The West Coast Program supports campus seminars that explore a facet of the S&E labor market in depth, field trips to work sites and other places involved in the S&E labor market, and the newsletter.

For further information contact Philip Martin at plmartin@ucdavis.edu

Senate: Immigration Reform Stalls

The Senate debated the 761-page Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (S1348) in May and early June. The bill stalled on June 7, 2007 when a bid to cut off debate lost on a 45-50 vote; 60 votes were needed to bring the bill to a vote. It stalled again on June 28, 2007 on a 46-53 vote, meaning that consideration of immigration reform will probably be postponed until 2009.

After the early June stall, the bill was revived by President Bush and Senate leaders who agreed to limit debate to 27 proposed amendments. The enforcement provisions of CIRA 2007 were strengthened to include an additional $4.4 billion for border security, bar foreigners who overstay visas from future legal entry to the US, and increase the number of workplace inspectors to 10,000. The bill, renumbered S. 1639, incorporated amendments passed during the earlier May-June debate.

This revised version failed, too. In the end, advocates toward the extremes of the ‘no borders’ and ‘no immigrants’ spectrum were more comfortable with the status quo than a complex compromise whose impacts were unclear. The two key obstacles to CIRA 2007 were opposition to amnesty and fears that admitting guest workers would depress the wages of US workers. Some analysts noted that the status quo provides workers for many low-wage industries with relatively little risk of enforcement for employers or workers.

CIRA 2007 Provisions. CIRA 2007's so-called grand bargain provided a path to legal status for the unauthorized in the US, favored by most Democrats, and shifted future legal immigration toward foreigners with skills under a point system, favored by most Republicans. It was negotiated privately by a dozen senators, led by Senators Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ).

CIRA 2007 would have: (1) increased border and interior enforcement to slow illegal migration; (2) provided a path to legal status for most of the 12 million unauthorized foreigners in the US; (3) established a new guest worker program and revised existing programs; and (4) created a point system to select some US immigrants.

CIRA 2007 differed from CIRA 2006, approved by the Senate on a 62-36 vote in May 2006, in several important ways. First, the CIRA 2007 included triggers, meaning that more Border Patrol agents would have to be hired, more border fencing built, and the mandatory new employee verification system working before the Z-legalization and new Y-1 guest worker programs could start.

Second, CIRA 2007 required touchbacks, meaning that unauthorized foreigners must leave the US, apply for immigrant visas abroad, and return to the US legally. Third, CIRA 2007 would have changed the legal immigration system by admitting a third of US immigrants on the basis of points earned for US employment experience, English, education and other factors expected to increase the likelihood that a foreigner would be economically successful in the US.

Enforcement. CIRA 2007 aimed to reduce illegal immigration with new border and interior enforcement measures. It called for an increase in the number of Border Patrol agents from the current 14,500 to 20,000 within 18 months (and eventually to 28,000), an additional 370 miles of fencing on the border, and enough detention space for 27,500 foreigners. After enactment, anyone apprehended inside the US after entry without inspection would have been barred from receiving work or tourist visas to enter the US in the future.

A mandatory Employment Eligibility Verification System (EEVS) would have checked the legal status of all new hires within 18 months of enactment and, within three years, verified the status of employees hired before the enactment of CIRA 2007. Employers would have submitted employee-provided data to DHS via the internet, and DHS would have had access to Social Security data to check on the workers’ legal status. The Social Security Administration would have been required to develop fraud-resistant cards.
Penalties for violating employer sanctions laws would have risen to $5,000 for a first offense and up to $75,000 for repeat offenders. Businesses that use subcontractors would have been responsible for ensuring that their subcontractors employed only legal workers.

DHS, which reported 16,727 employers participating in the EEVS in May 2007, pledged to have the EEVS ready for all seven million US employers within 18 months, so that the legalization and guest worker programs could have begun. According to DHS, 92 percent of workers whose data are submitted to Basic Pilot, the current version of EEVS, are verified as employment eligible within three seconds.

