considerably more enforcement against employers violating immigration laws and we intend to cover the issue in great depth.”

The analysis:

On January 1st, employers in Arizona and Tennessee will begin having to comply with controversial new immigration laws that make those states enforcers of immigration law right along with the federal government. Whether state and local governments have the legal right to be doing this is the subject of many court battles around the country since the Founding Fathers clearly gave Congress the sole authority to regulate immigration. But with a Congress seemingly paralyzed in its attempts to get a handle on immigration policy and with 1400 bills pending around the country, the new reality is that employers will need to comply with a whole new set of laws on top of the existing federal rules.

The Arizona and Tennessee rules are similar in sanctioning employers who violate immigration laws with the revocation of their business licenses. This punishment is seemingly much more serious than the federal punishment of a fine since loss of a business license is really the death penalty for a business. Both rules provide a defense if employers have been complying with I-9 rules. Tennessee provides an additional safe harbor if employers have used the new E-Verify electronic employment verification system. Arizona goes a step further in actually mandating that all employers use E-Verify. This will represent a major expansion in the number of employers using E-Verify and it is far from clear whether the E-Verify system can handle the additional load. A recent report commissioned by the DHS itself noted that there is an unacceptable false positive rate and that as many as 10% of naturalized citizens show up in the E-Verify as being unauthorized to work.

Employers in Arizona had fought the new law and had been attempting to keep it from taking effect on the 1st. However, a judge has just denied an injunction order and the law will, in fact, take effect. An injunction is still holding in another measure aimed at employers – DHS’ social security number no match rule. DHS’ rule would sanction employers who are notified that their employees’ social security numbers and names do not match. One of the key issues in that case is also the high rate of false findings in the Social Security Administration database and the inability of that agency to resolve questions in a timely manner. However, DHS is promising to re-release a modified rule any day now that would attempt to meet the objections of the judge.

2008 is likely to be a year of considerably more enforcement against employers violating immigration laws and we intend to cover the issue in great depth.

To all of our readers around the world, all of us here at Siskind, Susser, Bland wish you all a year of peace, happiness and good health.

Regards,
Greg Siskind

Posted by Peter Rousmaniere at 10:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Arizona’s draconian measures to root out illegal labor are the subject of this editorial on 12/18 by the New York Times. “On Jan. 1, Arizona intends to become the first state to try to muscle its way out of its immigration problems on its own. That is when, barring a last-minute setback in court, it is to begin enforcing a new state law that harshly punishes businesses that knowingly hire undocumented immigrants. It is a two-strike law, suspending a business’s license on the first offense and revoking it on the second. It is the strictest workplace-enforcement law in the country.” -- and today's papers (12/20) say that immigration is the most important topic among voters in Iowa.

The editorial goes on….

We have always said that workplace laws should be enforced vigorously — as part of a comprehensive, nationwide immigration system that doesn’t just punish, but tries to actually solve the problems that foster and sustain the breaking of immigration laws. The boosters of the Arizona law, including the Minutemen border vigilantes who have made “January First!” an anti-immigrant rallying cry, have a much narrower goal: the biggest purge of illegal immigrants in the Southwest since the federal government’s Operation Wetback in 1954.

If that happens, the immigrants will take a big chunk of Arizona’s growth and economic vitality with them — and not necessarily back across the international border. The collateral damage will be severe as citizens and legal immigrants are also thrown out of work, as businesses struggle to find workers in a state with a 3.3 percent unemployment rate and as sleazy employers move more workers off the books, the better to abuse and exploit them. And the national problem of undocumented immigration will be no closer to a solution.

There are many compassion-and-common-sense criticisms of Arizona’s Fair and Legal Employment Act: stories about families torn apart, breadwinners deported and citizen children on public assistance. They make little headway with the law-and-order crowd. Nor does the fact that many hard-line defenders of workplace enforcement show a lopsided devotion to federal laws; they seldom complain when employers abuse undocumented immigrants and steal their wages, even though those violations worsen job conditions and pay for American workers, too.

For now, let’s just point out that Arizona’s plunge into enforcement-only immigration policy highlights the folly and inadequacy of that approach, particularly when it is left to a crazy quilt of state laws. America is a country where millions of illegal immigrants have entered for years all but invited and mostly not pursued. They have become integral to our economy, although now — thanks to harsher enforcement and the defeat of comprehensive immigration reform in Congress — most have no way to become legal, no options except slipping back into destitution on the other side of the border.

There is no way for Arizona or any other state to get businesses back on a legal footing without exacting a great economic and human toll.

It could be that Arizona’s enforcement of the law will be calm and measured. But we worry about Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix and two-thirds of the state’s population. Maricopa’s county attorney, Andrew Thomas, and county sheriff, Joe Arpaio, are prone to media-driven stunts. Sheriff Arpaio makes a show of his meanness, hounding and humiliating prisoners and forming his deputies into squads that check people’s clothes and accents before demanding their papers.

Arizona is home to many moderate politicians, like Gov. Janet Napolitano, who were all too aware of the bill’s problems, and yet it became law. Many say the Minutemen and their allies had offered an ultimatum: approve this bill or face a citizen’s initiative on the 2008 ballot that would be even harsher and blunter, and all but impossible to repair. That promise was reneged on; petitions for the Minutemen’s initiative are being collected now.

As Arizona exacts its punishment on the undocumented workers who have made it so prosperous, it runs the risk of proving itself tough but not smart.

Posted by Peter Rousmaniere at 7:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The agricultural industry is heavily dependent on immigrant labor, and it is widely accepted that many – perhaps most – of their immigrant workers are here illegally (I have seen estimates of up to 70%). Western Growers Association has been way out in front of the political effort to ensure an ample supply of labor during the critical few weeks of harvest time. It describes itself this way: “Western Growers' members grow, pack and ship nearly one half of the nation's fresh fruits, vegetables and nuts.” The association has membership in California and Arizona. On 11/20 the CEO wrote a column in the Wall Street Journal criticizing the federal no-match program, which a court blocked in October, and advocating AgJobs, which was inserted in the immigration reform bill expressly to address the west coast farm industry.

