Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:17:49 -0700 From: Norm Matloff To: Norm Matloff Subject: Democrats, FTAs, etc. To: age discrimination/H-1B/L-1 e-newsletter As I have been reporting recently, Congress is currently debating ratification of two trade treaties with Chile and Singapore. These are the first of many more to come, as a result of the fast-track trade agreement authority which Congress granted the president last year. As Rob Sanchez and I pointed out last year, these agreements could have enormous adverse impact on efforts to address the rampant abuses in the H-1B and L-1 visa programs. In particular, the agreements could make it illegal to add U.S. worker protections to H-1B/L-1. Sure enough, when the president signed the treaty with Singapore in May of this year, the treaty did indeed contain such language, as did the Chilean one. This would make, for instance, the excellent L-1 reform bill recently introduced by Rep. DeLauro null and void. When I started to read the enclosed article (which, as with the vast majority of articles I post, was brought to my attention by a reader), I thought, "Something is wrong with this picture. Rep. Jackson has NEVER been sympathetic to critics of H-1B/L-1; on the contrary, she has actively supported the industry. Why is she suddenly worried about the immigration provisions in these trade treaties?" Note that my question is why she is concerned with the IMMIGRATION provisions. The Democrats, being nominally pro-labor, have in general looked askance at trade treaties, notably NAFTA. But why is Jackson suddenly so pro-worker concerning the IMMIGRATION provisions of this treaty, given her continually pro-industry track record on H-1B/L-1? I then saw the answer: People entering the country under those provisions won't be able to petition for permanent residency, work visas or citizenship. No green cards! One of the major reasons, maybe THE major reason, that the Democratic Party has pushed for liberal immigration policies is that the Democrats believe that most immigrants will vote Democratic once they become naturalized U.S. citizens. That in fact has been the pattern in recent years. The Republicans, on the other hand, like the "pro-business" aspects of immigration, meaning cheap labor. So, the trade treaties here would seem to allow the Republicans to have their cake and eat it too. They get the cheap labor but avoid the creation of new Democratic voters. No wonder Rep. Jackson, a Democrat, has suddenly "got religion" on the H-1B/L-1 issue! I must say that it is not clear whether the article is technically correct on the green card issue. In a quick run-through of both the treaties and their current implementation in the bill now pending in Congress, I don't see such a provision. However, it probably doesn't matter, since the treaties would allow UNLIMITED renewals of their proposed new H-1B1 visa. That visa would be very similar to (and in addition to) H-1B, but again, with no time limitation. H-1B has a 6-year limit, while H-1B1 would basically have NO limit, and thus could be used by employers to employer foreign workers permanently. So the essence of the enclosed article would be correct, i.e. that the employers would get their cheap labor but those workers would not become voters. Note by the way that the supposedly 100%-vote-up-or-down nature of these treaties (Congress cannot pick and choose the provisions it likes in a trade treaty), as supposedly mandated by the Trade Promotion Authority legislation Congress passed last year, seems to have a lot more wiggle room in it after all. These members of Congress are apparently making changes to the treaty in drafting their implementation. THIS JUST IN: In the last few minutes, I just got word that the bill did indeed pass at the committee level, and will now go to the Senate floor. My source said that Sen. Feinstein was especially eloquent in speaking out against the immigration provisions in the treaty. Feinstein is another Democrat, of course, but I would not treat her quite like Rep. Jackson. Sen. Feinstein has in recent months expressed serious concern about H-1B in letters to some of her constituents. On the other hand, she has always voted with the industry on this issue, saying she believes the industry's arguments, and has refused to meet with the Programmers Guild. I hope that her eloquent speech today will herald a change of heart in terms of meeting with the Guild. Norm Matloff (a longtime Democrat who has been voting Green the last few years) http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0%2C1282%2C-2916114%2C00.html Chile Free Trade Accord Passes Committee Thursday July 17, 2003 1:29 AM WASHINGTON (AP)- The House Judiciary Committee approved a free trade agreement with Chile on Wednesday, but the pact still faces opposition from lawmakers unhappy with its immigration provisions. Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas, questioned the agreement, noting that the bill contained immigration clauses that U.S. trade negotiators may not have authority to negotiate. U.S. trade officials have said the immigration provisions promote competitiveness by permitting the temporary entry of people for business purposes. People entering the country under those provision won't be able to petition for permanent residency, work visas or citizenship. The trade agreement cannot take effect without approval by the full House and Senate.