However, EEVS can only verify that the name and SSN match; it cannot determine, for example, if someone is using another person’s identity and SSN. Some employer groups noted that meatpacker Swift participated in Basic Pilot, but 1,282 unauthorized workers were arrested on December 12, 2006 in the largest-ever workplace raid.

Legalization. The estimated 12 million foreigners illegally in the US before January 1, 2007 could have registered with DHS beginning six months after enactment, paid $1,000, undergone background checks, and obtained four-year renewable Z-1 visas. In a provision that drew criticism from conservatives, applicants for Z-visas could have received work permits immediately, before the background checks were completed.

Many of the amendments were aimed at making it harder for at least some unauthorized foreigners to legalize. During the early June debate, an amendment approved on a 57-39 vote would have given law enforcement agencies access to information in Z-applications that were denied. Another amendment, to deny Z-visas to convicted felons, including those convicted of identity theft or fraudulent use of identification documents, lost on a 46-51 vote.
On June 27, 2007, an amendment to require unauthorized foreigners to return to their countries of origin to apply for Z-visas, a provision expected to increase uncertainty about lawful return to the US, lost on a 45-53 vote. An amendment to prohibit unauthorized foreigners from converting their Z-visas into green cards lost on a 41-56 vote. An amendment to limit Z-visas to those in the US at least four years, rather than those in the US before January 1, 2007, lost by an 18-79 vote.

If CIRA 2007 had been enacted, Z-1 visa holders could have lived and worked legally in the US indefinitely; their spouses could have obtained Z-2 visas, and their minor children Z-3 visas. Low-income Z-visa holders would not have been eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit and would not have received social security credit for any earnings while unauthorized.

Z-1 visa holders could have become immigrants if they had passed an English test and undergone a background check, paid a $4,000 fine, and applied at a US consulate in their home country. This is the “touch-back” rule, which would have applied only to the head of an unauthorized family. However, Z-1 visa holders could not have become regular immigrants until the current backlog of foreigners awaiting immigrant visas was cleared, a process that DHS estimates would take eight years. Immigrants may normally become naturalized US citizens after five years.

A June 2007 telephone poll for New America Media of 1,600 unauthorized foreigners conducted in Spanish suggested that over 80 percent of those eligible would have applied for Z-visas. Of those polled, 40 percent had no dependents in the US. However, only two-thirds said they would return home to apply for an immigrant visa; this percentage rose to 80 percent if the departing migrants were guaranteed re-entry to the US.

There would have been a second legalization program for up to 1.5 million unauthorized farm workers who did at least 150 days of farm work in the two years ending December 31, 2006. They could have applied for Z-A visas by paying $100 and become immigrants by paying an additional $400.

Under CIRA 2007 , both Z and Z-A visa holders would have received enough "points" under a new immigrant selection system to qualify for immigrant visas. An amendment to require Z and Z-A visa holders to compete with other foreigners seeking to immigrate strictly on points was defeated 31-62, under the argument that eliminating a path to legalization for farm workers (who are unlikely to receive sufficient points to obtain immigration visas) would have unraveled the delicate compromises embodied in CIRA 2007.

The DREAM Act, previously proposed, was incorporated into CIRA 2007. It would allow unauthorized foreigners under 30 who were brought to the US as minors to become immigrants after three rather than eight years.

Guest Workers. The third key element of CIRA 2007 was a new guest worker program to admit up to 200,000 Y-1 guest workers a year, down from the originally proposed 400,000 a year. As introduced, the cap on Y-1 work visas could have risen if employers requested all available visas early in the year; this market adjustment mechanism was eliminated by amendment.
A proposal first rejected and then accepted would have sunsetted the Y-1 guest worker program after five years— both votes were 49-48. An amendment requiring all employers to try to recruit US workers before hiring Y-1 guest workers was approved 71-22 (As originally written, the bill would have allowed DOL to waive attempted recruitment of US workers in "labor-short" occupations).

