H-2C and Tancxredo
H-2C and Tancxredo
Date: Sunday, November 03, 2002 4:57 PM
H-1B and JOB DESTRUCTION NEWSLETTER
www.ZaZona.com
Quite a lot people that received my previous email concerning Tancredo's
500,000 H-2C proposal have sent emails to his office for an explanation. I
am encouraged that so many people understand that Tancredo's proposal is
another assault on American workers. Some people believe that that Tancredo
filters out email from non-constituents. I don't know if this is true but if
you want to make sure your message is heard send it as a fax or phone his
office.
H-2C proposals have reared their ugly head in the past and were defeated
(read the two articles below for more background). The Tancredo proposal is
far more dangerous because the cheap immigrant labor lobbies will be able to
use Tancredo's advocacy as a justification for passing it through Congress.
Many immigration control groups may decide to not oppose what Tancredo is
doing because they don't want to offend one of the few friends they have in
Congress. They will hesitate to face the fact that Tancredo may no longer be
a friend.
The best case scenario would be for Tancredo to shelve this bill and to
never submit it to Congress. Perhaps if he received enough negative
publicity he will see the error of his ways.
If any of you receive replies from Tancredo's office please let me know what
you find out. I have contacted his office by phone twice and was asked to
leave a message. I didn't receive any replies back. I also sent his office
the previous newsletter.
I received the form letter response to my email below. The letter contains
some tough sounding talk about immigration. He even mentions that the Jordan
Commission wanted to limit immigration to 450,000. It's puzzling that he is
now proposing a 100% increase in that number and a 50% increase in our
current immigration level of 1,000,000 per year. Perhaps that's why Tancredo
uses the standard arguments for importing foreign labor: "We must never
forget that this nation was built on the backs of immigrants" and we are "a
nation of immigrants".
*** Tancredo's Form Response ***
I recently received your comments on immigration in America. I appreciate
your input on such an important issue for our country. As a nation of
immigrants, we are all aware of the positive role that immigration has
played in our nation's history. America as a "melting pot" is what makes
this country truly unique and adds to its grandeur. However, as we enter
into a new century, we are faced with serious public policy problems
regarding immigration.
Mass immigration since the 1970s has had a dramatic - and mostly negative -
effect on the quality of life in America today. Now, I know this statement
is controversial. But I believe our government can no longer ignore the
consequences of mass immigration.
>From the founding of our nation until about 1965, the average annual number
of immigrants and refugees to the United States held at about 200,000
people. Since 1990, this number has been running at about one million
people each year - and that number does not include the annual population
gain from illegal aliens. Since 1970, over 30 million people have been
added to our population base as a result of both legal and illegal
immigration. The United States Census Bureau projects that the population
of the United States will grow to 571 million by the year 2040. This
increase is due in large part to mass immigration as the US has only a 20%
self-sustaining population. No one can question the importance of
immigration, but we must also look at the negative consequences.
As I am sure you will agree, growth is a major concern for all Coloradans
and growth is a direct effect of immigration. The population of California
is expected to be 64 million by 2040 and many Californians are not waiting
for that date before they decide they would like to live elsewhere.
Colorado has been a favorite choice for those seeking to leave the
population crushes around the country, thus creating our own population
boom. The net effect of this rapid population growth has been a decline in
U.S. wage-rate growth, congested traffic, overcrowded schools, and increased
crime associated with drugs. It has also led to the cultural transformation
of some communities from those with traditions of welcoming cultural
diversity, into ones that are racked by ethnic tension and divisiveness.
This massive population increase is also causing a strain on our nation's
environment. With population increases we see a dramatic rise in demand for
new housing. In Colorado, we are struggling to protect the open space and
breathtaking views that make our state truly unique. Water is in short
supply throughout the West and population increases highlight that strain on
our resources.
Colorado has not escaped the negative effects of mass legal and illegal
immigration. In a report entitled Compassion or Compulsion, the
Independence Institute, a public policy think tank based in Golden,
Colorado, documented that providing welfare, education, and Medicaid
benefits to immigrants, combined with the cost of the incarceration of
non-citizens in our prison system, costs Colorado taxpayers about $115
million each year!
Now the question is, what can be done?
The U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, chaired by Barbara Jordan, the
late Democratic Congresswoman and civil rights hero, recommended
substantially reducing the number of immigrants admitted each year. The
Jordan Commission proposed setting an immediate limit of about 450,000 per
year, and then phasing down the level to about half that. Had Congress
implemented the recommendations of the Jordan Commission in 1996, we would
be well on our way to addressing the immigration-driven crisis in traffic,
sprawl, schools, and jobs. Unfortunately, Congress failed and the crisis
has gotten worse.
