Immigration advocates celebrated a White House meeting on Thursday, June 25, between President Barack Obama and more than two dozen bipartisan members of Congress.
“My administration is fully behind an effort to achieve comprehensive immigration reform,” Obama said after emerging from the get-together.
It’s difficult to imagine that an issue as complex as immigration can be completed this year, when Congress has its hands full with health care and energy legislation, not to mention routine but big issues like appropriations and a Supreme Court nomination.
More important, the political fissures that caused the ground to crumble under immigration reform in 2007 still exist today, even though Republicans are in a much weaker position on Capitol Hill.
“No immigration system would be worthwhile if it is unable to attract the best and brightest minds of the world to come to the United States and create jobs for Americans—as has been the case for Yahoo, Google, Intel, eBay and countless other companies,” he said.
But he also warned that the U.S. immigration system cannot encourage “underpaid, temporary workers from taking jobs that could and should be filled by qualified American workers.”
Threading the needle will be difficult. Some immigration advocates want to create a commission to do the job by controlling the flow of foreign workers.
Employers that belong to ACIP have at least 500 employees and operations in at least two countries. At the top of ACIP’s immigration reform wish list is what it calls a “trusted employer registration program” that would allow companies that play by immigration rules to have “timely, predictable and efficient access to visas for foreign professionals.”
What ACIP doesn’t want is an immigration commission determining whether international candidates can fill positions at U.S. companies. Such a bureaucracy won’t be able to discern the needs of a particular company or industry, it argues.
“How are they going to do these micro, micro, micro determinations?” asked Austin Fragomen Jr., managing partner at Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy in New York and chair of the ACIP board, at a recent ACIP conference in Arlington, Virginia.
The organizations that participated in the ACIP meeting—including Oracle and Intel—seek to hire the best possible talent to maintain their competitive edge in the marketplace, regardless of where the talent was born. They argue that the United States should keep foreign national students in the country after they’ve graduated with science and technical degrees from U.S. universities.
More than 75 percent of the postdoctoral degree scientists at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California, are foreign nationals, according to Thomas Barnett, director of the organization’s international office.
“We just don’t have enough quality in the math and science areas in this country,” Barnett said.
Democrats and Republicans alike might take umbrage when companies assert that the best talent in a global economy may come from other parts of the globe—and they should be free to make those hires.
Barnett has an answer ready: “Senator or congressman, tell me what you have done lately to improve education in your state.”
A two-week congressional recess hasn’t cooled the embers of the political fire generated by a bill that would make it easier for workers to organize.
While they’re at home, senators and members of Congress have been the targets of a grass-roots campaign by the AFL-CIO promoting the Employee Free Choice Act. The union says the outreach involves thousands of workers in 350 events in at least 10 states.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has launched a $1 million television ad campaign in five states designed to denounce the bill and persuade wavering senators to oppose it.
As the EFCA cage match gets bloodier, it looks as if another issue might cause a labor-management brawl. And it’s one of the few areas where the two groups have been unusually cooperative in recent years—immigration.
This development could add further momentum to what immigration reform supporters hope will be a concerted Obama administration effort to pass a comprehensive bill this year.
One proposal by the labor groups is to establish “an independent commission to assess and manage future [immigration] flows, based on labor market shortages that are determined on the basis of actual need.”
But in other areas, business and labor are on the same page—such as the need to overhaul the employment verification system and to create a path toward legal residency for the 12 million undocumented workers currently in the United States.
Both sides also should agree that immigrant workers must be treated fairly.
“Having access to a large undocumented workforce has allowed employers to create an underground economy, without the basic protections afforded to U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents,” the immigration framework states. “An inclusive, practical and swift adjustment of status program will raise labor standards for all workers.”
During a recent trip to the United Arab Emirates, I saw a region that is dependent on foreign labor. Everywhere you turn in Dubai and Abu Dhabi, there’s a building going up. On my first look around, I understood the joke that the crane is the UAE national bird.
The thousands of people toiling on the construction projects are from somewhere else—India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh or other countries in the region. None of them has UAE citizenship.
That situation could foster abuse. In fact, while I was in the UAE, the British Broadcasting Corp. aired a documentary asserting that guest laborers are exploited.
I didn’t see mistreatment myself. But I did notice the forlorn expressions on workers at a project near the Dubai hotel where I was staying. They were in line for fruit being passed out during a break.
Although having a job in the UAE may be better than unemployment at home, life is a struggle in their adopted country. They are sacrificing so that rich Emiratis—and international tourists—can enjoy gleaming hotels, office buildings, marinas and shopping malls.
For a brief moment, I felt a twinge of moral superiority, convinced that we don’t treat foreign workers this way in the United States.
But then I remembered that some nefarious American employers take advantage of Mexican immigrants. Wealthy suburbanites in the Washington area sometimes fail to pay Guatemalan day laborers—or even give them a ride back to the place where they were picked up in the morning.
