Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee discuss proposed immigration legislation
THE "BORDER Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration
Modernization Act of 2013," known as S. 744, is a proposal that only
Corporate America should love.
Although the bipartisan "Gang of Eight" senators who drafted it, like
their counterparts in the House of Representatives, present S. 744 as a
reasonable and measured approach to legalization, an in-depth read of
the 844-page document tells a different story. It is laden with punitive
measures, disqualifications and exclusions, and ramped-up enforcement.
It is so prohibitive that it should be seen, in its current form, as the
continuation of the attack on immigrant workers, not a genuine–or even
partial--reform.
The proposal does represent a consensus among the ruling class to
move forward with the restructuring of immigration policy. This can be
attributed to the defeat of the "enforcement-only strategy"--in the
streets and at the polls in 2012--that has been dominant over the last
several years.
Nevertheless, S. 744 does not break with the underlying policy
doctrines that have continued from George W. Bush to Barack Obama. This
includes the treatment of immigration and the border as a national
security issue in the context of the "war on terror," encouraging the
militarization of enforcement and criminalization of migrants. It also
strongly reflects a continuation of the effort to further subordinate
workers' rights to the needs of big business.
Thus, while partisan debates over details have begun in various
congressional committees, there is a high level of agreement of the
principal components: increased spending on the enforcement apparatus,
at the border and in the interior, to control current and future
migration flows; the development of a substantial non-citizen, low-wage
workforce through expansion of a guest-worker program; a merit-based
visa system; and a long and arduous legalization process designed to
disqualify any who speak up, step out of line or stop working.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Expanding the War on Immigrants (Again)
At the heart of the proposal is the requirement that before any
legalization for the estimated 11 million undocumented can be
considered, border enforcement agencies must achieve an effective
apprehension rate of 90 percent or higher in all high-risk border
sectors by the end of a 5-year period. Despite
the tide turning in favor of legalization, this was a pre-emptive concession to Republicans.
While it isn't exactly clear what criteria will be used to determine
this "effectiveness rate," three current aspects of border reality belie
the urgency to "take control of the border."
First,
according to a Pew Hispanic Research Center, net cross-border migration fell to
zero in 2011--in other words, an equal number of migrants were returning to Mexico as coming in.
Second, though the drop in migration has been attributed to increased enforcement, the
economic recession is the primary reason. Even the Border Patrol
acknowledges that the recession played a key role,
while still inventing convoluted formulations to "prove" that their
work has been a success and to justify their bloated budgets.
Third,
economic and demographic trends point to decreased migration from Mexico into the foreseeable future.
Since the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement
in 1994, millions of workers have been economically displaced as the
treaty opened up Mexico's economy to foreign capital. Direct competition
with U.S., European, and Asian multinational corporations wiped out
small farmers, many domestic producers and Mexico's teetering
state-owned sector.
At least 1 million economic refugees left Mexico each year
until the recession hit. As a result, the country is now experiencing a
generational gap--the population of young workers most likely to
migrate has rapidly declined because many are already in the U.S.
At the same time, substantial foreign investment has fuelled the growth of Mexico's economy,
alongside increased rates of inequality and deep poverty.
Nevertheless, declining wages in the United States has narrowed the
wage gap between the two countries. Increased demand for labor in Mexico
as a result of a labor shortage, alongside
declining wages in the U.S. will reduce future migration flows.
To achieve its stated goals on enforcement, S. 744 calls for adding
$6.5 billion more per year to the $18 billion already spent on border
measures in 2012. This additional spending will go towards increased
surveillance and detection hardware, double- and triple-layer fencing,
mobile surveillance equipment, command centers and other infrastructure,
forward-operating bases and vehicles, as well as more drones,
helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft. The legislation would add an
additional 3,500 Border Patrol agents
to the 21,790 already in the field.
This will accelerate the border militarization that began during the
presidency of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s and has continued under
presidents of both parties.
According to the Migration Policy Institute, the U.S. government has spent $219 billion on border enforcement since 1986.
Anticipating the border budget engorgement, defense companies have
expanded their repertoire of border-adaptable military-grade wares and
are rushing to the trough.
According to the New York Times
[M]ajor military contractors, including Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and
General Dynamics, are preparing for an unusual desert showdown here this
summer, demonstrating their military-grade radar and long-range camera
systems in an effort to secure a Homeland Security Department contract
worth as much as $1 billion.
Northrop Grumman, meanwhile, is pitching to Homeland Security
officials an automated tracking device--first built for the Pentagon to
find roadside bombs in Afghanistan--that could be mounted on aerial
drones to find illegal border crossers. And General Atomics, which
manufactures the reconnaissance drones, wants to double the size of the
fleet under a recently awarded contract worth up to $443 million.
