An Independent Commission on Immigration and Labor: What is it?

I attended a day-long conference last week at the Economic Policy Institute called Labor shortages and immigration reform: promises and pitfalls of an independent commission. A number of economists, immigration experts and labor representatives got together to discuss the idea of a commission that would figure out how immigrant workers would fit into the U.S. economy. Two representatives from Britain's Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) were also there, to talk about their experience with a similar commission in the United Kingdom.

The panelists agreed the U.S. should set up an independent professional commission to research labor shortages and make recommendations to the government about how many workers the U.S. should invite in, based on current data. Its main purpose would be to make sure that occupations are filled primarily by native-born workers, and foreign workers are invited in to take jobs when there is a labor shortage and native-born workers are not taking jobs in a given occupation. In times like these, when so many people who are already legally in the U.S. and without work, a commission like this would probably recommend few, if any work-based visas.

Doris Meissner, the Former Commissioner of the US Immigration and Naturalization Service, pointed out that the legal immigration system at the moment so inflexible that it can’t keep up with social changes and economic changes in the U.S. A better way to write policy, she argues, is to create a process that sets annual “quotas” that can be changed as circumstances change. The policy for recruiting immigrant workers should be flexible, not locked in. The independent commission should focus on just this one question: what kind of labor shortages are U.S. employers facing and how many immigrant workers should be invited in to meet that need.

The British commission on immigration and labor consists of economists and experts on immigration and [labor?] policy. The government asks it to research specific questions such as researching labor shortages in a specific occupation that could be filled by foreign workers. In addition to broad national research, the commission engages in meetings and visits with employers to provide "bottom up" evidence as well. The MAC then publishes reports and recommends changes in immigration policy to the government, whichmay or may not be passed.

A main theme over the course of the day was the question, "what is essential to making a commission like this work?" Panelists agreed that the commission must be independent, and non-partisan; [labor and?] immigration [are?] intensely political issues, and the facts are not easily separated from the political arguments that usually occupy the center of the debate. Martin Ruhs, a member of the MAC, said that the commission's non-partisan research has contributed to the quality of the debate on immigration. Secondly, members that are experts in policy, labor, immigration, and economics will ensure that the commission is professional. The research process and data need to be transparent in order for the commission to be accepted and seen as credible by lawmakers and the public.

Immigration commissions are a long part of our U.S. history. Panelist Susan Martin, from the Institute for the Study of International Migration at Georgetown University, explained that over centuries, commissions have informed immigration law in the U.S. The earliest was the 1775 Industrial Commission, to the Dillingham Commission whose recommendations led to the restrictionist laws in the Immigration Act of 1924 that established strict quotas based on nationality (Check out this blog post for more information on that era). A labor commission like the one being discussed here would focus exclusively on the need for foreign labor for jobs that aren't being filled by American workers and not on the nationality of the workers.

An independent commission fits into the comprehensive immigration reform puzzle by being part of the solution to control future immigration. Research-based empirical evidence can yield realistic and fair quotas to match up with the labor needs of the country, which can change more quickly than legislators can keep up with. The challenges are numerous, such as

• developing reliable and valid data gathering and evaluation tools (i.e. does the research accurately reflect the needs it identifies? Are the recommendations adequately supported?),
• the sheer number of issues that urgently need to be addressed, and
• the risk of politicization of those results on the floor of the House and Senate after publication.
  

The most recent CIR bill introduced by Senators Menendez (NJ) and Leahy (VT) includes a Standing Commission on Immigration, Labor Rights, and the National Interest designed to establish employment-based immigration policy, implement a policy-focused research agenda, and make recommendations to Congress and the President on quotas for employment-based visa categories. The purpose of the commission also includes "promot[ing] America's economic growth and competitiveness while minimizing job displacement, wage depression, unauthorized employment" (To see bill text, click here). By enforcing labor laws for employers and all workers, the commission would prevent further undercutting of U.S. employment. To see FCNL's summary of the Menendez CIR bill, click here, and read the post just below this on It's Our Community!

The keyword of the day was "sensible." Accurate research that shows where we need foreign workers can lead to sensible quotas that allow workers to come and work legally in occupations that need them. Laura Reiff from the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition made the point that there are millions of visas too few for low-skill workers (ie. workers for low-skilled jobs in agriculture, construction and the service industry), which is why we have such a high number of undocumented workers. Is an independent commission the right answer? Let us know what you think.