Here is the text of Tom Nassif’s column:

In the midst of the combustive debate over immigration reform, we in agriculture have been forthright about the elephant in America's living room: Much of our workforce is in the country illegally -- as much as 70%.

Faced with the option of economic ruin, as hundreds of millions of dollars worth of our livelihood rots in the fields, or the embrace of a fatally flawed immigration system, our industry and farm families opt to survive. Who wouldn't? For those who have a 10-20 day harvest window to make or break their entire business year, government promises to fix the system don't work. We can't wait for rules to change. We need reform and we need it now.

Continue reading "Searching for farm labor in California" »

Posted by Peter Rousmaniere at 9:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Arkansas businesses such as Tyson Foods, ministers and others have founded The Arkansas Friendship Coalition to promote the role of 100,000 immigrants in the state’s economy and offset anti-immigration initiatives.

For Arkansas there is an in-depth analysis of the immigrant population, prepared by in-state and national specialists in immigration studies. Among the findings: (1) Arkansas experienced the greatest growth (48%) in Hispanic immigration of any state during 2000-2005. (2) One quarter of immigrants are engaged in food processing (beef and poultry), and (3) in 2004-5, half of the 100,000 immigrants were undocumented.

Most immigrants, the study reports. As employed in the manufacturing sector, which includes meet processing. Overall, for the past ten years the state has experienced a reduction in manufacturing employment, and without this new source of worker the report estimates that manufacturing would have declined further.

Neighboring Oklahoma enacted anti-illegal immigration legislation, The Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007 [HB 1804], in May. It denies illegal immigrants state identification, and requires all state and local agencies to verify citizenship status of applicants before authorizing benefits. The law also require public employers to enter job applicants into an electronic immigration database to verify legal status.

Posted by Peter Rousmaniere at 7:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Washington Post last week ran an article on how illegal immigration has become a political football. “GOP Finds Hot Button in Illegal Immigration” focused on a special election for Congress in the Lowell, MA, area of Massachusetts – typically very Democratic. The race was won (after the article was printed) very narrowly by the Democratic candidate, despite her being 10 ahead only a few days before the election. According to the article, “On immigration, the Republicans hold a 49 to 44 percent lead.” Elsewhere last week, Republican senators blocked the passage of the Dream Act, which would permit children of illegal immigrants who themselves are illegal residents from gaining citizenship through military service. A Senate procedural vote requiring 60 yes votes ended 52 yes, 44 no. The military today provides for accelerated citizenship to legal residents; the Dream Act would have opened doors to the illegal population.

The article in full, October 23 07

Continue reading "Illegal immigration and Dem-Rep competition" »

Posted by Peter Rousmaniere at 8:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

One of the casualties of the immigration bill debacle last summer was the failure to pass a specially crafted provision to cover farm workers. According to the New York Times, the farm industry wants Washington to relax worker protections for the exiting H-2A visa program, that covers only 50,000 immigrant workers, compared to the well over 500,000 illegal workers said to be employed in farm work. The Times wants the AgJob provision of the immigration bill passed.

Here is a description of AgJobs’s impact on illegal farm workers:

AgJOBS provides a one-time program under which farm workers who can demonstrate a
substantial past commitment to agricultural work in the U.S. can, by meeting specific future work requirements over a period of 3 to 6 years, qualify for adjustment to permanent resident status. It is estimated that about 500,000 farm workers will be eligible under the program. This adjustment of status program will enable full-time, permanent farm workers – the most valuable workers on many farms – whose jobs are not eligible for the H-2A program, to earn legal status. It will also provide a transition period during which employers not now using the H-2A program can construct housing.

The TImes' editorial includes:

The main legal route for agricultural guest workers — the H-2A visa program — has serious problems that need fixing. But the government, which has solicited recommendations from farm groups on how to streamline the program, must not let industry lobbyists dictate the changes. Doing so could erode an already thin layer of protections for workers who do some of the country’s most punishing, backbreaking jobs.

Farm lobbyists have sent the administration a wish list of regulatory and administrative changes that they say will lift unduly cumbersome barriers to participating in and expanding the H-2A program. That program now hires about 50,000 people a year, about 2 percent of the agricultural work force. But the barriers are there for good reasons. They require farmers to give guest workers free housing and decent wages, and to take certain steps — like running newspaper ads — to prove they have tried to hire Americans first. The industry wants to relax those hiring requirements, to charge workers for housing, to pay them less and to widen the range of jobs they do to include poultry processing and meatpacking.

Labor advocates who have spent years fighting for basic protections for farmworkers believe, with good reason, that the industry is looking to exploit the immigration crisis. There is a better way.

Congress should pass a bill known as AgJobs, a bipartisan measure with broad support in the farm industry and among farmworker organizations. It streamlines the H-2A program, but also includes a path to earned citizenship for farmworkers, an important step to curb exploitation in an industry overwhelmingly made up of easily fired, easily abused undocumented workers. Its carefully negotiated compromises are just the kind of approach to immigration reform the country needs — not the heavy-handed half-measures that make up the current shambles of federal policy.

Posted by Peter Rousmaniere at 9:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

here are the votes re: Immigration Reform Act S. 1348, "A bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes."

This is the major immigration reform bill of 2007. The cloture vote 6/28/07 failed,
YEA 46 NAY 53 not voting 1. I have listed below votes alphabetically by senator then by state.

Alphabetic by senator

Continue reading "for the record: how the Senate killed immigration reform -- the votes" »

Posted by Peter Rousmaniere at 3:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO have joined ranks to combat the Bush Administration’s plan to crack down on illegal immigrants. A well researched article does into depth as to what the crackdown could do to cripple some industries.

According to the Washington Post, “The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO this week separately assailed a new White House-backed crackdown on illegal immigration, warning of massive disruptions to the economy and headaches for U.S. citizens if the proposal goes ahead as planned in the coming days.”