To assist in the project, the bill also activates the National Guard
to participate in all aspects of border enforcement. This includes
surveillance, communications, deployment of drones, construction of
checkpoints and providing direct assistance during enforcement
operations on a full-time basis. There are already
71 traffic checkpoints and 32 permanent checkpoints in eight of the nine border region sectors, but the bill proposes more.
The increased border militarization packaged in this bill will only
intensify the warlike atmosphere that already defines the Southwest
border region. Far from making the country safer, it will produce more
rampant racial profiling, detention and incarceration, deportations,
and, more grimly, increased deaths.
Despite the decreased migration rates of the past few years, the rate
of deaths of migrants crossing the border has increased. For instance,
2012 saw
the highest recorded number of migrant deaths in Texas (271) and
the second-highest number on record in Arizona (142).
Since S. 744 would add to the current dynamic--of increased border
enforcement pushing migrants to cross in more deadly terrains--the death
rate will continue to rise in the years to come.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From the Border to the Workplace
The expansion of enforcement extends beyond the border region and
into the interior of the country, demonstrating the comprehensive
approach to controlling migrant labor, from border to workplace.
To accomplish internal control, the bill mandates nationwide use of
E-Verify by all employers (Title 3, Section 3101). E-Verify is a federal
database system used by employers to determine the legality of their
workers, based on the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9).
The section of the bill about E-Verify
also requires the collection of biometric data on all immigrant workers
and contains language that could extend the requirement to all workers
seeking employment, regardless of citizenship status. This would
necessitate the establishment of a national biometric database--an
alarming prospect in light of
recent revelations of increased government spying on citizens.
Currently,
only about 7 percent of the 6 million employers in the U.S. use E-Verify, which is notoriously prone to error.
According to an independent government audit in 2009,
E-Verify had an error rate of 4.1 percent. If applied nationally, this
would negatively affect the employment of millions of workers.
And that doesn't even take into account how
E-Verify would "incentivize discrimination against Latino/a workers.
Recent experience with E-Verify suggests that employers have used the
program to racially profile, harass and push out Latino/a workers. This
was illustrated recently in San Diego when nine hotel workers employed
at the Hilton Mission Valley were fired because E-Verify. As some of the
workers had been employed at the hotel for as long as 15 years, they
don't think it was a coincidence that their removal coincided with their
support for
a union organizing drive led by UNITE-HERE.
The national implementation of E-Verify would likely lead to mass
firings, since many undocumented workers won't qualify for the so-called
"legalization" component of S. 744. Employers will have up to four
years to comply, giving them the power to determine the pace of
implementation and removal. The removal of thousands of ineligible
workers would likely create
a new layer of the underground economy,
where the industries most dependent on cheap labor will find or develop
mechanisms to avoid the program--pushing wages down even further.
Furthermore, anyone caught using, buying, or distributing a false or
duplicate Social Security number for purpose of employment faces a
maximum five-year prison term and monetary fine (Section 3102). Given
the likelihood of future unauthorized immigration from different regions
of the globe, the further criminalization of something so essential for
the undocumented will almost certainly lead to increased incarceration
and further growth of the ranks of the undocumented living precariously
in the shadows.
The vast, vulnerable pool of undocumented workers that this bill
would create would make harder to unionize immigrant workers, currently
one of the most dynamic sectors of union growth.
Once the new interior measures for exclusion are in place, future
migrants caught in the U.S. would face draconian punishments reminiscent
of the notorious Sensenbrenner-King Bill, known as HR 4437, that was
defeated in 2006.
If an undocumented crosser is apprehended, they will face up to a
year in prison and a fine ranging from $250 to $5,000. For a second
offense, the prison term increases to up to three years, and the fine is
doubled. If the violation occurred after the migrant had committed
three misdemeanors or one felony, the individual could be locked up for
10 to 15 years. Those re-entering after deportation would face up to two
years in prison, and anyone caught producing, selling or distributing
fake passports could face up to 20 years in prison (Section 3704).
Despite the emphasis on cracking down on labor "traffickers," the
vague wording of the bill will likely result in the targeting of end
users of false documents, since they are commonly needed by undocumented
workers to obtain employment. This was the basis for
the military-style workplace raids that began in 2006.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Legalization Without Rights
When you look at the fine print, the promise of "legalization" that
sponsors of S. 744 talk about betrays the meaning of the word.
Millions of workers would be able to transition to a "legal"
status--but it is very far from full or even partial citizenship. It can
be better understood as a carefully crafted strategy to create a
subclass of workers
without rights, made perpetually vulnerable by an austere and rigid set of immigration rules and regulations.
For the first step in the "legalization" process, qualified migrants
are placed into a specially created category of legal laborer:
Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI) status. Under this status,
immigrants begin a minimum 10-year period during which they must work
consistently, pay all taxes, be disqualified from publicly funded
services and benefits (including the Obama health care law), register
for the Military Selective Service and pay up to $2,000 dollars in fines
(Section 2101).
