Immigration and the 110th Congress
Via ILW.com
by
Gregory Siskind
The Democratic Party has won twice as many seats as needed to take over
the US House of Representatives and seem to be in a position to take
over the US Senate as well in a stunning defeat for the Republican
Party. In January, the 100th Congress will be sworn in and new leaders
will be chosen to run committees which focus on immigration
legislation.
Immigration was set to be the Republicans secret political weapon this
year, but a funny thing happened on the way to the election. While most
Republicans promoted tough immigration positions that emphasized strong
enforcement and an opposition to any kind of relief for undocumented
immigrants, voters generally rejected this hard-line approach and
supported candidates more likely to support comprehensive immigration
reform proposals.
The most telling evidence of this is the fact that Tom Tancredo’s
anti-immigrant Immigration Reform Caucus (comprised of 101 Republicans
and 2 Democrats) had a horrible evening yesterday. As many as 20 of its
members will be gone in the next Congress. (See further details below)
The rejection of the anti-immigrant message was seen in the
overwhelming defeat of John Hostettler (R-IN), the chairman of the
House Immigration Subcommittee. Hostettler lost 61% to 39%, a landslide
by any definition. He made immigration his major issue and touted his
record as rejecting any form of relief for the undocumented immigrant.
Another high profile anti-immigrant Congressman to go down in defeat
was J.D. Hayworth, the Arizona Republican who frequently is seen on
national television discussing immigration. In another Arizona race,
Randy Graf lost by a large margin to Gabrielle Giffords to take over
the seat of Jim Kolbe. Graf, a Minuteman, not surprisingly took a
number of extremely tough immigration positions including opposing US
citizenship for children born in the US to non-citizens, opposition to
earned legalization for undocumented immigrants, and supporting of the
CLEAR Act, a bill with numerous provisions removing due process rights
for immigrants.
Kolbe noted that the anti-immigration strategy of Republicans like Graf
was actually hurting the GOP. Kolbe told the Tucson Citizen newspaper
“The focus on immigration hurt Republicans. They need to focus on key
issues such as terrorism and economic growth.”
American Immigration Lawyers Association’s 2006 Election Analysis
Via AILA
11/08/2006
Mid-term election races are typically suffused
with a blend of local and national issues and concerns. As a result,
analyzing the election outcomes through the lens of a single issue
often presents difficulties. To some degree, however, this year
represents an exception with regard to a central AILA issue:
immigration reform. A number of House, Senate (and Governor)
immigration hard-liners tried to make illegal immigration a wedge
electoral issue. The election results highlight how badly their gambit
fared.
The rigid, impractical position on undocumented immigration set
forth by hard-liners failed both generally (as it faded down the list
of top national voter issues) and specifically (as high profile
candidates who tried to leverage their hard-line approach into a wedge
issue lost a majority of races). We take heart from the following
specific election results:
House Races:
J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), one of the most vocal “seal the border, repel
the hordes” hard-liners lost his re-election bid (46-51%) in Arizona
(5th), a district he won by 21% two years ago!
Minuteman Randy Graf (R) lost his bid to replace Jim Kolbe in
Arizona’s 8th District by an overwhelming margin (42-54%). He ran on
his hard-line views against Democratic opponent Gabrielle Giffords, who
supports comprehensive reform along the lines of the Senate-passed
comprehensive bill. The national elections gave truth to Graf’s recent
observation along the lines of: “If this issue doesn’t play well in
this district, it won’t play well anywhere in the country.”
John Hostettler (R-IN) also lost resoundingly, taking only 39% of
the vote in Indiana’s 8th District. Hostettler was one of the most
high-profile hard-liners in the House. He has been the Chairman of the
House Immigration Subcommittee and led a number of the summer hearings.
Bruce Braley (D) defeated Mike Whalen (R) in an open seat in Iowa’s
1st District. Whalen ran on a hard-line, pro-H.R. 4437 platform and
accused his opponent of supporting amnesty.
In Colorado’s 7th District, Ed Perlmutter (D) beat Rick O’Donnell
(54-42%) for Representative Beauprez’s open seat, despite O’Donnell’s
attacks on Perlmutter as a supporter of amnesty.
Melissa Hart (R-PA), a member of the House Immigration Subcommittee,
who had been a staunch supporter of H.R. 4437 and a committed opponent
of comprehensive reform, also lost her reelection bid.
Key Senate Races:
Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) lost by a huge margin (41-59%).
Santorum had pounded his opponent, Democratic challenger Bob Casey, on
Casey’s support for comprehensive immigration reform in debates and
with inflammatory advertisements.
Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) prevailed (53-45%) over his challenger,
Tom Kean, who strongly opposed comprehensive immigration reform.
Senator Menendez has the distinction of being the only Member of
Congress to both vote against H.R. 4437 and for S. 2611!
Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) easily fought back (60-38%) a challenger,
Katherine Harris, who unsuccessfully attempted to leverage Nelson’s
support for comprehensive reform into a wedge issue.
Senator Carper (D-DE) resoundingly defeated (70-29%) single-issue
restrictionist candidate, Jan Ting. Carper supported a comprehensive
solution and voted in favor of S. 2611 while Ting, a former INS
official, rejected it as “amnesty.”
Governor’s Races:
In Arizona, Democrat Janet Napolitano handily beat (63-35%) her
Republican challenger Len Munsil. Napolitano has been in the vanguard
of governors supporting a realistic, comprehensive solution to our
immigration problems.
In Colorado, Democrat Bill Ritter defeated (56-41%) hard-liner
Republican Bob Beauprez, who had vacated his U.S. House seat for a run
at the governor’s mansion. As a Member of the House, Beauprez voted
against AILA’s position on virtually every issue and attempted to
leverage his hard-line stance on immigration into a winning electoral
strategy in his gubernatorial bid.
Overall Picture:
The final results in the House look like this: Democrats took
control by a 230-205 margin, winning 12 more seats than they needed to
gain control. The final Senate results are not in yet. Democrats gained
at least 5 Senate seats, with the results of the Virginia Senate
election still outstanding. Currently, Democrat Jim Webb appears to
have a slight lead over Republican incumbent George Allen, but a
recount of the Virginia race will probably be necessary because of the
razor-thin margins. If Webb wins the Virginia seat, Democrats will
control the Senate by a 51-49 margin (including two independents who
will caucus with them). If Allen is re-elected, the Senate will be
split 50-50 between Republicans and Democrats, but Republicans will
maintain their majority, since Vice President Cheney, as President of
the Senate, casts the tie-breaking vote.
While these results will mean positive changes in leadership in the
House (and possibly the Senate) on immigration issues, they by no means
signify that it will be easy to obtain positive and comprehensive
immigration reform through the Congress in the coming two years. We
lost two Republican moderates in the Senate who had strongly supported
comprehensive immigration reform–Senators DeWine (OH) and Chafee (RI)
– and 60 votes will be needed to pass any controversial legislation. In
the House, many of the victors are conservative Democrats, and the
looming 2008 presidential election will mean that both parties will be
“tacking” strongly to the center. Please see Fareed Zakaria’s article
in the November 13 issue of Newsweek
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15566722/site/newsweek/from/ET/) for a
good analysis of the prospects for immigration reform in the new
Congress.
We hope that both parties will take seriously the fact that
immigration restrictionists lost badly yesterday. We will also be
looking at some of the close races to determine the strength of the
Latino vote.
We will be working very hard to try to get some meaningful H and EB
relief next week during the potentially short “lame duck” session. It
is not yet clear whether Congress will actually try to pass any
appropriations bills or whether they will merely pass a “continuing
resolution” and leave the legislating until 2007. We will keep you
posted.
New immigration restrictions reflect voters’ dismay
By Sarah N. Lynch, Tribune
November 7, 2006
Four propositions aimed at curbing illegal immigration were headed for a landslide victory on Tuesday, a clear sign that Arizona voters are frustrated with the lack of congressional action on the issue.
The most controversial of the four immigration-related propositions is
300, which will prohibit illegal immigrants from receiving in-state
tuition, financial assistance or access to state-subsidized childcare
and family literacy programs. It will also require the Board of
Education, community colleges, universities and the Department of
Economic Security to report any illegal immigrants who try to apply for
those programs.
Wipro CEO: U.S. Needs More H-1B Tech Workers
By Paul McDougall
Nov 1, 2006 at 01:08 PM ET
“In his book Bangalore Tiger, BusinessWeek
writer Steve Hamm recounts how a shortage of temporary worker visas all
but crippled the attempts of Indian outsourcer Wipro to win a bigger
chunk of business at General Motors after 9/11. Last week, I dined with
Wipro CEO Azim Premji. He told me that things haven’t changed much.
Over entrees at a modest bistro in midtown Manhattan, Premji was arguing that the U.S. economy needs an influx of foreign tech
workers now more than ever. “Attrition levels in New York are higher
than in India,” said Premji, who, despite his status as one of India’s
richest men, ordered the meatloaf (as did I. Hey, if it’s good enough
for him…).