While campaigning last fall, President Barack Obama touted his skill at fostering consensus on tough issues. He hasn’t demonstrated that ability in office so far. But perhaps he will find a way to bring labor and management together to ensure that the U.S. meets a higher immigration standard than the rest of the world.
When I got to my hotel today after a tour of Abu Dhabi, I checked my BlackBerry. Yes, even halfway around the world, my world still revolves around Washington—and I have to know what’s going on.
One of the first messages that popped up was an announcement from the U.S. Customs and Immigration Service. USCIS stated it was still accepting H-1B visa applications a week after the April 1 deadline.
It’s easy to understand why it’s galling to many members of Congress as well as laid-off programmers that many top U.S. technology companies are still seeking H-1B visas to employ highly skilled immigrants in computer science and other positions.
But my trip this week to the United Arab Emirates has given me a new perspective on the H-1B numbers. U.S. companies want to raise the H-1B cap, but even at 195,000—which it was earlier in the decade—you’re talking about a relative handful of jobs across the entire U.S. economy.
It’s not as if foreign programmers are about to usurp the technology sector. If you want to see an expatriate workforce, come to the UAE. Of the 4.7 million people who live in the seven countries that compose the federation, only about 20 percent are native born, according to Gulf Business magazine.
This fact is immediately evident when you’re here. The construction boom in Dubai, where I was earlier this week, has lured thousands of Indian and South Asian workers to the country. I saw dozens of them every day on projects less than a block from my hotel. Perhaps one day someone will publish a coffee-table book called Cranes of the UAE.
During my stay, I’ve met hotel workers, cab drivers, shopkeepers and tour guides from Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Egypt, Kenya, Syria, India—everywhere but the UAE. In fact, I’m not certain I’ll meet an actual Emirati while I’m here.
Of course, Emiratis are not necessarily clamoring for jobs. Many young people in the country want to cruise around in Mercedes SUVs financed by family wealth based on oil or real estate. Or they want to work in cushy federal jobs.
But the government of the UAE is putting an emphasis on developing its workforce through a process called Emiratization. It is apparent by following news coverage and billboard advertising for e-learning that the UAE wants to invigorate the economy by improving the skills of its labor market.
The UAE is teaming with U.S. higher education institutions such as Purdue University and New York University for MBA and other programs. One with George Mason University recently collapsed, but I’m sure that the country will continue to look for other U.S. academic partners.
This week, I have seen news stories about the launch of a research and education network that will connect UAE schools to “rich multimedia teaching content through high-definition videoconferencing, inter-library success, grid computer and e-learning,” according to an April 6 story in Gulf News.
On the front page the same day, there was a story about the establishment of the Emirates National Competitiveness Council that will coordinate development efforts between the public and private sectors.
Yes, the UAE is a high-wage area that is not conducive to U.S. outsourcing. But even the world’s rich are focusing on the critical role of workforce development in a sustainable economy. It’s the same kind of trend that was apparent in India when I visited last year.
We had a tour guide the past couple days who just graduated from a high school curriculum that emphasizes science and math. After earning money for a while, he hopes to study aerospace engineering in college and eventually work for Emirates airlines. The draw is the company’s rich benefits offerings. Some job attractions are universal.
This young man is from Sri Lanka. The UAE has started a process of trying to develop homegrown talent—a desire that is shared across the world.
Once President Barack Obama moves into the White House on January 20, we will finally get a clue as to the direction he’s taking the country.
So far, like the Rorschach test to which he has compared himself, Obama is all things to all people. He even embodies multilateralism.
He is the son of a Kenyan father, and his childhood included several years growing up in Indonesia. To a greater extent than perhaps any other U.S. president, he is the world.
But opponents of the workplace law that Obama endorsed during the campaign worry that he would move the U.S. too close to a part of the globe they say is too highly regulated and too costly a place to do business—Europe.
Most of the attention so far has been on legislation that would make it easier for workers to join unions. That bill, however, may slow down.
The so-called card-check bill is only one item on a laundry list of proposals that could gain traction quickly. The list also includes measures to mandate paid time off and to lengthen the statute of limitations on pay discrimination.
Adding to their appeal is the fact that they are budget neutral—at least as far as the federal budget is concerned. The bills require no government expenditure at a time when Washington is spending hundreds of billions of dollars to prop up the economy.
Opponents say that the measures will cost business plenty. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky (who also is husband of outgoing Labor Secretary Elaine Chao), has cast the union bill as a step toward “Europeanizing America.”
Meanwhile, some countries in Europe are trying to become more like the U.S. by loosening their labor laws and reducing regulations. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy is pushing businesses and unions to agree to a plan to open stores on Sundays.
It’s one example of Sarkozy’s effort to address stultifying French labor laws. For instance, it’s almost impossible to dismiss a worker in France on grounds of incompetence, according to John Johnson, an attorney and director of business development at Daem Partners in Paris.
Johnson practiced law in California for more than a dozen years before moving to France about nine years ago to pursue personal projects. He was certified as a lawyer in France in 2007. In California, Johnson was a plaintiff’s attorney; in France, he represents corporations. I caught up with him while he was in the U.S. for the holidays.