To qualify--and remain qualified for the duration of the long
process, migrants must have been present in the U.S. before December 31,
2011 and must not have committed a felony or three misdemeanors
(excluding traffic violations) before or during the period.
Perhaps most revealing about how this bill is designed to control
immigrant labor, RPIs "must be regularly employed throughout the period
of admission...allowing for brief periods lasting not more than 60
days," according to the bill. In other words, workers who don't maintain
consistent employment or who quit or get fired from their jobs for any
reason can be disqualified. This will make workers fearful and dependent
on their employers, who can then leverage this power to keep wages low,
and harass or intimidate workers.
Workers can also be disqualified if they fall into poverty, even
while working. According to the bill, workers must be able "to
demonstrate average income or resources that are not less than 125
percent of the Federal poverty level throughout the period of admission
as a registered provisional immigrant." This also reinforces dependency
on employers, who will have an incentive to goad workers into
hyper-productivity to maintain the minimal threshold of income.
Not only will this arrangement be profitable for employers, who can
still keep wages low, but it will also be lucrative for the state. Since
these workers will have to pay taxes, they will continue to subsidize
the U.S. economy and fill government coffers without the right to get
benefits from government programs. This is already the experience for
the undocumented. For instance,
a recent study revealed that immigrants contributed an estimated $115.2 billion more to Medicare than they took out in the years 2002-09.
After immigrant workers complete 10 years under this status--and if
the border control effectiveness rate of 90 percent is achieved--they
can then apply for Legal Permanent Residence. After three years in this
secondary status, they can then apply for citizenship. The whole process
amounts to 13-plus years of walking a tightrope without one
slip-up--guaranteeing a stable, low-wage, non-citizen workforce into the
next generation.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
No Relief for Undocumented Youth
While the proposal allows for shorter waiting periods for
undocumented youth, they must still endure a long delay. Young people
who were eligible under the DREAM Act proposal and under Barack Obama's
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals executive order can also
transition to Registered Provisional Status. If they complete a high
school diploma, two years of college or four years of military service,
they can get five years off the waiting period (Section 2103).
Still, for youth to have to wait eight years for before becoming
eligible for citizenship is a step backward from the growing momentum
and
high level of support--gained through several years of high-profile and heroic activism--for expedited citizenship for undocumented youth.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Blue Card Status: Indentured Servitude for the 21st Century
Another form of labor subjugation embedded in the bill is the Blue Card status of the Agriculture Worker Program.
To deal with the persistent labor shortages wracking U.S. agriculture
due to stringent internal immigration enforcement and perpetually low
wages, the bill creates a special classification, under which
agricultural workers will be bound to growers. Under this program,
agricultural workers who have engaged in agriculture for at least two
years prior to the legislation
and who agree to work in
agriculture for at least 100 days a year for five years can qualify for
permanent legal residence at the end of that five-year period. After
three more years of residency, they can apply for citizenship.
Since agricultural workers must show consistent documentation of farm
work provided by employers, this makes them beholden to growers.
Reminiscent of indentured servitude in the days when America was a
colony ruled by Britain, the Blue Card status is designed to keep a
cheap and exploitable workforce in place and bound to employers,
especially during harvesting season, in exchange for being allowed to
apply for citizenship.
This will perpetuate a largely unorganized agricultural workforce and ensure that
farm work continues to be the lowest-paying and most dangerous work in the U.S. economy--for the benefit of agriculture profits.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
High-tech Exploitation
As for future migration, the bill would overhaul the visa system in
favor of those with higher levels of education and technical skills,
aligned with the needs of the U.S. economy.
The new "merit-based system" for determining who gets into the U.S.
would allow for up to 250,000 visas, distributed based on a point
system. The most points go to those with the highest levels of
education, to entrepreneurs, to those who speak English fluently, to the
young and to those with skills in "high-demand industries." Unlike the
Registered Provisional Immigrants, these "top-tiered" immigrants enter
immediately as Legal Permanent Residents.
This provision can be understood as a concession to the high-tech industry, exemplified by
the lobbying group FWD.us
Fronted by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and including industry
heavies like Microsoft, Google and Intel, FWD.us describes itself as "a
diverse group of leading innovators, job creators, business owners and
founders from Silicon Valley's tech sector."
In reality, say critics of this program, high-tech companies face a
dwindling pool of U.S. workers with the requisite skills, and so they
want the merit-based system as a way to expand the current, more limited
version of the H-1B visa system.
According to the Washington Post:
[S]ome experts say these big firms have been using the system to pay
foreign-born employees less than their American counterparts, and that
immigrant workers with H-1B visas end up being completely beholden to
their employers. The path to a green card that confers permanent legal
residence can take years, and workers in the middle of the process are
often loath to switch companies--an enormous advantage for companies
that want to retain workers.