Premji believes that a shortage of U.S. tech workers, combined with the fact that the H-1B program
is currently capped at 65,000 visas, is creating headaches for both
Indian outsourcers and their customers–which have come to include
virtually all major U.S. corporations. “There’s not enough qualified
labor to go around,” said Premji, between bites.
Outsourcers perform most of their work from remote, low-cost
locations, but nonetheless need some highly skilled employees to work
on-site at customer premises in the U.S.”
A Few [More] Thoughts on Jobs and Immigration
Traveled to Vancouver, BC this week for a leadership conference hosted by the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce. The conference took a comprehensive, future-oriented look at human capital in the Puget Sound region.
The clear consensus was we have a lot of work to do. There is
already a serious mismatch between job openings/requirements and
available workers/skills. It is projected to get worse.
Demographers forecast a SHORTAGE – that’s right, I said a shortage –
of as many as 10 million workers in the U.S. economy by 2010 as baby
boomers leave the workforce. Despite this shortage unemployment could
hover at 5% – 6% because of the skills mismatch between new jobs and
available workers.
The solutions are pretty obvious.
We must educate our workers for the jobs of the future. We need more
scientists, engineers, computer programmers and researchers – and more
of them with advanced degrees. Clearly, that is a long-term answer, and
we have been slow to react to that requirement even though we’ve seen
it coming for years.
Failing to grow our own talent, we can compete in the global
marketplace for the best and brightest from outside the region. We’ve
done pretty well at that. The quality of life here in the Pacific
Northwest is a big draw.
It’s one thing to import talent from Cal Tech and MIT. It’s something else entirely to import workers from India or China.
So what’s the difference? … About five-to-ten years and $50-$60,000.
Bringing a worker to Seattle from Boston or LA is relatively easy. A
visit to the area, a signing bonus and relocation expenses usually do
the trick.
Hiring
the same highly skilled, highly educated worker from overseas may
require the same visit and bonus package. It will also require an H1B
visa and work permit, assuming the hiring firm can even obtain one of
the limited number of H1B quota slots.
One speaker at the conference detailed the time consuming,
expensive, arbitrary process of bringing these highly sought after
immigrants to our shores. He saw this as limiting our region’s economic
growth. Another questioner suggested that importing talent was limiting
opportunities for American workers. A lot of people see it that way.
This is one case where I think the macroeconomic factors carry the day.
First of all, we cannot fix the education system overnight. In my
view, we have yet to really embark on that process. If we fail to
provide the needed workers, the jobs will eventually leave … to Boston,
Silicon Valley, the Research Triangle or Bangalore.
More importantly these highly educated, highly skilled workers will
not only fill jobs, they will create them. These knowledge workers will
invent, incubate and launch new firms, businesses and jobs we want
located right here in Puget Sound.
So if we cannot bring enough talented immigrants from offshore to
meet requirements, eventually firms will have no choice but to set up
business where the work can be done. We will be the big losers. We will
lose twice … losing not only the jobs sent offshore but all the jobs
that would have been created by the talented people we imported.
Congress should lift the cap on H1B visas.
Immigration is not the only solution. We still have to fix the education system. Perhaps the immigrants can help us with that.
Foreign alums cope with visa troubles – Via The Yale Daily News
Via The Yale Daily News
After
studying at Yale for four years, Semih Salihoglu ’06 was ready to
continue his life in the United States as a software engineer for
Google in New York City.
A Turkish citizen, Salihoglu was a computer science and
economics double major and holder of the highest grade-point average in
Silliman College after seven terms – an ideal candidate for many jobs
in the United States. But his plans were disrupted when he was denied
the necessary visa for employment for foreign workers with the
equivalent of a bachelor’s degree or higher, the H-1B.
“It was shocking because no one thought there was any risk in not getting an H-1B visa,” Salihoglu said.
Salihoglu is one of many foreign graduating seniors who were
unable to obtain H-1B visas this year due to increasing demand. Months
later, they continue to deal with the ramifications of the visa
shortage, and pending immigration legislation may or may not raise the
visa cap for the coming fiscal year.
Diploma in Hand, But Visa in Limbo – Via The Harvard Crimson
Via The Harvard Crimson
Seniors are waiting to hear if they’ve been hired for lucrative jobs on
Wall Street and in Silicon Valley, but international students are
waiting to hear if they’ll even be allowed to hold jobs in the country.
Harvard’s late graduation date—and an unusually high volume of
visa applications—could put some seniors’ and recent graduates’ jobs in
jeopardy.