For the reasons mentioned above, I created and chair the Immigration Reform
Caucus in Congress to evaluate and critique current immigration policy and
offer new suggestions to combat the negative effects of immigration and
highlight the benefits. As a direct descendant of Italian immigrants, it
is my hope that Congress will take an objective look at immigration policy
and include all angles to create new policies. It is clear that the United
States is reaching its capacity to become a home for the world's immigrants.
We must never forget that this nation was built on the backs of immigrants,
but we must also seek to protect the interests of our nation and recognize
that our nation's resources, both economically and ecologically, have
limits. If we continue with current immigration policy we will jeopardize
what this nation of immigrants has created.
Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. I hope you will
continue to inform me of your concerns. In the meantime, I urge you to
visit my website at http://www.house.gov/tancredo where you can sign up for
the Capitol Update, my weekly E-mail newsletter.
Sincerely,
Thomas Tancredo
Member of Congress
***** Previous H-2C Proposals *****
http://migration.ucdavis.edu/rmn/Archive_RMN/jan_1998-14rmn.html
January 1998
Volume 4 Number 1
HR 2377, Other Guest Worker Issues
H.R. 2377. Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) introduced S.1563, a 24-month pilot
program identical to H.R. 2377, introduced by Rep. Bob Smith (R-OR). H.R.
2377, the Temporary Agricultural Worker Act of 1997, would create an H-2C
nonimmigrant worker program as a two-year pilot program "to admit
non-immigrants to perform temporary or seasonal agricultural services," with
temporary defined as a job intended to last less than 10 months.
Under the proposed H-2C program, employers wishing to hire foreign farm
workers would file labor condition attestations (LCAs) with their local ES
offices, send a copy to the INS district office, and post a notice of the
attestation in the work place. Each LCA would include employer promises
(attestations) to: (1) pay the higher of the minimum wage or the local
prevailing wage "in the occupation in the area of intended employment" to US
and H-2C workers; (2) file a job order with the local ES before the "need
date" for workers, and (3) give preference to US workers until five days
before the need date; and to employ H-2C workers for no more than 10 months
in any 12-month period.
http://www.crlaf.org/3410anal.htm
FARMWORKER JUSTICE FUND, INC.
1111 19th Street, N.W., Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 776-1757
Fax: (202) 776-1792
e-mail: fjf@nclr.org
AGRIBUSINESS GUESTWORKER BILL:
THE H-2C PILOT FOREIGN-WORKER PROGRAM
Bob Smith’s H.R. 3410 Would Increase Labor Surplus,
Reduce Wages, Displace U.S. Workers, Exploit Foreign Workers
The immigration subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee on March 12,
1998 approved a legislative proposal for a pilot program to provide more
temporary foreign workers for the fruit, vegetable, and tobacco industry. A
similar effort failed on the House floor in March 1996. Two government
commissions have strongly recommended against new guestworker legislation
for agribusiness due to an agricultural labor surplus, declining real wages,
increasing poverty and high unemployment. The Congressional General
Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report on December 31, 1997 that rejects
factual arguments of the growers’ lobbyists. Further, the recent welfare
reform legislation is placing more pressure on America’s low-wage labor
markets.
The proposed H-2C pilot program, H.R. 3410 (formerly H.R. 2377), is a long,
highly-detailed bill. It methodically exempts employers from the laws of
supply and demand. To displace U.S. workers, maximize control over foreign
workers and the proposed non-immigrant visas, and keep wages and other labor
costs low, the bill would:
permit employers easy access to foreign-worker visas from the INS and the
State Department, essentially privatizing immigration policy
allow employers to bring in non-immigrant workers without any evidence that
there is a labor shortage of U.S. farmworkers either nationally or locally
allow employers to recruit in Mexico, Peru, Jamaica and elsewhere without
recruiting U.S. workers locally or migrants in Florida, California and Texas
authorize lower wages and significantly worse working conditions than
required by the existing agricultural guestworker law, the weakly-enforced
"H-2A program"
permit H-2C employers to refuse to provide housing for the foreign workers
distort the labor market to prevent improvement in wages and labor standards
prohibit meaningful labor law enforcement of the few rights granted to
workers by restricting government action, access to the courts and remedies.
The Smith proposal would more than double the number of agricultural
guestworkers in the U.S. almost overnight. The existing H-2A agricultural
guestworker program, which would continue, has increased recently to about
18,000-20,000 visas per year, often in tobacco, east coast apples and
Western sheepherding. The pilot program would permit 20,000 guest workers
per year.
If a pilot program is intended to test policy alternatives, the outcomes of
this pilot are obvious and need no testing:
The H-2C program -- even more than the current H-2A program -- would supply
unneeded foreign workers -- cheap foreign labor -- to agribusiness.
The non-immigrant H-2C workers would be too afraid to protest against unfair
or unlawful conditions because they would justifiably fear losing their
desperately-needed jobs and their right to remain in the country.
