News

Local immigrants and advocates criticize Bush's "guest worker" proposal

BY STEVE SMITSON

Three years after moving into the White House and recognizing the contributions of immigrants to the United States in his inauguration speech, President Bush broke his silence on immigration reform and proposed a plan to allow undocumented workers to adjust their status in the US.

On January 7, Bush brought surprise and confusion to immigrants and advocates alike by proposing a new temporary worker program that would allow millions of undocumented workers currently employed in the US to obtain a work permit.

To qualify, immigrants would need an employer willing to sponsor their immigration petitions. To be approved, each petition would have to establish that no US workers are available to fill the position. Then the worker would be granted employment authorization for three years. During this period, workers would be allowed to return to their countries for visits.

At the end of the work period, workers would be required to permanently move back to their countries of origin. The proposal flatly rejects an amnesty, or legalization plan, for undocumented persons currently in the US. The last general amnesty occurred in 1986.

While the proposal lacks a fundamental plan, and is not tied to any pending legislation, its most significant aspect may be the President’s acknowledgement that millions of "hard-working immigrants are condemned to fear and insecurity in a massive, undocumented economy, and often risk their lives in dangerous border crossings."

The US is a "stronger and better nation because of the hard work and the faith and entrepreneurial spirit of immigrants," according to Bush. During his address, the President also acknowledged the 39,000 foreign-born US soldiers currently fighting in Iraq.

He did not mention, however, that the US has granted citizenship to all foreign-born nationals who have died fighting for the US military in the Middle East.

"The President values our work, but not us"

While some US citizens saw the President as brave for bringing up a difficult topic, others wondered which immigrants would want to risk exposing themselves by participating in this program.

Silvia Calisaya, here on a student visa, stated that she has heard many immigrants say they are afraid of the new program. "We think we could register and then in three years get a kick in the rear."

In Langley Park, most day laborers were guardedly skeptical about the plan. One worker captured the group’s sentiment by stating, "the President values our work, but not us."

Another worker added, "we need a legalization program that benefits workers, not just bosses."

This worker, who gave his name as Felix, said that he recently quit his job as a skilled electrician because his boss paid him $12 an hour and turned around and charged his customers $80 per hour for the work.

"When I told him I wanted to earn more, he laughed at me. How can I ask him to sponsor me for 3 years?" he wondered.

Worker advocates also expressed concern that the proposal granted employers the upper hand in an already out of balance employment relationship.

"We see employers who do not pay overtime compensation or offer even the most basic of benefits to immigrants," said Gustavo Torres, Executive Director of CASA of Maryland.

"To now have these employers sponsor workers would make an abusive situation downright exploitative. Immigrants, like all workers, need to have mobility—and the right to organize—in order to leave or improve abusive work situations," said Torres.

"Under President Bush’s plan, workers are legal but they’re stuck and even more vulnerable to exploitation," he added.

Plan relegates immigrants

to "second-class status"

National immigrant rights organizations swiftly denounced the plan. For example, the National Council of La Raza, in a prepared statement issued the same day as the Bush announcement, scolded the President for playing election-year politics.

NCLR described the plan as relegating millions of immigrants to "second-class status." NCLR also questioned the timing of the Bush announcement, after three years of silence on the issue of legalization.

The organization suggested that Bush cared more about Latino voters than he did immigrant workers. At his inauguration, Bush stated that each immigrant, by embracing the ideals of the US, "makes our country more, not less, American."

Bracero Redux

The National Employment Law Project, based in New York, criticized the plan for putting the needs of business ahead of workers’ basic rights. NELP suggested the proposal was a throwback to the days of the bracero program, when the U.S. and Mexican Governments allowed farm-workers to temporarily enter the US to work in fields.

Under this program, more than four million Mexican workers toiled at the mercy of the bosses and became among the most exploited workers in the US.

Bosses controlled the workers’ employment contracts and their right to be in the US. Workers did not acquire any rights in the US and were forced to leave the country when the work ended. The program ended in 1964, after one official with the US Department of Labor, described it as "legalized slavery."

"Workers need real reform"

John Sweeny, President of the AFL-CIO, joined NELP and others in calling for immigration reform that would allow workers to become lawful permanent residents of the United States. These leaders called for a legalization plan that would allow workers currently in the US to become permanent residents.

In addition, they called for increased wage and labor protections for new and established workers, and family reunification provisions.

NELP also called for the Government to adopt measures to ensure that all workers in this country, regardless of immigration status, are protected by all labor and employment rights.

Such a plan would effectively overturn the Supreme Court’s March 2002 ruling that an undocumented worker who was fired in violation of the National Labor Relations Act because he was participating in union activities was not entitled to unearned back pay.