Most Y-1 visas would probably have gone to low-skilled foreign workers filling year-round US jobs. The H-1B program for workers with higher skills would have doubled in size, and the current H-2A and H-2B seasonal programs would have become the Y-2A and Y-2B programs.
There would have been three types of Y-visas: for the new temporary workers (Y-1), for seasonal farm workers (Y-2A, with an unlimited number of 10 month visas available), and for seasonal non-farm workers (Y-2B, with up to 100,000 visas good for 10 months available). Y-1 visas would have been issued to foreign workers after US employers requested them by name.
US employers could have employed Y-1 workers after advertising vacant jobs for at least 90 days and making certifications, including promising not to lay off US workers in order to hire guest workers. Employers would have paid a processing fee and a guest worker impact fee of $500 to $1,250, depending on the firm's size, but this fee could have been waived if the employer provided health insurance to employees. Employers would have to provide Y-1 workers with the same wages and benefits as similar US workers, and paid at least the local prevailing wage. Employers in counties with unemployment rates of seven percent or more would have to have obtained waivers from DOL to employ Y-1 workers.

To obtain Y-1 visas, foreigners would have paid a processing fee and an impact fee of $500 and reported to their US employers within seven days. Two-year Y-1 visas could have been renewed twice, for a total of six years of US work. However, the worker would have to have spent at least one year in his/her country of origin between US work stints. (An amendment to allow six continuous years of US work failed on a 41-57 vote). Y-1 guest workers would have been prohibited from being unemployed more than 60 days at any one time and for more than 120 days during the life of each two-year work visa. Y-1 guest workers could have changed to another US employer who is certified to hire Y-1 workers.

Y-1 guest workers could have brought their family members with them to the US if they earned at least 150 percent of the poverty line for their family (about $30,000 for a family of four in 2007) and had health insurance for their dependents. However, to discourage guest workers from bringing their families, those who brought family members would have been allowed two rather than three US work stints, and family members could have accompanied them for only one of these two stints.

The Y-2A program would have changed the H-2A program in three important ways: attestation would have replaced certification to determine if foreign farm workers are needed, housing allowances could have been provided to guest workers instead of free housing, and the Adverse Effect Wage Rate would have been frozen at 2002 levels and studied. The Y-2B program would have operated like the current H-2B program, with a ceiling of 100,000 visas, up from the current 66,000 plus an additional 20,000 for workers who had previously held H-2B visas.

The cap on the H-1B program, which now admits 65,000 foreigners a year with at least a BA coming to the US to fill a job requiring a BA, would have been raised to 115,000 in FY08, and eventually to 180,000 a year. All employers, rather than just H-1B dependent employers (those with at least 15 percent H-1B workers), would have had to certify that they did not lay off US workers 180 days before and after hiring H-1Bs. Employers would have been prohibited from placing ads for "H-1Bs only," and employers with 50 or more workers could have had a maximum of 50 percent H-1B employees.

Legal Immigration. CIRA 2007 would have changed the legal immigration system for at least 14 years. There were about four million foreigners waiting for immigrant visas in May 2005, including 1.5 million spouses and minor children of legal immigrants (112,000 immigrant visas were issued to spouses and minor children of legal immigrants in FY06). This backlog would have been cleared by adding 440,000 visas a year to expedite family unification.
To reduce "chain migration," CIRA 2007 would have capped the number of immigrant visas for parents of adult US citizens at 40,000 a year and the number for spouses and children of immigrants at 87,000 a year. An unlimited number of spouses and minor children of US citizens would have been admitted as immigrants, but the immigrant visas currently available for married sons and daughters of US citizens, and brothers and sisters of US citizens, would have been be eliminated. The diversity lottery that awards 50,000 immigrant visas a year would have been terminated.

CIRA 2007 would have instituted a new point system to select immigrants. Foreigners seeking to immigrate would have had to earn at least 55 of the maximum 100 points to get an immigrant visa, with up to 47 points available for employment (given for type of US job, age and experience, and employer recommendation), up to 28 for education, and up to 15 for English and civics. Once an applicant had the minimum 55 points, another 10 points could have been awarded for having US relatives. Foreigners seeking visas to fill high-demand jobs, whether as janitors or engineers, would get up to 16 of the 47 employment points.