It would reduce market pressure to improve farmworkers’ dismally low wages,
lack of adequate housing, and poor, often dangerous working conditions.
It will not reduce illegal immigration. Guestworker programs tend to
increase illegal immigration. Some guestworkers stay illegally. Others
return to the U.S. illegally using their newly-established U.S. contacts and
networks.
The U.S. Commission on Agricultural Workers (1992) and the Commission on
Immigration Reform (1995, 1997) both recommended against new guestworker
legislation. The 1986 immigration reform law legalized 1.1 million formerly
undocumented farmworkers. Rather than stabilizing that labor force through
modernizing and improving its labor practices, growers increasingly have
used farm labor contractors as shields against liability for hiring
undocumented immigrants and mistreating workers.
On September 30, 1997, the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform released
its final report to Congress, Becoming an American: Immigration and
Immigrant Policy. After five years of study, the Commission said, "we
reaffirm our belief that a new guestworker program would be a "grievous
mistake." It notes that such programs depress wages and working condition of
U.S. workers, allow exploitation of foreign workers, impose substantial
costs for housing, health care and social services on local communities, and
increase illegal migration. See p. 95. Contrary to the growers’ lobbying
demands, the Commission said:
"Employers requesting the admission of lesser-skilled workers . . . should
continue to be required to demonstrate that they have sought, but were
unable to find, sufficient American workers prepared to work under favorable
wages, benefits, and working conditions. They also should be required to
specify the plans they are taking to recruit and retain U.S. workers, as
well as their plans to reduce dependence on foreign labor through hiring of
U.S. workers or other means. Employers should continue to be required to pay
the highest of prevailing, minimum, or adverse wage rates, provide return
transportation, and offer decent housing, health care, and other benefits
appropriate for seasonal employees."
On December 31, 1997, the U.S. General Accounting Office issued H-2A
Agricultural Guestworker Program: Changes Could Improve Services to
Employers and Better Protect Workers. Congress commissioned the report in
1996.
The GAO concludes that agribusiness does not now and will not soon face an
agricultural labor shortage. High, double-digit unemployment persists in
many of America’s major agricultural counties. Real wages have declined in
agriculture. Employers hoping to keep wages below poverty level have
increasingly resorted hiring unauthorized immigrants, often through
unscrupulous labor contractors. Yet, said the GAO in great detail, a lack of
INS resources devoted to worksite enforcement in agriculture means that very
few unauthorized immigrants will be removed.
While the GAO suggests that there could develop localized labor shortages,
it noted the widespread belief that employers should respond to the market
place by increasing wages, improving recruitment and modernizing their labor
practices. (pp. 29-30) The GAO reports that the dollar value of production
of fruits, vegetables and horticultural varieties (labor-intensive
agriculture) increased by 52% between 1989 and 1995, to $15.1 billion, and
continued investment in new farm production reflects "a long term confidence
that agricultural labor would be available." (p. 29, 98) GAO cited a study
which concluded that substantial wage increases would have little effect on
consumer produce prices or international competitiveness. (p. 30 fn. 27)
The GAO estimates that two-thirds of the agricultural field labor force of
1.6 million workers are citizens or permanent resident aliens. (p. 31)
Growers have been exaggerating the percentage of unauthorized immigrants in
the farm labor force in support of their argument that they are facing labor
shortages (but also claim that they do not "knowingly" hire unauthorized
immigrants). The percentage of undocumented farmworkers would be much lower
if not for low wages, harsh working conditions and use of unscrupulous labor
contractors. U.S. workers can’t compete against desperate unauthorized
immigrants or vulnerable guestworkers.
GAO finds no evidence to justify agribusiness’ radical demands on Congress
to eliminate current wage, working-condition and recruitment requirements in
the current H-2A guestworker program. Contrary to agribusiness claims that
the H-2A program is too burdensome, the GAO finds that the Department of
Labor approves 99% of employers’ applications. GAO rejects the growers’
claim that the H-2A program could not meet agribusiness’ needs if labor
shortages developed. (p. 63)
GAO notes DOL’s failure to meet certain time deadlines, although DOL blamed
that on employers’ failure to supply required information. (p. 47) GAO
suggests some ways to speed up the Department of Labor’s process for
approving employers’ requests for foreign workers, primarily by reducing
time limits on filing applications and eliminating the INS role. (p. 48-49,
67). Although GAO would retain the current recruitment period, it
nonetheless sends the wrong message. Employers who claim that they cannot
find workers from year to year should be spending more time planning to
secure workers.
The GAO concludes that there are "impediments in enforcing" the worker
protections under the H-2A program that should be fixed. (p. 10). GAO
correctly concludes that H-2A growers’ "positive recruitment" (private-
market efforts to find workers inside the U.S. ) rarely succeeds, and that
the job service rarely refers U.S. farmworkers, especially to H-2A growers.