The Bush administration intends to begin writing to 140,000 employers on Tuesday regarding suspect Social Security numbers used by an estimated 8.7 million workers, as a way of pressuring them to fire illegal immigrants. President Bush disclosed the plan three weeks ago as part of a repackaged, 26-point enforcement program after Congress failed to overhaul U.S. immigration laws this summer.

But leaders of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a coalition of trade groups representing the politically influential construction, lodging, farming, meatpacking, restaurant, retail and service industries appealed on Monday to the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration to postpone the plan's implementation for six months.

Continue reading "Resistance to illegal immigration crackdown" »

Posted by Peter Rousmaniere at 3:53 PM | Permalink

summary of 62 - 36 vote:

Question: On Passage of the Bill (S. 2611 As Amended )
Vote Number: 157 Vote Date: May 25, 2006, 05:39 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed
Measure Number: S. 2611
Measure Title: A bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes.
Vote Counts: YEAs 62
NAYs 36
Not Voting 2

for the detailed information by senator:

Continue reading "Senate roll call vote data S. 2611 5 25 2006" »

Posted by Peter Rousmaniere at 7:05 AM | Permalink

“Feinstein to push guest-worker bill; Senator to assure that farm legislation is a priority in today's Fresno appearance.” – The Fresno Bee, 8 23 07

One of the casualties in the immigration bill fiasco was the “AgJobs’ provision in the bill, crafted to solve a major labor shortage in Californian farms. The Bee reports:

Dubbed AgJobs, the legislation first introduced in September 2003 culminated years of negotiations among farmers and the United Farm Workers. It would offer legal residency, and eventually U.S. citizenship, to 1.5 million illegal immigrants now working in agriculture. It also would streamline an existing guest-worker program.

Step one in the plan for passage calls for farmers and their allies to emphasize anew the dangers of losing an agricultural work force.

One-third or more of U.S. farmworkers are in this country illegally, according to conventional estimates.

'You can't pick peaches or operate a canning plant if you don't have the people,' Cunha said.

An active player in immigration negotiations, Cunha will be watching Feinstein's appearance today at Fresno's Sunnyside Country Club. Recently, Cunha took part in an immigration conference call with White House officials who are maneuvering in their own way.

Step two relies on the latest promise by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., that he will help pass an agricultural guest-worker bill this year. With Senate floor time limited, and the legislative calendar running out, a commitment like this becomes essential.

Step three in the AgJobs game plan relies on employer anxiety over a new Bush administration plan for cracking down on companies that hire illegal immigrants. Two weeks ago, the White House announced plans to send out tens of thousands of so-called 'no-match' letters.

These letters will notify employers that an employee's name and Social Security number don't match government records. Potentially, employers could be fined for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. More than one agricultural lobbyist believes the White House hopes that angry business leaders will now lean on Congress to change the immigration laws.

The full story:

Continue reading "Attempt to revive AgJobs portion of Immigration bill" »

Posted by Peter Rousmaniere at 6:54 AM | Permalink

A new get tough policy is to be launched. In this posting, I am addressing three questions: What is the new program? – it aims to scare and punish a lot of employers. Which employers are affected? A huge number in some industries. What are the motivating politics behind it? The White House decided to give up on immigration reform and check in with the conservatives.

The Washington Post reported the new policy on 8/10:

The federal government today announced a new plan to crack down on illegal immigrants and their employers using existing laws, while also streamlining current guest worker programs.

Under the plan, the government will step up interior enforcement of the nation's immigration laws and strengthen a program aimed at identifying illegal-immigrant workers who use false documents to gain employment. The effort involves bolstering an electronic system to verify eligibility for employment and increasing penalties for employers who deliberately hire illegal workers.

"Obviously there are employers who deliberately violate the law, and we will come down on them like a ton of bricks," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said at a news conference to announce the new measures.

Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez, appearing alongside Chertoff at the news conference, said the package of administrative reforms would "sharpen the tools we have" against illegal immigration while also helping employers who have legitimate needs for foreign workers. He said the government will overhaul regulations that implement existing guest worker programs for agricultural and other seasonal employees to make the programs more "workable." The administration will also study possible administrative changes to visa programs for highly skilled workers, he said.

Every employer is exposed: Any in which mismatches exceed 0.5% of the workforce. This means in effect that the entire home residential construction, agricultural, landscaping and hospitality industries are under siege, because each of these probably has at least 10% of their workforces are illegal.

The NY Times takes another shot at this:

Employers in low-wage industries were critical but guarded, reluctant to admit openly that they hire illegal immigrants. Randel K. Johnson, a vice president of the United States Chamber of Commerce, said the measures were “one more kick in the pants” for meat-packing, construction and health care companies that employ immigrant workers in unskilled jobs.

Farmers were less shy, saying at least 70 percent of farmworkers are illegal immigrants.
Ms. Torrey, the New York farmer, and other growers expressed their distress to White House and Homeland Security Department officials during a conference call with the National Council of Agricultural Employers, arranged by the administration to explain the new plan. Ms. Torrey warned that dairy cows would die from lack of milking if New York farmers had to fire immigrant dairy workers.

Luawanna Hallstrom, a tomato grower in Oceanside, Calif., who also participated in the conference call, called the measures “a train wreck.”

The politics – David Brooks wrote a column a few days about Mitt Romney’s candidancy. I think that Romney’s focus on conservative ideology in contrast to efficiency and excellence in administration (his business track record) is a clue what the Bush Administration wants from this policy shift from accommodation with the goal of legislative reform to shoring up chances of keeping the White House Republican in 2008.

Brooks writes:

This electorate has changed, even in the past 10 years. As a study by Fabrizio, McLaughlin and Associates demonstrates, Republicans are more conservative than even a decade ago. Seventy-one percent are self-declared conservatives, compared to 55 percent in 1997. Republicans are much older. Forty-one percent of Republicans are over 55, compared to 28 percent a decade ago.

Republicans are also much less economics-oriented. A decade ago, the party had thriving deficit hawk and supply-side factions. Now the thriving groups, as the study indicates, are organized around issues like immigration, terrorism and stem cell research.