And with immigration reform efforts stalled on Capitol Hill, relief may be a long time coming.
Some international students in the Class of 2006 were unable to
apply for the H-1B visas required to seek employment in the United
States because they did not receive the necessary proof of graduation
until after the visa quota was filled.
Previously, the annual quota had not filled up until long
after Harvard’s June Commencement ceremonies—students in the class of
2005 faced a deadline of Aug. 10.
But last year, U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS),
the federal agency that adjudicates visa petitions, announced that the
quota was filled on May 26—the same day finals period ended. That left
some graduating seniors without long-term employment permits.
Newspaper Articles on H-1Bs and Labor Certifications in Rural States like Maine
Via The Portland Press Herald Maine Sunday Telegram Online
Comprehensive and interesting article regarding some old loopholes (closed with the new PERM labor certification system) and containing a Department of Labor perspective. Report summarizes with the usual negative slant against the H-1B visa and labor certification program.
Here’s another one which focuses on LCA’s for H-1B workers.
When reading these articles, it is important to keep the H-1B program in perspective; an excerpt from the latter article:
contentions that American workers are hurt by the influx of skilled
immigrants, said Jeff Lande, senior vice president at the Information
Technology Association of America.
America,” said Lande. “We’re talking about a (H1B visa) cap of 65,000 a
year, maybe 20,000 of whom are technology workers. You’re barely
talking about a drop in the bucket spread out across the country. Any
complaints about this program having a serious impact on U.S. labor are
comical.” “
Response to the article “The shifting debate over illegal immigration”
10/06/2006
Anti-multiculturalist Victor Davis Hanson, author of the book “Mexifornia” and senior fellow/historian at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University recently wrote about why he feels assimilation of immigrants should be an essential component of American Immigration.
An excerpt from the article pertaining to multiculturalism, via ChicagoTribune.com:
“Because the United States is
increasingly less a majority of whites of European ancestry and more a
mixture of dozens of races and ethnicities, the need for a common
unifying language and culture has never been more important. When
Americans look abroad at the violent messes in the Balkans, Rwanda,
Darfur and Iraq, the notion of emphasizing separation here at home by
race, tribe, language or religion makes absolutely no sense. But the
idea of letting only enough legal immigrants in who can be easily
assimilated surely does.”
I don’t believe Mr. Hanson has ever considered our neighbor to the north for inclusion into his research on the negative effects of multiculturalism. Canada doesn’t seem to suffer much [those pesky referendums aside] from the multicultural chaos theory that he so vividly describes. I assume that his purpose, position, and paper are better served by instead singling out “the Balkans, Rwanda,
Darfur and Iraq” as examples of “When-Multiculturalism-Goes-Wild”, though I’m almost positive there are a few other, more rational explanations for why these countries are in their present state.
Getting back to my point; it is my belief that there is absolutely nothing wrong with retaining ones’ cultural identity and language in the US as long as one has a working knowledge of the English language. I also believe that the anti-immigrationists who recently attempted to legislate English as the ‘official language’ of the US would do better to increase funding for and accessibility to ESL programs rather than politicizing a non-issue and fostering a false sense of cultural superiority.
The U.S. Immigration Law Blog by Ashwin Sharma 
Election 2006: Immigration Debacle Hurt the GOP
Via The Post Chronical
By Jim Kouri
Nov 8, 2006
On Wednesday morning, the day after election 2006, Americans awoke to the news that Rep. Nancy Pelosi was elevated to the powerful position of Speaker of the House of Representatives by the voters. While the news media and pundits played down its importance, the issue of illegal aliens and lax border security proved devastating to the Republican Party.
What Americans witnessed on election day was a populist revolt, claims Chris Simcox, President of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps
“With the issues of national security and ethical questions looming over the elections, the GOP leadership gave voters nothing to actually vote for,” he said.
The outspoken activist believes that the crises of border security and the illegal immigration invasion could have given a strong GOP agenda a crucial electoral edge, yet the President choose to send a contrary message to voters the week before the elections, stating that he needed a Republican Congress for his amnesty disguised as a guest worker ‘path to citizenship’ to move forward.
Other political observers agree with Simcox. Rather than expose the Democrat Party as the “open border crowd,” the GOP made immigration and border security reform an intra-party issue which the news media were more than happy to play up in the weeks preceeding the mid-term elections.
“Ironically, as a result GOP infighting, a woman — Rep. Nancy Pelosi — benefited from her open-border position by becoming the new Speaker of the House. The GOP have themselves to thank for that,” says political analyst Mike Baker.