Thoughts on the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2010

In September, Senators Bill Menendez (NJ) and Patrick Leahy (VT) introduced the Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) Act of 2010 (S. 3932). As the word “comprehensive” implies, the bill proposes changing many aspects of the immigration system; it’s a complicated bill. It is important to carefully scrutinize each provision of a bill so large in order to be sure it has the rights and safety of immigrants at heart. The "enforcement-only" approach, which often comprises major parts of CIR bills, is often touted as true reform, though it does not does not stem the flow of undocumented immigrants, does not provide a solution for the millions of undocumented people already here, and has induced human and civil rights abuses. Although FCNL firmly believes that comprehensive reform is needed immediately, there are often provisions that don’t comply with our statement of principles for just and humane immigration reform, and these must be not be overlooked.

Many parts of the more-than-800 page bill are positive reforms that enable immigrants to live and work with dignity. Some of these include:

- The inclusion of important stand-alone bills such as the AgJOBS bill, the DREAM Act, and the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA).

- Creating a Lawful Prospective Immigrant status for undocumented immigrants already living in the United States.

- Improving detention conditions and implementing secure alternatives to detention.

- Expanding labor protections under many work visa programs.

- Improving access to interpreters in state courts.

- Ending the waiting period for refugees and asylees to obtain green cards.

- Improving training and accountability for Department of Homeland Security border and immigration officers

- Coordinating local law enforcement agencies, border security and crime fighting with Canada and Mexico.

Some stipulations of the bill, however, have us deeply concerned. There are a lot of “enforcement-first” provisions that impose steep penalties instead of addressing root causes. Most significantly, the bill calls for many new border enforcement requirements that must be met before any undocumented immigrant is eligible for legal status. This includes, but is not limited to, the following:

• A total force of 6,410 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents investigating criminal law violations,
• 21,000 Border Patrol agents,
• 7 unmanned aircraft systems,
• Remote video surveillance systems at 300 sites,
• 200 scope trucks,
• 56 mobile surveillance systems

Some “trigger” requirements are positive, such as implementing civil detention standards, dramatically increasing enrollment in alternatives to detention, and utilizing worksite auditors to develop cases against employers suspected of serious violations. The militarization of the border, however, is not an effective way to address the flow of undocumented immigrants.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano testified to a Senate Appropriations Committee in May of this year:

“Every marker and every milepost that has been laid down by the Congress in terms of number of agents, deployment of technology, construction of fencing and the like, has already either been completed or is within a hair’s breadth of being completed … One of the questions I think we need to talk about is whether securing the border is ever going to be reached, or whether that goalpost is going to keep moving.”

When is enough enough? Check out FCNL’s resources on enforcement to find out more about this flawed approached to immigration reform. Other provisions of the bill that are particularly worrisome are:

Heightened penalties for document fraud and illegal entry

Increased penalties result in a larger number of people in prisons. The prison system is already too large, and this is an expensive policy that does not actually solve the problem, and will not serve as an adequate disincentive.

Mandating the use of an employment verification system and biometric identifiers.

The proposed employment verification system depends on the Social Security database, which has an extremely high error rate, especially for individuals with foreign-sounding last names. For example, Asian names and surnames are sometimes mistakenly interchanged, and Latin American names, which are often two first names and two last names, can be improperly categorized. As a result, an employer could run the name of a potential employee through the database and result in “no match,” though this does not necessarily mean the individual is not in the system.

When analyzing a bill, it is important to consider what’s left out of it. At FCNL, we are disappointed not to see any stipulations that mandate the enforcement of wage, hour, health and safety laws in the workplace for all employees. This is essential to the fair treatment not just of immigrant workers, but of U.S.-born workers as well. Broad enforcement of these laws would make it more difficult for a U.S. employer to undercut U.S. born workers by bringing in “cheap” undocumented workers to work without protections of U.S. labor laws. Evening the playing field would allow the Labor Commission (provided for in the bill) to make a realistic and accurate assessment of the number of additional workers needed in the U.S. for various industries.

In all, this CIR bill is a mixed bag. It proposes essential reforms that are urgently needed, such as alternatives to detention and reformation of the legal system, but the enforcement provisions have us very worried. A more detailed summary on the bill can be found on our website. What are your thoughts?