Posted by Peter Rousmaniere at 8:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Senator Arlen Specter of PA says he is fashioning a new immigration reform bill, one that will not have the Z visa provision of the failed measure, which would give blanket protection to 12 million illegal immigrants. This adjustment may mollify the anti-amnesty crowd, but will rile businesses who want to hire these 7 million - plus workers without incurring legal liability. I'm skeptical.

Posted by Peter Rousmaniere at 6:58 AM | Permalink

That was Senator Elizabeth Dole’s rationalization about how she expects the illegal immigrant population in the United States to be addressed, after voting against immigration reform.

Below is the Washington Post’s editorial on Friday 6 29 about the defeat of the bill.

An Immigrant's Lament: 53 senators vote to keep 12 million people in the shadows.

AFTER SEN. Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina joined 36 of her Republican colleagues, 15 Democrats and one independent in the Senate yesterday in squashing the last, best hope for now of overhauling the nation's bankrupt and busted immigration laws, she was asked what she proposed for the 12 million undocumented immigrants in the country. "I think that is something that can be dealt with at a later time," she replied airily.

Tell that to Ernesto, Mrs. Dole. He's a 31-year-old Salvadoran handyman in Wheaton who sneaked over the border through California four years ago after paying thousands of dollars to a migrant smuggler, to whom he remains in debt. Mrs. Dole and her colleagues may imagine that Ernesto will simply evaporate now that the Senate has decided to avert its gaze, but he won't. Although he earns barely $1,200 a month, he does better here as a painter, carpenter, landscaper and electrician than he ever could in Cabañas, his hardscrabble native region of northern El Salvador, which is rich in beans and sugar cane but bereft of jobs.

Ernesto, who spoke with us on the understanding that his last name would not be published, was on Capitol Hill with a small group of immigrants yesterday. He watched ruefully as the senators dealt their lethal blow to his prospects for a normal life on the right side of the law. But he's staying put. With the help of Casa of Maryland, a local nonprofit, he finds work several days a week and sends $200 a month home to his family in El Salvador. His worldly possessions here, which he keeps with him in a tiny rented room, consist of a power saw, a few hand tools, a television and the cellphone he uses to talk to his wife and 5-year-old daughter every day.

It's enough, better than what he left behind in El Salvador, and plenty to nourish an immigrant's dream of earning a little more, of working full time, of maybe bringing his family to live with him one day. Ernesto does not intend to leave, but even if he were to be deported, there are still about 12 million people representing 5 percent of the nation's job force who cannot be ignored, hounded, harassed, wished or deported into nothingness. At some point Congress will come to its senses, steady its nerves and recognize that unimpeachable reality. Mrs. Dole and her colleagues may think they killed immigration reform yesterday. In fact the problem will just keep coming back, bigger each time than the last.

Posted by Peter Rousmaniere at 7:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

As early as this week, with a somewhat more conservative bill.

Posted by Peter Rousmaniere at 8:11 PM | Permalink

Bloomberg reports that the Senate's proposed overhaul of U.S. immigration law failed a critical test vote today.

The 33 votes to limit debate were 27 short of the 60 needed to move toward a final vote on legislation granting legal status to 12 million undocumented aliens. Democrats scheduled another vote for 7:30 p.m. Washington time. Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said that if a second vote fails, ``the bill's gone.'' He added, ``What else can I do?''

The guest-worker plan is a cornerstone of the fragile agreement worked out between Democrats and Republicans, which also would impose tougher sanctions on employers who knowingly hire undocumented aliens.

Negotiators today sought agreement on a list of amendments that Republicans would be allowed to offer, while Republicans tried to resolve concerns about Dorgan's amendment, lawmakers said. In addition, Democrats were looking for changes in an amendment that would let immigration officials give information to law enforcement officials about applicants for legal status.

Newsday lists Senate votes by state.

Posted by Julie Ferguson at 7:32 PM | Permalink

My sense is that a point system will only incrementally alter permanent immigration flows from their existing structure. But it will add transparency, and – I expect – make the system more predictable, and therefore more legitimate.

We need more workers at both the highly skilled (engineers) and low skilled (nursing home aides) levels. A point system is a partial solution to making the flow of high skilled workers into the country more transparent. It makes public policy more explicit. And it is part of a larger context of global workflows, wherein millions of skilled American jobs are being exported thanks in large measure to advances in information technology.

Per the New York Times, “The Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research center, analyzed the likely effects of the Senate bill by examining Census Bureau data. It reached these conclusions”:

¶Immigrants from many Asian countries would do well. In the last 15 years, more than three-fourths of immigrants from India, and more than half of those from China, the Philippines and South Korea had bachelor’s degrees or higher. Most immigrants from India and the Philippines report speaking English well.

¶Immigrants from Latin America would “face more difficulties” in getting green cards. More than 40 percent of recent immigrants from this region are in the preferred age range, 25 to 39, but many lack educational credentials and English language skills. More than 60 percent of adult immigrants from Mexico have not completed high school. Just 5 percent have college degrees. Only 15 percent of recent Mexican immigrants are proficient in English.

¶The United States has received comparatively few immigrants from Africa, but many of them have characteristics that would help them earn points.

About two-fifths of recent African immigrants are in the preferred age group. Two-thirds are proficient in English. And 38 percent have a bachelor’s or higher degree.

According to the Times,

An applicant could receive a maximum of 100 points. Up to 75 points would be allocated for job skills and education, with 15 for English-language proficiency and 10 for family ties.

The criteria favor professionals with graduate degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. But the point system would also reward people who work in 30 “high demand” occupations, like home health care and food service.

Spouses and minor children of United States citizens would still be allowed to immigrate without limits. But siblings and adult children of citizens and lawful permanent residents would be subject to the point system. They could get a maximum of 10 points for family ties, provided they had already earned 55 points for job skills, education and English language ability.

Under the bill, Congress would set the number of points for each attribute. The selection criteria could not be changed for 14 years. Decisions on individual cases would be within the “sole and unreviewable discretion” of the secretary of homeland security.