A second track of merit-based visas favors employment-based
applicants (along with their families) whose applications have been
pending five years or more under the current system.
While the merit-based visa system will expand the number of skilled
workers getting visas, the number of family-based visas will remain the
same (480,000). The legislation also removes the category for
sibling-based family migration and for married sons or daughters of U.S.
citizens who are over 30 years of age.
For workers who are not tech-savvy, highly educated or wealthy, they
get bumped into lower "non-immigrant" temporary worker categories. This
includes the W-Visa and the Non-Immigrant Agricultural Worker Program,
which are also referred to as "guest worker" programs.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
You Can Work, But You Can't Stay
Working-class immigrants employed in manual labor jobs make up the largest proportion of immigrants in the U.S. They are
concentrated in low-wage industriesand have been historically excluded from legal paths to immigration, making them
the largest proportion of the undocumented population since they tend to find long-term employment--
two-thirds of undocumented workers have been in the U.S. for over 10 years--and
establish family roots.
The exclusion of pathways to citizenship for working-class
undocumented immigrants will continue in the form of a new guest-worker
program. This will allow for the creation of a vast army of non-citizen
labor, used by employers to expand the low-wage sectors of the economy.
The W-Visa program (Section 7401) and Non-Immigrant Agricultural
Worker Visa (NAIW; Section 2232) are based on the needs of industries
that employ "unskilled" workers. These industries can petition the
government based on what they describe as labor shortages, with caps
varying by industry but expandable.
To qualify, workers must apply in their home country and can be
granted a renewable three-year work permit. With the W Visa, guest
workers can only work for registered employers. Although they can leave
an employer and seek work elsewhere, it must be with another registered
company. With the NAIW Visa, workers must have three years of previous
experience in U.S. agriculture, and they can be as young as 16. For
agricultural workers entering through a contract with an employer, they
can only work for that employer for the duration of the contract, and
the employer also has the right to terminate the contract unilaterally.
"At-will workers" can be admitted, but must work for registered
employers.
In reality, there is no shortage of "unskilled" labor in the U.S.
Employers, with the complicity of the state, have leveraged the
vulnerabilities of undocumented workers to create lower wage floors in
multiple sectors of the economy, such as agriculture, food service,
landscaping, construction and domestic service. Nevertheless,
immigrant worker mobility and
the willingness of some to fight for better wages, conditions and union representation are clearly a threat to employers in these sectors.
That's why they look to the bipartisan immigration "reform" proposal.
With these guest-worker programs, industries can count on a permanent
stream of workers bound to their industries, without the right to
establish roots or engage in political activities. What's more, workers
cannot be unemployed for longer than 60 consecutive days. If they cannot
find work, they must leave voluntarily or be subject to forced removal.
Like the old-fashioned bracero programs, this places power in the
employer's hands to determine wages, conditions and length of
employment.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Reform We Need...Is Not This
Repressing people's movement and restricting their ability to work,
participate in the political process and integrate into society serves
only the interests of big business.
Immigrant workers have historically subsidized the economic
development and expansion of the U.S. economy, and today is no
different. S. 744 is designed to continue this process, while at the
same time hurtling society backward by introducing new forms of
segregation and exclusion through the cynical manipulation of
citizenship.
Immigrant workers have historically used a human rights and labor
rights framework to advance their own vision for social inclusion. The
mass marches, strikes, boycotts and sit-ins for immigrant rights over
the last decade have demonstrated this with slogans emphasizing
unconditional legalization, family unification, and full and equal
rights.
Because of immigrant rights activism, the most reactionary pieces of
immigration legislation--like the Sensenbrenner bill--have been
defeated. But sustained action culminating in an alternative platform
for unconditional legalization has not materialized. Instead, elections
and the empty promises of Democratic Party politicians have drawn
activists away from the streets and into electoral strategies that have
hit a dead end.
This current piece of legislation illustrates the problem. Without an
immigrant rights-based social movement to push the process forward,
toward a more just and humane resolution,
anti-immigrant reactionaries will feel confident to push the whole process off the rails. Already, hard-line right-wingers,
though a minority in Congress on this issue, feel emboldened by the
conservative and punitive nature of the bipartisan proposal--and by
Obama's incessant "tough talk" on immigration--to believe they can push
the Gang of Eight's proposal even further to the right.
Despite the uphill battle we face, the potential to re-activate
immigrant rights mobilization remains. This will depend on how quickly
immigrant rights activists and organizations across the country see
through S. 744 for the anti-worker and anti-immigrant proposal it
is--and return to organizing in their communities and workplaces.
http://socialistworker.org/2013/06/17/justice-left-out-of-reform