The Economics of Immigration

Does immigration burden or benefit the U.S. economy? This year, several reports have been released demonstrating the economic value of immigration to the United States. It's often hard to step away from the emotional and moral aspects of the debate, but factual, objective research forms the strongest foundation for fair and effective immigration reform. Check out a few reports below:

- The Hamilton Project, a research project with the Brookings Institution, released a paper called Ten Economic Facts About Immigration. The paper's main conclusions are that immigrants come from diverse backgrounds, cover a wide spectrum of skill sets, and generally pay more taxes than they receive in benefits. These might seem obvious, but anti-immigrant arguments often dispute these claims. Read more here.
- A study conducted by the Immigration Policy Center and the Center for American Progress states that comprehensive immigration reform with a path to legal status would increase U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by at least .84 percent. Over ten years, GDP would increase by $1.5 trillion, cumulatively. Mass deportation would reduce GDP by 1.46 percent and would lead to widespread job loss for higher skill natives.
- A paper published through the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco argues that instead of competing for the same jobs, employers hire immigrant workers for low-skill jobs, which expands job opportunities for native-born workers and result in a more productive economy.

Immigrants who come to the U.S. want to be productive members of society, and the research above indicates that regardless of legal status, they are integral parts of our economy. We already believe that immigrants have human and civil rights and deserve to be treated with respect, but it appears in order to change minds about comprehensive immigration reform in the U.S., that alone will not suffice. Hopefully, this research can help inform our conversations about immigration and support our work towards immigration reform.

Time to Say Goodbye!

Today is my last day as a program assistant at the Friends Committee on National Legislation, so I must say goodbye to you for now. It's been a wonderful year, and I have been so heartened to learn of all the passion and enthusiasm across the country for comprehensive immigration reform. All I can say is, keep it up!

Ruth Flower and Hannah Cole-Chu, one of FCNL's incoming program assistants, will be managing the blog from this point on. Hannah does not arrive until September, so it may be a little quiet around here in August. As for me, in September I will be moving to Zimbabwe to work with a clinic that provides medical and legal services for survivors of torture. My role will be to set up a support and referral system for clients seeking income-generating activities. I hope to be there for a year or so.

I hope that you'll stick with us through the transition and thank you for all that you do to support comprehensive immigration reform!

Injunction Granted, Just in Time!

Great news!!

A federal judge has blocked key provisions of S.B. 1070, the controversial immigration law in Arizona that was scheduled to go into effect tomorrow. The judge has blocked the requirement that police have to check the immigration status of anyone they "reasonably suspect" of being in the country without authorization.

A judge grants a preliminary injunction if he or she finds that the case is likely to suffer "irreparable harm" if the judge does not prevent the law (or part of the law) from going into effect. If police in Arizona were to start enforcing S.B. 1070 tomorrow, it would profoundly alter the context in which the lawsuits are considered.

You can read the full decision here.

Still, even though the critical components of S.B. 1070 will not go into effect tomorrow, some of the horrific effects of this discriminatory immigration law are already visible:

• Immigrants - both those with and without papers - have been packing up and fleeing the state in search of safer territory.
• Arizona's economy has plummeted due to a national boycott in which tourism has dropped, conferences have been rescheduled elsewhere, and cities across the country have refused to support business with Arizona.
• U.S. citizens fear being wrongfully deported if they experience racial profiling.
• Well-intentioned police officers in Arizona struggle to determine how to walk a fine line.
  

For more information, see the Detention Watch Network's website about the consequences of S.B. 1070, or see Immigration Policy Institute's new report, "A State of Confusion."

Advocates have been gathering in Arizona to participate in prayer vigils and to consider acts of civil disobedience if the law were to fully come into effect tomorrow. Meanwhile, the private prison industry stands to make a profit from increased arrests, detentions, and deportations - even if the people they detain were picked up due to racial profiling. No matter what, all eyes have been on Arizona.

At FCNL, we welcome the injunction against S.B. 1070. We hope that states considering similar proposals will rethink their positions, given the situation in Arizona at this point. Above all, we urge President Obama and members of Congress to act swiftly to comprehensively reform the broken immigration system, to reassert federal control and restore the U.S. tradition of welcoming immigrants.