Posted by Peter Rousmaniere at 2:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The immigration debate will reopen this week as Congress returns to session. While the proposed legislation is drawing a lot of heat, particularly from the Bush base, new polls seem to indicate that momentum for legislation to deal with immigration is gaining public support. On Friday, The new York Times reported that a New York Times/CBS News Poll that indicated that "two-thirds of those polled said illegal immigrants who have a good employment history and no criminal record should gain legal status as the bill proposes: by paying at least $5,000 in fines and fees and receiving a renewable four-year visa."

And in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, 52 percent of those polled indicated they would support a program giving illegal immigrants the right to stay and work in the United States if they pay a fine and meet other requirements. Opposition to that proposal was 44 percent. The Washington Post reports that the backers of the bill are optimistic:

"After a week at home with their constituents, the Senate architects of a delicate immigration compromise are increasingly convinced that they will hold together this week to pass an overhaul of the nation's immigration laws, with momentum building behind one unifying theme: Today's immigration system is too broken to go unaddressed.

Congress's week-long Memorial Day recess was expected to leave the bill in tatters. But with a week of action set to begin today, the legislation's champions say they believe that the voices of opposition, especially from conservatives, represent a small segment of public opinion. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), who led negotiations on the bill for his party, said the flood of angry calls and protests that greeted the deal two weeks ago has since receded every day."

Posted by Julie Ferguson at 12:09 PM | Permalink

It was gratifying to see New York Times columnist David Leonhardt take on the issue of media accuracy and immigration in his recent column Truth, Fiction and Lou Dobbs. The public discourse about immigration can be heated enough without the TV talking heads stoking the fires.

Dobbs is an anchor at CNN with the station's second largest audience; he also has a syndicated radio show and has authored books. In recent years, he has morphed from a conservative economist to a self-styled populist and champion of the middle class. One of his frequent themes of late has been his "war on the middle class" focusing on such issues as outsourcing, minimum wage, and job protection. He also has a taken a strong and prominent anti-immigration stance, demonizing undocumented workers and citing them as the source for wage suppression, crime, health hazards, and a host of other ills plaguing the middle class.

But as Leonhardt notes, Dobbs often gives a nod and a wink to the most racist of anti-immigration spokespeople who frequent his show. And he is frequently fast and loose with his facts - sometimes out and out wrong. Such is the case with his recent propagation of the idea that cases of leprosy are rising alarmingly largely due to immigrants, an assertion he has made repeatedly both on his show and in other media such as 60 Minutes.

“The invasion of illegal aliens is threatening the health of many Americans,” Mr. Dobbs said on his April 14, 2005, program. From there, he introduced his original report that mentioned leprosy, the flesh-destroying disease — technically known as Hansen’s disease — that has inspired fear for centuries.

Mr. Dobbs argues that the middle class has many enemies: corporate lobbyists, greedy executives, wimpy journalists, corrupt politicians. But none play a bigger role than illegal immigrants. As he sees it, they are stealing our jobs, depressing our wages and even endangering our lives.

That’s where leprosy comes in.

According to a woman CNN identified as a medical lawyer named Dr. Madeleine Cosman, leprosy was on the march. As Ms. Romans, the CNN correspondent, relayed: “There were about 900 cases of leprosy for 40 years. There have been 7,000 in the past three years.”

“Incredible,” Mr. Dobbs replied.

Mr. Dobbs and Ms. Romans engaged in a nearly identical conversation a few weeks ago, when he was defending himself the night after the “60 Minutes” segment. “Suddenly, in the past three years, America has more than 7,000 cases of leprosy,” she said, again attributing the number to Ms. Cosman."

"For one thing, Mr. Dobbs has a somewhat flexible relationship with reality. He has said, for example, that one-third of the inmates in the federal prison system are illegal immigrants. That’s wrong, too. According to the Justice Department, 6 percent of prisoners in this country are noncitizens (compared with 7 percent of the population). For a variety of reasons, the crime rate is actually lower among immigrants than natives."

Mr. Dobbs should do a better job of getting his facts straight and should turn the rhetoric down a few notches. CNN should do a better job of drawing a line between news and opinion. Both should take pains to correct the record for their damaging errors. And kudos to David Leonhardt for holding Dobbs' feet to the fire. Reasonable people can disagree on matters surrounding the immigration issue, but there should be no place for inflammatory rhetoric and factual distortions - particularly from those who we trust for our news.

Posted by Julie Ferguson at 6:01 AM | Permalink

The New York Times wants massive revisions to the Senate bill – but fears that the coalition behind the bill will collapse if too much pressure it put on it.

Published: May 29, 2007

The great immigration struggle of 2007 has moved from the Senate chamber in Washington to the continent at large. With Congress taking the week off, it’s time for constituents to weigh in. You can be sure of this much: The debate will get louder before it gets better.

The problems with the restrictionist provisions of the Senate immigration bill are serious and many. It includes a path to citizenship for 12 million illegal immigrants, which is a rare triumph for common sense, but that path is strewn with cruel conditions, including a fine — $5,000 — that’s too steep and hurdles that are needlessly high, including a “touchback” requirement for immigrants to make pilgrimages to their home countries to cleanse themselves of illegality. The bill imposes an untested merit-point system that narrows the channels through which family members can immigrate.

And it calls for hundreds of thousands of guest workers to toil here temporarily in an absurd employment hokey-pokey — you put your two years in, then one year out, then repeat that twice and go home forever. It would be massive indentured servitude — colonial times all over again, but without any hope of citizenship for those taking our most difficult and despised jobs.

Those who want this bill to be better are horribly conflicted by it. Their emotions still seem vastly overmatched by the ferocity of the opposition from the restrictionist right, with talk radio lighting up over “amnesty,” callers spitting out the words with all the hate they can pour into it.

It is encouraging that the bill survived several attempts by that camp to blow it apart, including an amendment that would have stricken the legalization section outright. The center held last week. But it will take a real effort to make the Senate bill much better, given that a core group of senators are bound to the ungainly architecture of their “grand bargain” and that any progress in significantly altering or improving it could unravel the deal.