(p. 58). The DOL Office of Inspector General in April issued a report
confirming that farmworkers’ rights often are not protected by the DOL’s
administration of the H-2A program, but that employers virtually always
receive their H-2A workers.
If agribusiness believes that the labor market is tightening as the
labor-intensive fruit and vegetable industry continues to expand both
production and exports, it should reverse the downward trend in real wages;
start recruiting more effectively; stop using abusive labor contractors who
are known for bringing unauthorized immigrants; and improve working and
living conditions.
The Farmworker Justice Fund, Inc. is a nonprofit advocacy group for migrant
and seasonal farmworkers, 1111 19th Street, N.W., Suite 1000, Washington,
D.C. 20036, (202) 776-1757, fax (202) 776-1792. For more information contact
co-executive director Bruce Goldstein.
http://www.lrna.org/league/PT/PT.1999.04/PT.1999.04.6.html
April, 1999
Why do some people oppose guest-worker programs?
By Sal Sandoval
Year after year, agribusiness interests such as American Farm Bureau,
California Farm Bureau, etc., introduce bills to expand guest-worker
programs-- the latest being the H-2C proposal, which farmworker advocates
promptly defeated. This would have greatly extended the more limited H-2A
program which has been in place for over 30 years. In addition, it would
have reduced the farmer's responsibility to provide housing, which H-2A
mandates, by providing a housing voucher instead. It also catered to the
prevailing anti-immigrant sentiment by proposing that a portion of the
salaries of guest workers be set aside until after they return to their
countries of origin.
So far this year, grower interests have been quiet on H-2C. Instead, growers
have proposed a streamlining of H-2A, a proposal that farmworker advocates
have promptly challenged. Their arguments are that the proposals by growers
are self-serving and that U.S. workers should be hired instead. They protest
that grower agents transport workers from far away countries while not
providing for transportation costs of domestic U.S. workers to so-called
labor-shortage areas.
In addition, they argue that wage and work conditions on H-2A work sites are
so poor that U.S. workers shun these jobs. Growers proposed shortening the
time requirement for declaring a labor shortage so that H-2A workers could
be brought in. This would certainly adversely affect U.S. workers, many of
whom argue that, as it is, they are passed over by growers who prefer H-2A
workers because they are more vulnerable.
There is no question that the United Farm Workers opposes guest-worker
proposals because they make unionization efforts more difficult. For
example, it wasn't until after the Bracero Program was ended in 1964 that
Cesar Chavez was able to seriously launch his organizing campaigns. And
terrible conditions continue to exist.
For example, in California's lucrative vineyards, a fifth of growers and
half of contractors were recently caught paying below the minimum wage.
However, other factors are at work. For example, the number of U.S.
employers sanctioned by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has
dropped from 2,000 per year in the early 1990s to 888 in 1997. And fines
dropped from $17 million to $8 million in that same time period.
This occurred while the INS announced efforts aimed at stricter apprehension
of the undocumented at the border and prevention of their use of social
services. In Georgia, when INS agents tried to enforce sanctions laws
against onion growers, Congress intervened and the raids stopped so that
Vidalia onions could continue to be harvested. Furthermore, Congress has
been scaling back funding for enforcement of employer sanctions in 1998 and
1999.
Now, with the effects of Hurricane Mitch, presidents of Central American
countries are asking for a delay in deportations of undocumented workers
from their countries to allow them to send remittances of money back home.
Mexican workers alone send home $5.5 billion a year. It becomes clear that
the government itself is favoring agribusiness interests -- just as it does
any other corporate interest -- over those of workers.
Guest workers or undocumented workers or U.S. workers, if they can be forced
to, are all OK and will suit the demand, as long as they are plentiful and
in need. In this post-Welfare Reform period and era of "McJobs," it is also
clear that the standard of living for all workers in the United States is
dropping down toward the level of the poorer countries, as workers there are
drawn toward the relatively better standard of living here. This was one of
the unforeseen effects of globalization.
We must certainly continue to oppose guest-worker programs. However, new
approaches are necessary when corporations, agribusiness or otherwise, can
freely exploit workers on both sides of the border, and presidents of other
nations are forced to beg for moratoriums on the deportations of their
workers exploited by these same companies.
This article originated in the People's Tribune (Online Edition), Vol. 26
No. 4 / April, 1999; P.O. Box 3524, Chicago, IL 60654,
http://www.mcs.com/~league. For free electronic subscription, email
pt-dist@noc.org with "Subscribe" in the subject line. Feel free to reproduce
unless marked as copyrighted; please include this message with reproductions
of the article.
Top of page
Help to Keep ZaZona.com Online
Donate to the Cause at
http://www.zazona.com/Donations.htm
Back to archives