For example, under the system proposed in CIRA 2007, a 29-year old Mexican who had worked six years as a US guest worker could achieve 61 points by having five years of US job experience in a high-demand occupation (health care aide), being young and knowing English, and having a US relative. However, a 45-year old Indian IT worker with a PhD and a US job offer but no US work experience would receive only 49 points, despite knowledge of English.

For the first eight years of CIRA 2007, immigration would have risen to 1.4 million a year, including 1.1 million family-based and 247,000 employment-based immigrants. After eight years, there would be 627,000 family- and 380,000 employment-based immigrants a year, for a total of one million.

Canada launched a point system to select immigrants in 1967, Australia followed in 1989, New Zealand in 1991, and the UK in 2001. The UK gives graduates of the world's top business schools 75 points, enough to immigrate.

Reactions. The Republican party was split by CIRA 2007. Those opposed to amnesty denounced the bill's legalization provisions, and some decried the opportunity to "buy" US citizenship for $5,000. Radio talk-show hosts and many House Republicans denounced CIRA 2007, calling it amnesty. President Bush on June 26, 2007 "misspoke," saying "Amnesty means that you've got to pay a price for having been here illegally, and this bill does that."

The House Republican Conference voted 114 to 23 on June 26, 2007 to "disapprove" of CIRA 2007, suggesting that there would not be the 70 House Republican votes that Democratic leaders said are necessary to assure passage. The House is unlikely to consider immigration reform legislation in 2007-08. Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), chair of the House Judiciary subcommittee on immigration, said: "The Senate vote effectively kills comprehensive immigration reform for this Congress. It's a vote for the status quo, which most Americans are not satisfied with."
President Bush took on Republican opponents of CIRA 2007, saying that they "don't want to do what's right for America." Bush devoted five of his weekly radio addresses in 2007 to immigration reform, and assigned DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez to work closely with Senators to win approval of CIRA 2007. There was much speculation about whether Bush's endorsement of legalization in the face of strong opposition would split the base of the Republican party.

Employers became more ambivalent as the bill progressed through the Senate. Those in the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition who hoped for a large-scale guest worker program were disappointed with only 200,000 Y-1 visas a year, and further disappointed when the program was given only a five-year life. As introduced, i.e. before it was amended, the Y-1 program could have admitted up to 600,000 new guest workers a year.

Farming and farm worker groups were heartened by a pledge made by Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) to attach AgJOBS to other legislation in 2007. Feinstein said: "With harvest coming up, the fact that agricultural labor is way down, we need to do this bill [AgJOBS]."

Employers of H-1B workers were disappointed by the new point system, since they could no longer "sponsor" foreigners for immigrant visas. Oracle VP Robert P. Hoffman was quoted in the New York Times on May 20, 2007 expressing a preference for the current system: "Under the current system, you need an employer to sponsor you for a green card. Under the point system, you would not need an employer as a sponsor." Employers said that their judgment about who is best-qualified is better than any point system. Hoffman said: "We don't understand what it is that's so inefficient about employers selecting the talent rather than the point system doing it for us."

Unions and Democrats were divided on the new guest worker program. Most unions oppose admitting guest workers, fearing that they will be docile workers because they are tied to a US employer. The AFL-CIO officially announced its opposition to CIRA 2007 in mid-June, citing the likely depressing effect of Y-1 guest workers on US wages.

However, the Service Employees International Union and Unite Here continued to support CIRA 2007 despite its guest worker provisions because of it would have provided legalization for many unauthorized residents. They promised to seek amendments to give guest workers a path to permanent residence to reduce their wage-depressing effects.

Many immigrant advocates were skeptical about the point system, preferring to keep the current family-unification based system. Several senators who opposed the point system recounted how their parents or grandparents would not have achieved the necessary 55 points. Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, the first Hispanic to run for President, in May 2007 declared his opposition to CIRA 2007 because of restrictions on family unification.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that two-thirds of the estimated 12 million unauthorized foreigners would legalize if CIRA were enacted Stepped-up border enforcement was expected to reduce illegal migration by 25 percent but, assuming that some of the guest workers admitted with two-year Y-1 visas would overstay, CBO predicted a net 13 percent drop in illegal migration. CBO's predictions that legalization would not "wipe the slate clean," and that illegal migration would continue, played a significant role in the defeat of CIRA 2007.