The proposal would also settle the controversy among many states of whether undocumented workers who are injured on the job are entitled to receive workers’ compensation.

Another problem with the Bush plan, according to advocates, is that employers would not be required to pay market, or prevailing, wages. Under current law, an employer who seeks to hire migrant or guest workers must show that the workers will earn the prevailing wage for the tasks they will be performing. Under the Bush plan, employers would only have to pay the minimum wage.

According to Torres, "workers need to earn a dignified and living wage. The current minimum wage is outdated and inadequate. Workers need real reform."

These organizations also called on local police not to become involved in enforce-ment of immigration laws which would undermine the safety of immigrant communities in the US.

Confusion and calls for visas

Immigration attorneys and advocates reported that many immigrants called to sign up for what they thought was a new law. Advocates found themselves having to explain that the Bush proposal was simply a policy statement, and did not create an opportunity to apply for work authorization.

Immigration advocates also expressed concern that some immigrants may be tricked into paying money for false promises of obtaining legal papers. Several groups, including the National Capital Immigration Coalition, quickly assembled flyers to explain the proposal to immigrants.

Their brochure warns immigrants against paying money to anyone who promises to obtain a visa under the Bush plan. It does, however, encourage immigrants to become involved in supporting pro-immigrant legislation.

Bi-Partisan Congressional support for reform

On January 21st, Senators Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Tom Daschle (D-SD) introduced their response to the Bush proposal, the Immigration Reform Act of 2004 (S. 2010).

Under this plan, family members of legal permanent residents would greatly benefit by the Government increasing the number of family-based petitions that are processed annually as well as broadening the definition of immediate relatives to include spouses and children. The plan would create a "willing worker program" similar to the Bush proposal.

However, under the Hagel-Daschle plan, employers who seek to hire migrant workers would be required to pay a prevailing wage to the foreign worker, after verifying that no US workers were available to fill the position.

The current immigration discussions come on the heels of last fall’s Immigrant Workers’ Freedom Ride, which converged on Washington, DC and ended with a massive rally in New York. Last September and October a coalition of immigrants, workers, union members, advocates, and students came to Washington from across the US to lobby for a legalization plan leading to citizenship for all immigrant workers.

Organizers credit the ride with shedding light on the plight of exploited immigrant workers in the US and the punitive nature of current US immigration policy. Since the Freedom Ride, organizers have worked with Congressional leaders to craft legislation that would allow immigrant workers to legalize their status in the US. Senator Kennedy is expected to introduce legislation that would provide for a more expansive legalization plan for undocumented workers and their family members.

Bush Calls for Increased Border Patrol

In addition to the temporary worker program, the Bush proposal would increase border control through agreements with countries whose citizens participate in the program.

Under the Bush proposal,workers would have an aincentive to return to their home countries by the creation of a US-backed tax-preferred retirement savings plan which workers could collect when they return to their countries of origin. It would also increase the annual limit on the number of immigrants eligible to enter the US.

During the same week, the Department of Homeland Security also launched its US-VISIT program, which digitally collects a photo and fingerprint of visitors to the US who arrive on a visa. The President also announced a new internet-based system to track and monitor the nation’s 870,000 foreign students and exchange visitors.

Immigrants brace for backlash in Annapolis

In Maryland, immigrants and advocates are facing an avalanche of at least 10 anti-immigrant bills that either have been or will be introduced in Annapolis. Among these bills are: proposals for a study of the cost of undocumented immigrants on the state’s economy and healthcare system; calls to jail undocumented persons as soon as they are discovered; calls for local police to enforce immigration laws; prohibitions on obtaining a driver’s license for anyone who is not lawfully present in the US; and prohibitions on the use of consular identification cards as proof of identify.

Last summer the Montgomery County Council unanimously voted to recognize the consular identification cards as valid forms of identification.

Hundreds to mobilize

The Maryland Latino Coalition for Justice, a statewide grassroots organization, will hold its fifth annual Noche de Accion on February 23rd in Annapolis. Last year more than 750 persons withstood the cold to show their support for pro-immigrant bills.

Trained grassroots leaders will visit with their legislators, testify at committee hearings, and attend a rally in support of immigrants.

One proposal that will be introduced again this year would allow students who graduate from Maryland high schools to pay in-state tuition at Maryland’s colleges and universities. Under the current law, many immigrants who live in Maryland are forced to pay out-of-state tuition. This bill passed the General Assembly last year before suffering a veto by Erlich.

The second proposal would allow undocumented residents to obtain a driver’s license. Advocates claim that their proposal is just and produces safer streets for all. Last year, Governor Erlich appointed a task-force to study the impact of granting drivers’ licenses to undocumented residents.