The Senate bill is repellent in many ways. Its fragrant blossoms are grafted to poisonous roots. But it is also bipartisan, and there lies the kernel of possibility that may ultimately redeem it. A good bill may yet emerge if enough lawmakers, with encouragement from the White House and Americans at large — whose moderate views on immigration were reflected in a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Friday — realize that striking hard-line poses matters less than drafting legislation marrying reality, justice and decency. Advocates of comprehensive immigration reform — which this bill is not — should not give up the fight.

Americans, meanwhile, should look closely at what they have been offered, and to imagine what a strange country this would be if the bill passed as is, if it morphs into a harsher one, or if it is shot down and we are left with the dismal status quo. We would rattle around in our fortified chunk of North America, bristling at our southern border — nothing is stopping that process — as we check our turnstiles carefully for those bright enough to merit entry, bask in the labor of a churning class of serfs, check people’s ID’s, raid workplaces and fill our detention centers. The anti-amnesty fringe will be pleased with itself, but it won’t be an America the rest of us will want to brag about

Posted by Peter Rousmaniere at 1:13 AM | Permalink

This is a partial review of the initial version of the immigration reform bill submitted in the Senate (Secure borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007). The program is described on pp. 143 – 187 of the text of the bill. I am excluding from the review a special provision for temporary agricultural workers.

The temporary work program does not replace existing temporary worker programs. It creates a Y visa. The visa is available for any full time work except in counties where the unemployment rate exceeds 7% (the limitation can be waived by the government).

Employers must show a valid offer for employment. They can use labor contractors, who must be registered. The visa is portable among employers.

The alien worker must pay an administrative fee of $500 plus $250 for every dependent with a maximum of $1,500.

Wages must be prevailing wages, and at least 150% of the poverty level in the area of employment.

The worker must be an employee and not an independent contractor.

The worker must have health insurance. The law does not say who will pay for the health insurance; given the probability that most Y visa workers will be low paid and have large self-pays and deductibles for insurance, this itself may kill off many employment opportunities.

The employer must provide workers compensation insurance, even for jobs which by state law are not covered by workers compensation. The law sets federal fines for the employer’s failure to pay back wages and benefits.

Posted by Peter Rousmaniere at 4:53 AM | Permalink

Hello to the readers of Working Immigrants. While Peter is traveling, I will be following some of the news stories about the immigration law - or any other related matters that I might find - and posting them here. I'm not the topic expert that Peter is, but my colleagues and I at Workers Comp Insider do keep our eye on issues related to immigrant workers and post on the topic from time to time.

Finally, an immigration bill is on the table, although we are now at the point in the process when Otto Von Bismarks's famous quote comes into play: "People who enjoy sausage and respect the law should not watch either being made."

The New York Times reports that the Immigration Bill Clears Its First Hurdle in Senate. To invoke cloture, 60 votes were needed and the measure had 69 votes. With Memorial Day looming, a decision was made not to continue debate post-holiday. The Times reporters noted that "The many obstacles that must be overcome before the bill becomes law were evident in the passionate speeches on the Senate floor in advance of the vote."

It didn't take long for critics from both sides of the aisle to be taking their case to the media, with Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Jim Bunning of Kentucky, and David Vitter of Louisiana spearheading the opposition. While there are critics on all fronts, The Washington Post discussed the particular rift that that the legislation is opening in the GOP.

The Los Angeles Times looks at the bill through the lens of how it might impact both businesses and immigrant families, summarizing a few key provisions of the legislation:

"The proposed shift is included in a massive immigration reform bill unveiled last week by Sens. Edward M. Kennedy, a Democrat, and Jon Kyl, a Republican. It would introduce a point system immediately as a basis for the 140,000 permanent visas awarded annually for workers and, after about eight years, increase that number to 380,000. Point systems are used in countries such as Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom.

Under the proposed system, green card applicants could earn a maximum of 100 points. Job qualifications would account for nearly half the points, with the highest numbers assigned for specialty or high-demand occupations such as engineering, as well as smaller credits for technical expertise, a U.S. job offer, U.S. work experience and youth. Educational background could add 28 points, while those who speak fluent English could earn 15.

Family connections could bring 10 more points, but only for applicants with 55 points or higher.

For families, the Senate proposal would eliminate most of the backlog of 4.5 million relatives waiting for green cards over eight years. In a provision that has sparked outcry among immigrant rights groups, however, the bill's May 2005 cut-off date would leave out 800,000 applicants, according to Karen K. Narasaki, president of the Asian American Justice Center in Washington.

... After the backlog is reduced, family-based visas subject to numerical caps would drop from about 226,000 annually to 127,000. The system would eliminate preferences entirely for adult children and siblings of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents.

The proposal would also place a cap of 40,000 on parents of U.S. citizens for the first time. Only spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens would continue to have unlimited access to green cards."

Posted by Julie Ferguson at 7:36 AM | Permalink

...which was to bring all interests together for am ambitiously written bill.

As I noted in an earlier post, the Senate Bill is at its core a long range workforce plan for America in the context of globalization of work, through migration and information technology. Every one including myself has a problem with some aspect of the bill. (For me, the most troubled part is probably the guest worker program for low wage workers, with limits of 2 years).

Workingimmigrants will be tracking the bill over the summer. Julie Ferguson will join me in posting for the next few weeks.

Posted by Peter Rousmaniere at 6:19 AM | Permalink

It is Saturday 5/19 and I have not seen the bill yet. It is apparently 350 pages long. I’ve only read very short commentaries and seen an outline. But from these I have formed a mental picture of what the sponsors are trying to do, which I will lay out in five steps.

This is primarily a workforce plan for the country. The net effect of the bill if enacted will be to put to rest the illegal immigrant issue, expand temporary work immigration, and shift long term immigration more towards work skills.

First, and most important, they have sought to forge a consensus of where the American workforce and within that immigration should be heading for the next 25 years. There is a high skilled talent and low skilled component.

