Protecting the Interests of Workers & Students by Securing the Borders and

Strengthening Immigration Enforcement

 

September 27, 2006

 

In December 2005, the U.S. House approved a strong border security bill that puts a premium on strict enforcement of our immigration laws.  House Republicans intend to send legislation to President Bush that reflects these principles:

·       Republicans strongly support initiatives to secure our borders and provide additional resources to federal and state authorities to strengthen border patrol efforts;

·       Republicans strongly support strengthening enforcement and stiffening penalties for illegal immigrants who break our immigration laws;

·       Republicans support enforcing the law on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants and holding them accountable;

·       Republicans oppose efforts to reward the behavior of illegal immigrants who have made the choice to break our laws; and

·       Republicans believe the success of our country depends on newcomers obeying the law, assimilating into American society by learning English, and embracing our common identity as Americans.

 

The Education & the Workforce Committee has a key role to play in this process.  In November 2005, a month prior to the House vote on the border security bill, the panel took the lead on this issue by holding a full Committee hearing on the impact of immigration policy on U.S. workers and the economy.  Throughout 2006, the Committee has held additional hearings – both in Washington and across the nation – on illegal immigration and its impact on U.S. students and workers.  The Committee’s work inside and, more importantly, outside the Washington Beltway has given Members a chance to listen to Americans’ concerns and respond to them in a meaningful way.

 

Some key findings of these hearings include:

 

THE SENATE IMMIGRATION BILL CONTAINS MANY TROUBLING PROVISIONS

 

“Aliens are sent this message: ‘We encourage you to violate the law.  If you actually obtain a valid visa to study here, we will penalize you by making you pay out-of-state tuition.’  This creates a perverse incentive structure in which the states directly reward illegal behavior and significantly undermine federal law.  Imagine if a state enacted a law that rewarded state residents for cheating on their federal income taxes – by giving state tax credits to those who break federal tax laws.  It is a direct financial subsidy to those who violate federal law.”

- Kris Kobach, Professor, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law

On a Senate proposal to repeal a law that prohibits states from providing in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens unless the state also offers the same benefit to all U.S. citizens

Education & the Workforce Committee Hearing on September 1, 2006 (Greeley, Colorado)

 

“As a matter of state policy, I believe it sends a misguided message to citizens and non-citizens alike that we will allow a taxpayer funded benefit, such as instate tuition, to go to someone who is in violation of our immigration laws.  As a nation, we should not promote policies that encourage illegal immigration and provide disincentives to those patiently working through the proper legal channels.  The cost of education is increasing every day.  It is difficult enough to provide for the educational needs of our own citizens, let alone those who may be in the country illegally.  We must not reward illegal behavior.  Nor should we institute policies that perpetuate it.”

- The Honorable Cory Gardner, Colorado State Representative

Education & the Workforce Committee Hearing on September 1, 2006 (Greeley, Colorado)

 

“Perhaps one of the most outrageous features of S. 2611 (the Senate immigration bill) – aside from rewarding lawbreakers with services like college tuition breaks and eventual citizenship – is requiring employers to pay foreign workers higher wages at construction jobs,” said Kent.  “We need to get the message out to the public – and to Senators who may not have even realized they voted for this provision – that aliens in construction jobs as part of the guest worker program created by S. 2611 would receive higher wages than American workers at the same job site.

- Phil Kent, National Spokesman, Americans for Immigration Control

Workforce Protections Subcommittee Hearing on August 14, 2006 (Gainesville, Georgia)

 

“Time constraints prohibit even a brief outline of the many flaws in the Senate bill.  Among those mistakes, one of the most brilliant examples of the Senate’s failure to protect the American worker is the provision that would effectively expand the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 to allow foreign workers to be paid a different – and higher – prevailing wage than Americans who work at the same job.  While most Americans – including myself – are not experts on Davis-Bacon, we find it easy to understand the injustice involved if the effect of the Senate bill would be to ‘legalize’ illegal labor and then provide an avenue whereby that labor then be rewarded with pay and benefits not available to all American workers.”

- D.A. King, President, the Dustin Inman Society

Workforce Protections Subcommittee Hearing on August 14, 2006 (Gainesville, Georgia)

 

“The temporary worker provisions of the Senate-passed bill also contain a number of troubling provisions.  In particular, section 404 of the bill, related to employer obligations, includes a number of requirements that are unclear, unnecessary, or simply unwise and we hope that should Congress move to enact a new temporary worker program that these problems will be addressed.  The most troubling provisions include…  Confusing prevailing wage language that could be read as vastly expanding the Davis-Bacon Act so that temporary worker participants on a non-Davis-Bacon Act project could have to be paid Davis-Bacon wages.”

- Elizabeth Dickson, Manager of Global Immigration Services, Ingersoll Rand Company

Education & the Workforce Committee Hearing on July 19, 2006 (Washington, DC)

 

“Just the increased H-1B ceiling and the new H-2C visa provisions alone, because they allow for stays of up to 6 years, could result in a foreign workforce that in six years could grow to more than 2.8 million workers – more than double the 2004 level.  FAIR views the various current visa programs that allow aliens to work temporarily in the United States as excessive, poorly conceived, subject to abuse, and in many ways unfair to the American worker.  It should also be clear that FAIR finds the expansion of foreign temporary worker programs provided for in [the Senate bill] unwarranted and injurious to the American workforce.”