Although he practiced in California, the state most friendly to employees, Johnson says that its worker protections aren’t as stringent as France’s. “You could call France ‘California-plus,’ ” he says.
Sarkozy is embarking on a long journey to reinvent the French economy. “For certain cultural and historical reasons, it’s going to be difficult to adopt a completely American or Anglo-Saxon-style system,” Johnson says. “There is a kind of distrust of all that is new.”
But there are certain advantages of the French approach for employers. For instance, companies have to pay higher taxes to support the health care system. But the coverage it provides makes it more likely that employees will get medical care and less likely to miss work because of illness, according to Johnson.
“I’m not sure you can say that national insurance coverage is a drag on economic growth,” he says.
Another advantage for companies is the French legal system. Multimillion-euro damages are unheard of, and there’s pretty much no such thing as a class-action lawsuit. Companies don’t often feel compelled to settle, as Wal-Mart did in a wage-and-hour case last week—to the tune of $640 million.
Johnson doesn’t think it’s ironic that some people see the U.S. trending toward a European-style economy while Europe looks to the other side of the Atlantic—or the English Channel—for guidance. The desperate economic times call for new thinking.
“Throughout the world, different systems are being forced to do a self-analysis,” Johnson says. “Every system is looking for a solution outside the box.”
As the global economy declines, Johnson sees the need for more experimentation and less political battle. “This old-fashioned [notion] of left-right, labor-employer doesn’t work anymore,” he says. “We’re in a different place right now. Everyone’s going to have to give something up to get something. That’s consensus.”
I can’t wait to see whether stateside Republicans and Democrats demonstrate that attitude.
One of the most disheartening aspects of politics today is the way that many officeholders (or aspirants for office) in both parties have demonized immigration—and by extension globalization.
There’s a strong bipartisan trend toward “securing the borders first.” The problem is that the conversation is not getting too far beyond that notion.
Yes, the United States is a nation based on the rule of law. We have to uphold our statutes, especially as they apply to citizenship. But rhetoric on Capitol Hill and the campaign trail makes it sound as if immigrants enervate our country rather than strengthen it.
During the past two weeks, the Olympics have shown why we should take deep pride in our country’s history of welcoming people from all over the world and making them part of the American fabric.
Like many of you, I have been captivated by the performances of Shawn Johnson and Nastia Liukin in women’s gymnastics. But the indelible Olympic moment for me was not one of Johnson’s powerful moves on the balance beam or her winsome good sportsmanship as she interacted with her opponents.
What stood out was the interview she conducted with Bob Costas on NBC after she captured the gold medal in the balance beam competition. She mentioned that she had to fight off an upset stomach and headache before the beam event, which was her last chance to grab the gold. She was exhausted from pushing herself to the limit up to that point.
Johnson credited her coach, Liang Chow, for helping her through the ordeal and inspiring her to give a championship effort. Liang was sitting next to Johnson on the couch in the TV studio. But at the moment, he was literally right at home. He grew up in Beijing.
Liang and Johnson met in West Des Moines, Iowa, when Johnson walked into his gymnastics club as a 6-year-old. Liang nurtured her talent and has helped Johnson become one of the best gymnasts in the world.
But one of the few places in the world where such an encounter could occur is in the United States. We are the country that uniquely welcomes people to come here and excel in their chosen field.
The U.S. gymnastics workforce has benefited greatly from our country’s open arms. Seated at the end of the couch during Johnson’s interview was Bela Karolyi, the former U.S. coach who guided Mary Lou Retton to her outstanding Olympic achievements in 1984.
Before coming to America and taking Retton to the top of the Olympic world, Karolyi coached the first “rock star” of women’s gymnastics—Nadia Comaneci, a gold medalist in 1976. Karolyi and Comaneci are both Romanian.
Karolyi defected to the United States in 1981. Now his wife, Martha, is the coordinator of USA Gymnastics. There was something deeply moving about Karolyi, in his thick Eastern European accent, extolling the virtues of U.S. gymnastics during the NBC interview.
It was a striking tableau—the humble Midwestern girl with the radiant smile, her low-key Chinese coach, and the boisterous Karolyi, who sounded like a Cold War throwback but was voicing strongly pro-American sentiments.
Later in the week, we were treated to another form of globalization, this time more subtle from the U.S. standpoint. In men’s track and field, several runners from foreign countries were attending college in the United States. After the Olympics, they would return to campus to run for their schools.
Even though they won gold, silver and bronze for their home countries, they have strong American ties thanks to studying here. Wherever they go next, they will take a little bit of the United States with them.
This is how the United States maintains its competitiveness. It adopts the best practices of the rest of the world and learns what others have to teach us. We also export the best of ourselves to the rest of the world, strengthening our influence.
In the end, we are stronger because of our global engagement. When it comes to the Olympics—and to business—it often means we defeat the rest of the world.
= Member Only