In this period the developed world will scramble for high skilled talent. The EU, Japan and increasingly China will retain put big demands on worldwide talent. The developing world will supply a good deal of this talent. Within a few years, an American employer, such as a hospital chain in Chicago, will solve its talented worker scarcity through a blend of American citizen recruitment, immigrating knowledge workers, and offshoring. Half of Accenture’s staffing is now in India. Maybe 20% of knowledge work in the U.S. can be offshored. I suspect the actual amount being offshored today is well less than 3%.

Thus in the background of this bill is a worldwide labor pool with strongly increasing demand for high skilled talent and increasing ease at placing much but no all work anywhere in the world.

The sponsors see that if America is going to keep a lot of high skilled work in the U.S., it has to import more of this talent. There may be some scary scenarios being presented in Washington that America must develop a much bigger high talent labor pool to keep and grow the jobs which cannot be offshored easily.

Then there is the low skilled talent. A poorly recognized aspect of the domestic labor market is the continued demand for low skilled labor in food processing, agriculture, maintenance and low end service jobs such as retail and health aides. There are a lot of low skilled jobs which cannot be offshored.

The Senate bill sponsors must have the figures before them such as I have seen: steady upward job growth in the next ten years at least. There is as active an employer’s lobby for this labor (such as hotel chains) as there is an employer’s lobby for high skilled talent (such as Microsoft).

Second, the sponsors want to shift long term immigration more towards drawing in highly skilled workers. The awarding of green cards (permanent non-citizen status) will shift somewhat to a points system, which Canada has been refining and about which I have posted several times.

Third, the sponsors are opening up more temporary high skilled slots and making it easier for narrow discipline-specific channels to work, such as nurses. I only surmise this – the truth is in the details. We have I think dozens of special interest worker importation programs, ranging from doctors to professional sports players.

Fourth, they want to put the low skilled illegal immigrant issue behind us. In this bill they ware essentially granting amnesty which, in contrast with the amnesty in the 1980s which resulted in million of new citizens but still porous borders, will have more border controls. The sponsors have no stomach for massive deportations. (The “Return to Sender” raids of ICE in the past six months were made, I believe, to demonstrate that large scale deportation will work only with massive dislocations and political protest.) These folks are ultimately on a green card / citizen track but it will take years.

Fifth, the sponsors are assuring a stream of low skilled temporary workers, about 400,000 a year for two years, in effect 800,000 at any time in the country. In addition there will be a very large, 1.5 million agricultural worker program, highly desired by California.

Posted by Peter Rousmaniere at 8:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The Senate bill will include a point system to sort out and prioritize persons seeking to immigrant – or to change their status from temporary to permanent in the U.S. A pint system is reported to be a keystone for bipartisan support of immigration reform. So, what is it?

I have posted on it before regarding Canada, and to a lesser extent Australia and France.

A sympathetic analysis of the point system concept was presented on May I before the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee which is drafting the Senate bill. The presentation was made by Demetrios Papademetriou, President of the Migration Policy Institute.

He believes that a point system can help steer immigration but it should not be a centerpiece.

“Point systems are first and foremost human capital accrual mechanisms” he said. Pints are given to what a country wants to value at a specific point in time among all the possible attributes.

Five criteria tend to be applied in point systems of other countries: education, occupation, work experience, language and age.

Sometimes lower values are applied to these other criteria: employer job offer, prior wages, prior work or educational experience in the country, presence of close relatives, certain special considerations, and involvement in job creation.

Canada started a point system by focusing on areas of shortages of certain jobs (not shortages of workers for jobs). That did not work. It revised the system to focus on broader criteria of economic advancement.

One quarter of Canadian immigrants are processed through its point system; rest immigrant based on traditional criteria.

To some degree a point system shifts the talent search away from employers using temporary visa programs and towards government driven selection processes. One can have a hybrid system of some temporary programs filled by employer sponsorships alongside a point system.

The political advantages of point systems start with their appearing to use quantitative, objective selection criteria to advance clearly defined economic and labor market goals. The system comes in effect with a grand plan seal.

Also, if the point system is designed to focus on long term economic growth, there is less concern about the system causing of a displacement of native workers.

And also, the system appears flexible, adaptable and simple, so that is can be maintained and stay legitimate over time.

A point system can be refined to govern the passage of illegal immigrants into legal status and then

Posted by Peter Rousmaniere at 8:43 PM | Permalink

See here and here for NY Times articles. The bill is expected to include (1) a guest workers program, (2) means for illegal immigrants to gain permanent status over time, (3) triggers for moving the program forward for illegal immigrants, in the form of progress in border control, and (4) moderate shifting of immigration priorities from family towards skill/education factors.

Posted by Peter Rousmaniere at 1:02 PM | Permalink

A bill is about to be brought to the floor. From Migration Information Source on May 15, here it is:

January 2007

* Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Edward Kennedy (D-MA) begin formulating a new comprehensive reform proposal.
* President Bush includes immigration reform in his State of the Union address, renewing his call for a temporary worker plan and a path to legalization for unauthorized immigrants.

March 2007

* Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) vows to "take up a bill before the August recess."
* Attempts to introduce a bill in the Senate falter, and Senator Kennedy proposes using legislation produced last year by the Senate Judiciary Committee as a starting point for negotiations.
* Group of GOP senators begins meeting with DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez to craft a Senate immigration reform bill. Senators John Cornyn (R-TX), Arlen Specter (R-PA), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Mel Martinez (R-FL), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) are among those looking to create a united position among Republican senators.
* On the House side, Representatives Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ) introduce the Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy (STRIVE) Act.
* White House immigration reform principles leaked to press.

(For more information on the Strive Act and the White House proposal, see the April 2007 Policy Beat.)

April 2007

* President Bush reaffirms his push for comprehensive reform that, in addition to improved border and interior enforcement, includes "resolving without amnesty and without animosity the status of the millions of illegal immigrants that are here right now."
* Majority Leader Reid sets a deadline of May 14th to begin debate on an immigration reform bill in the Senate.
* On the House side, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, and Border Security, embarks on a series of hearings on immigration reform components.
* A meeting between Republican and Democratic staff ends abruptly when negotiations turn sour, causing Republican staffers to walk out. Senators decide they will negotiate in person to overcome the stalemate.