- Jack Martin, Special Projects Director, Federation for American Immigration Reform

Education & the Workforce Committee Hearing on July 19, 2006 (Washington, DC)

 

“In a country whose residents speak 322 languages, multilingual government must be the exception, not the rule.  Unfortunately, instead of promoting English learning, government agencies increasingly seek to cater to immigrants in as many languages as possible. The result is that I – a 42 year resident of the United States – can walk into virtually any government office and demand services in my native language, and I’ll receive them, no questions asked.”

- Mauro Mujica, Chairman of the Board of U.S. English, Inc.

On the Senate bill’s reaffirmation of a Clinton-era executive order allowing immigrants to communicate with the federal government in any language – and at taxpayer expense

Education Reform Subcommittee Hearing on July 26, 2006 (Washington, DC)

 

“[The Senate bill] places a new, untested standard on employers by requiring employers to attest in a contract with a subcontractor that the employer is not using the subcontractor to ‘knowingly or in reckless disregard’ hire labor irrespective of the individual’s work status.  In addition to the new undefined standard, the Senate bill will place additional data collection and reporting requirements on employers to collect information from each of their subcontractors.  SHRM believes these requirements are burdensome, unnecessary, and expose the employer to unwarranted penalties and fines for the actions of another employer.”

- Geri Simmons, Testifying on Behalf of the Society for Human Resources Management

Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee Hearing on July 31, 2006 (Plano, Texas)

 

THE BASIC PILOT EMPLOYEE VERIFICATION PROGRAM HAS PROVEN WORKABLE

 

“As of June 1, the use of the Basic Pilot Program has been required of all of our franchisees, and we have gotten broad-based acceptance.  We do not have a wealth of experience so far, but based on preliminary canvassing of our system, the franchisees are finding the tool easy to learn and use.  They have not experienced any real difficulty with resolving tentative non-confirmations (mismatches).  Usually, the issue is caused by an input error by the franchisee, perhaps mixing up a first and middle name.  In those situations in which there is a genuine mismatch, the circumstances strongly suggest that the employee was not a documented worker, meaning that they do not contest the results and do not return to work.”

- Jon Luther, Chief Executive Officer, Dunkin’ Donuts

Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee Hearing on July 31, 2006 (Plano, Texas)

 

CURRENT EMPLOYMENT VERIFICATION ENFORCEMENT IS WEAK

 

“In the past, immigration investigators, to different degrees over the course of time, focused on worksite violations by devoting a large percentage of investigative resources to enforcement of the administrative employer sanctions provisions of [1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act].  The resulting labor-intensive inspections and audits of employment eligibility documents only resulted in serving businesses with a Notice of Intent to Fine or a compliance notice.  Monetary fines that were routinely mitigated or ignored had little to no deterrent effect.  The results were far from effective and the process involved endless attorney and agent hours in discovery and litigation to adjudicate and resolve cases.  Egregious violators of the law viewed the fines as just a ‘cost of doing business’ and therefore the system did not serve as a true economic inducement for them to change their business model.”

- John Chakwin, Special Agent in Charge, Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee Hearing on July 31, 2006 (Plano, Texas)

 

THE ADMINISTRATION & IMPACT OF GUEST WORKER PROGRAMS RAISE CONCERNS

 

“Agriculture has a guest worker program called the H-2A program that has been around for nearly 50 years without significant reform.  It does not work.  Our business has learned this the hard way.  Our experience is instructive.  Our experience with this program has been almost as bad as that we encountered in losing our crop.  The government bureaucracy did not move quickly enough to approve our emergency application in a timely manner [after September 11].  The regulatory complexity of the program has forced us to hire an army of lawyers and consultants in order to try to make it work.  It is now clear to us why this dysfunctional guest worker program provides less than three percent of the temporary and seasonal agricultural workers required by labor intensive agriculture.”

- Luawanna Hallstrom, Vice President of Harry Singh and Sons

Education & the Workforce Committee Hearing on July 19, 2006 (Washington, DC)

 

“The intent of guest worker programs is to add workers to the labor force temporarily, but not add permanent residents to the population.  There are many such programs.  Almost without exception, their results can be summarized in a simple phrase: there is nothing more permanent than temporary foreign workers.  In almost all countries and in virtually all time periods, guest worker programs tend to become larger and to last longer than anticipated, and some of the migrant workers settle with their families.”

- Dr. Philip Martin, Professor, University of California-Davis

Education & the Workforce Committee Hearing on July 19, 2006 (Washington, DC)

 

ENGLISH LANGUAGE SKILLS ARE ESSENTIAL TO ASSIMILATION

 

“If America is to remain competitive, attention must be given to the English literacy skills of our nation’s immigrants and the skills of native-born adults in the workforce today.  We must ensure that each and every member of the workforce has skills they need to succeed in today’s highly technological workforce.  In short, English literacy is critical to obtaining and maintaining jobs and creating opportunities for advanced education and training in order to qualify for jobs with family-sustaining incomes.  For the family to support their children’s learning, maintain their health, manage their finances, and provide a supportive structure for the family, English literacy skills are critical.”

- Art Ellison, Administrator, Adult Education Bureau, New Hampshire Dept. of Education

Education Reform Subcommittee Hearing on July 26, 2006 (Washington, DC)