The Dallas Morning News on June 6, 2007 reported that more migrants were trying to enter the US to take advantage of legalization. Interviews with migrants waiting to cross the border in Nuevo Laredo found that some knew they had to have been in the US before January 1, 2007 to qualify for legalization, but all knew that the chances of legalization were best for those in the US. One said: "Behind us are trains packed with more Central Americans… coming because there are jobs for us." Smugglers were charging $1,500 to $3,000 to take migrants across the Mexico-US border.

The Los Angeles Times on July 5, 2007 reported that the Senate bill's defeat may strengthen the long-shot bid of Rep Tom Tancredo (R-CO) for the Republican presidential nomination. One poll found that 40 percent of Republican primary voters considered immigration to be their top issue, suggesting that Tancredo could do far better than expected in Iowa, where his "attrition through enforcement" speeches have been well received.

Polls. A New York Times/CBS News poll released in May 2007 found that 62 percent of Americans favored earned citizenship for unauthorized foreigners in the US at least two years; 33 percent favored deportation. Those polled favored a guest worker program by 66 to 30 percent. The point system also found favor: 51 percent agreed that education and work experience should have priority when issuing immigrant visas, while 34 percent agreed that family ties should be given most weight.

Historically, the goal of guest worker programs has been to add temporary workers to the labor force without adding settlers to the population. It appears, however, that many Americans see guest workers as probationary immigrants. Over half of those who favored guest workers in polls said that migrant workers should be allowed to eventually become immigrants.

Most Americans support more enforcement. For example, 75 percent favored tougher sanctions on employers who hire illegal workers, and 82 percent favored stronger border enforcement. Anti-immigrant radio hosts invited their listeners to Washington DC on April 27, 2007 to press lawmakers for tougher laws against illegal immigration and employment.

The poll highlighted the extremes. A quarter of respondents favored no borders, another quarter favored no immigrants, while 48 percent favored regulated immigration. More Americans believe that the current wave of immigrants will make America worse off, 35 percent, than agree that the current wave will make America better off, 28 percent.

There were demonstrations around the US on May 1, 2007 in support of immigration reform, including two May Day rallies in Los Angeles. Crowds were much smaller than in 2006, when millions stayed away from work to protest the House-approved enforcement-only bill. Police in Los Angeles fired tear gas and rubber bullets at a crowd ordered to disperse in English only, which brought condemnation from local media.

Most rallies denounced recent raids aimed at locating and removing foreigners who have been ordered deported. The raids aimed at criminals and exploitative employers also remove other unauthorized foreigners, often separating families, as when unauthorized parents are removed and their US-born children remain.

Some rallies supported while others denounced the Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy (STRIVE) bill, introduced in the House in April 2007 by Representatives Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ). Supporters said STRIVE was the best that could be hoped for, while opponents said it was not sufficiently generous to unauthorized foreigners in the US.

STRIVE would legalize unauthorized foreigners in the US before June 1, 2006 who paid a $2,000 fine and back taxes. After six years of continued US residence, pasage of an English-civics test, and proof that the head of household had left (for Canada or Mexico rather than to the migrant's country of origin would be OK) and re-entered the US legally, the family could become immigrants.

Nicole Gaouette, "Senate buries immigration bill," Los Angeles Times, June 29, 2007. Nicole Gaouette, "Poll says immigrants would heed bill," Los Angeles Times, June 21, 2007. Jonathan Weisman, "Immigration Overhaul Bill Stalls in Senate," Washington Post, June 8, 2007. Alfredo Corchado, "Getting into U.S. takes on sense of urgency as Senate debates overhaul," Dallas Morning News, June 6, 2007. Julia Preston and Marjorie Connelly, "Immigration Bill Provisions Gain Wide Support in Poll," New York Times, May 25, 2007. Robert Pear, "Employers Cite Problems With Immigration Bill After Crafting It," New York Times, May 20, 2007.