May 2007

* Majority Leader Reid vows to bring the immigration bill that passed the Senate in 2006 to the floor and bypass the committee process, unless a reasonable alternative to the bill is proposed by May 14th.
* Senators scramble to reach consensus before the May 14th deadline.
* Key Republican senators, including Lindsey Graham (SC), Mel Martinez (FL), John McCain (AZ), and Arlen Specter (PA) threaten to vote against last year's Senate-passed bill if brought to the Senate floor. Senators urge Reid to allow time to finish negotiations and introduce a new bill. Reid finally relents and postpones the vote until the 16th.
* In the House, subcommittee hearings on immigration continue.
* President Bush uses his May 12th weekly radio address to continue his call for comprehensive immigration reform.

Posted by Peter Rousmaniere at 5:39 PM | Permalink

A New York Times editorial last week and an AP story (further below) both address the White House plan to reduce the volume of immigration based on family ties in favor of recognizing the potential of applicants to add to the economy. As I have posted before, Canada is trying to do this; so is Australia and France.

Family values, betrayed

Published: May 4, 2007

When George W. Bush was running for president in 2000 as a new kind of Republican — the caring kind — he had a ready answer for those skeptical of his moderate views on immigration. “Family values do not stop at the Rio Grande,” he said, again and again. He was standing up for immigrants who come here seeking better lives for their children, and he repeated the message so often that it stuck.

Now, like so much else in Mr. Bush’s tattered slogan file, it’s in danger of coming unstuck. Negotiators struggling to draft an immigration bill in Washington are being pressured by the White House and Republican leaders to gut the provisions of the law that promote the unity of immigrant families in favor of strictly employment-based programs.

Details are still being sweated out in private, but a draft proposal circulated by the White House and the G.O.P. would eliminate or severely restrict whole categories of family-based immigration in favor of a system that would assign potential immigrants points based on age, skills, education, income and other factors. Citizens would no longer be able to sponsor siblings and children over 21, and their ability to bring in parents would be severely limited.

Unattached workers with advanced degrees and corporate sponsors could do all right, but not families, not the moms, pops, sons and daughters who open groceries and restaurants, who rebuild desolate neighborhoods and inspire America with their work ethic and commitment to one another. The plan would also shut out hundreds of thousands of people who have applied for family visas under current rules and are patiently waiting because of long backlogs.

The goal seems to be to end what immigration restrictionists call “chain migration,” a tendentious term that recasts in a sinister light one of the fundamental ways America was built, and a decades-old cornerstone of our immigration policy. It’s a cruel distortion that feeds fears of outsiders and fails to acknowledge that healthy immigration levels keep the economy running, particularly in a country with low unemployment and birth rates and workers who shun backbreaking, entry-level jobs.

America needs immigrants. Last year’s bipartisan Senate bill recognized this, and raised quotas for both family and employment-based immigration. Congress should do so again. Closing the door to families would be unjust and unworkable, and a mockery of the values that conservatives profess. It would only encourage illegality by forcing people to choose between their loved ones and the law.

Compromise is necessary with any bill, particularly on an issue as complex as immigration. But if a deal hews so closely to the new harsh line of the White House and G.O.P that it fundamentally distorts America’s pro-immigrant tradition, it would be better to ditch the whole thing and start over.

Immigration talks bog down over family ties

May 3, 2007
BY Julie Hirschfeld Davis Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- Who should get a preference when it comes to immigrants?

For decades, relatives of those already in the United States have moved to the front of the line.

The White House and senior Republican lawmakers now want to strictly limit the influx of family members and give preference to skilled workers sought by employers.

Democrats say that is inhumane and impractical.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., says the issue has become "one of the most contentious" in pulling together a broad immigration bill upon which Republicans and Democrats can agree.

The idea is to give many of the nation's 12 million illegal immigrants a chance at citizenship and create a guest-worker program for new arrivals.

"It would be a huge mistake to expand employment-based immigration at the expense of our historic tradition of family-based immigration," Kennedy, one of the key negotiators, said in a speech this week.

Nearly two-thirds of legal permanent residents admitted last year were family-sponsored immigrants, while less than 12.6 percent came in based on employment preferences, according to the Homeland Security Department. Roughly one-fourth fell into other categories, such as refugees and aslyum seekers.

Reshaping immigration laws is a priority for President Bush, who wants it as part of his domestic legacy. It also would be a popular achievement for Democrats to take to voters in the next election.

Senate Democratic leaders have promised to bring up a measure, with or without GOP agreement, within two weeks.

Bush put in a plug Wednesday for a swift compromise. "I will work with both Republicans and Democrats to get a bill to my desk before the summer is out, hopefully," he told a contractors' trade group in Washington.

Under the White House proposal, legal immigrants would lose the right to petition to bring adult children and siblings to the U.S. They could do so for spouses and minor children, but their ability to sponsor parents would be severely limited.

The proposal would limit or end preferences for people who had family members living legally in the U.S., and award many more visas based on employability criteria, such as education and skills.

Posted by Peter Rousmaniere at 5:16 PM | Permalink

A guest worker program, introduced within a broader immigration reform act, will deliver much needed worker protections to millions of currently undocumented / illegal workers. The legislation being proposed now, such as the STRIVE Act (about which I have posted) prescribe worker protections in order to prevent these workers from being exploited and from driving down compensation for all low wage jobs. What is not really understood today is the positive effect that these worker protections will have on the millions of legal immigrants working today in low wage, low skill jobs. I believe this spill over effect will take place and positively improve the working conditions of ten to fifteen million workers. We native born Americans do not realize how many immigrant workers -- legal and illegal -- have marginal access to jobs with benefits and pay most of us assume. How this spill over effect will work - through state minimum wage laws, better overall enforcement of worker protections, union activity -- is yet to be seen.

Posted by Peter Rousmaniere at 6:11 AM | Permalink

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.

Posted by Peter Rousmaniere at 6:56 AM | Permalink

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 whi