Landscape Shifts for Laid-off H-1B Workers
By Lauren Dunn
CBS Marketwatch
WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) -- With more than 350,000 jobs lost in the high-tech industry this year, many workers walk away with severance packages and perhaps bruised self-esteem. But some laid-off employees may find themselves in a limbo that could force them to leave the country. Since 1992, roughly 400,000 foreign workers have entered the country under the H-1B visa program , which allows American companies to recruit people with special skills from abroad. Recruits are given six-year visas and are eligible to apply for a green card, which would give them permanent residency when their visas expire. When they lose their jobs, their visas expire immediately, say immigration officials. However as the technology industry stalls, some high-tech experts say the results actually could be a mixed bag for many H-1B workers. Although they're losing their jobs, nobody is rushing them out of the country, and there may even be growing opportunities for them to get rehired before immigration officials can catch up with them.
TECH SECTOR JOB CUTS
Telecommunications, computers and electronics are three of the top five job-cutting industries. Most H-1B holders work in the tech sector, according to the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. "A high number of H-1Bs were let go and unfortunately had to go back to their countries," said Grant Mydland, director of CompTIA's technology work force coalition. "But the USCIS has been very good about not enforcing (deportation)." Eyleen Schmidt, an USCIS spokeswoman, said no H-1B workers had been removed from the country, adding that workers with expired H-1B visas are not a high priority for removal. Even though companies are required to report all layoffs to the government, the agency doesn't keep track of the total number of fired H-1B workers and limited resources make it reluctant to go searching for them. Still, many laid off H-1B workers are leaving on their own accord as their bills begin to pile up, said Paul Kostek, former president of the IEEE-USA, a branch of the Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers that deals with public policy issues. Andrew Wilson, an immigration lawyer in Buffalo, N.Y., says the economy's downturn has had a detrimental effect on his H-1B clients, who often call him to find out what to do after they've been laid off. Wilson supports allowing H-1B workers who lose their jobs to have a 60-day grace period either to find a new job or move back to their native countries. An immigration service spokeswoman said the agency hopes to implement such a rule later this year.
H-1Bs STILL POPULAR
Despite fears that large numbers of H-1B workers are being laid off, government statistics show they're still actively being recruited by American businesses. The immigration service has received about as many petitions for H-1Bs as it did last year and is approving more applications, mainly a result of a decision by Congress last year to increase the cap on H-1B visas to 195,000 from 115,000. About 138,000 H-1B applications have been approved so far this year and 39,000 are still pending. Last year, the agency accepted 115,000 applications, the maximum allowed for that year. Last year's decision to increase the cap, which was passed almost unanimously in the Senate, sparked heated debate between politicians supporting the increase and U.S. technology worker unions. Many of the critics who fought the increase said tech companies were actually looking to hire foreign workers because they could get away with paying them less. "Some employers now don't hire H-1Bs, but there is considerable evidence that the slowdown has made many employers even more anxious than before to save money, and thus they are even more anxious to hire H-1Bs," said Norm Matloff, a computer science professor at the University of California in Davis. For instance, Matloff cited the Texas-based Adea Group , which places high-tech workers at client firms that include Hewlett Packard and Verizon. Adea issued a press release in May quoting a vice president of the company, Doug Ortega, as saying it was focusing on H-1B professionals "because they most likely have the level of experience we need for mission-critical projects and a sense of urgency in securing new employment if they have recently been laid off." But an Adea Group spokesman said the company was looking for workers with specific specialized skills, not for people who could be paid less. "You can't pay any certain group of people less money," said company spokesman, Howard LaMunion. "As a matter of fact, our salaries are above average, and I haven't seen any other companies paying foreign workers less." According to John Miano, chairman of the Programmers Guild , an 1,100-member union of information technology workers, salaries of H-1B workers may be as much as $13,000 lower than that of American workers. Matloff, who has testified before the House Judiciary Committee on the issue, says his own research shows that immigrant programmers and electrical engineers were paid 15 to 20 percent less than American workers. The median prospective salary for H-1B workers is $50,000, and ranges from $40,000 to $65,000, according to the BCIS. However, Matloff says that national median income for such jobs is $66,000.
HURTING AMERICAN TECH WORKERS?
The increased interest in H-1B workers is hurting the job market for Americans, Miano said, adding that his organization is getting ready to campaign against politicians who favor accommodating foreign workers and receive campaign funds from the high-tech industry. Not that the statistics necessarily argue against the visa program. The jobless rate for high-tech workers averages about 2 percent, compared with the 4 percent range for the overall U.S. work force, said Mary Bowler, an economist with the Labor Department. In an effort to beef up the number of American high-tech workers, the Bush administration has earmarked an extra $1 billion for education spending over the next five years. The administration hopes to increase the nation's information technology work force by providing more money for math and science education for kids in kindergarten through high school. "We need to provide these industries with more native-born engineers," said Floyd Kvamme, one of the president's advisers on technology issues. "The president has dramatic plans to help young people pursue a technology course of study."
USCIS Chief Promises Major Restructuring
By Cheryl W. Thompson
The Washington Post
The new commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service said yesterday that he will soon begin a major restructuring of the troubled agency, promising to divide it into service and enforcement arms instead of two separate agencies. James W. Ziglar also pledged to sharply reduce the wait for USCIS documents, a goal that has eluded the agency for years. "I am bound and determined . . . to get this organization into a more efficient mode," Ziglar told reporters at USCIS headquarters. "But to have two administrative structures would be enormously expensive, and I'm not sure the taxpayers would be getting their money's worth." Ziglar, the former Senate sergeant at arms who took over the USCIS 11 days ago, said he will revamp the agency "at the field level on up," with a redeployment of resources and clear lines of authority in enforcement and service. He predicted the move will produce better service. "We're not going to have so many layers of management," he said. "There will be more accountability." The restructuring will not result in firings or layoffs, he said. Ziglar said he plans to reduce to six months the time it takes to process applications for green cards, citizenship documents and other crucial permits. He acknowledged that reaching his goal could take "two to three years." He said he is working with the Office of Management and Budget and the Justice Department to develop a plan to reduce the applicant backlog. Ziglar takes over an agency that for years has been criticized for backlogs and delays in processing immigrants who apply for residency or citizenship, mistreatment of customers and outdated technology. It has 34,000 employees and a $4.8 billion budget. President Bush has proposed an increase to $5.5 billion and 1,364 new positions. During his campaign last year, Bush proposed dividing the USCIS into two separate agencies that would be headed by an associate attorney general for immigration affairs. Ziglar said yesterday that he opposes that move. The administration is also discussing more far-reaching immigration reforms with top Mexican officials, including an expanded guest worker program. Two key Republicans said this month they would not support changes in immigration laws unless steps are taken to overhaul the BCIS. The lawmakers, Reps. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (Wis.) and George W. Gekas (Pa.), called the USCIS "the most dysfunctional agency around." Ziglar said he is confident he can improve the agency without legislation. "We can develop a plan . . . and Congress will give us the room to do this," he said.
USCIS Chief Ziglar: Keep Agency Intact
By Suzanne Gamboa
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Immigration and Naturalization Service Commissioner James Ziglar believes efforts to improve services for immigrants could be harmed if Congress decides to split the agency in two. The USCIS has been criticized for taking too long sometimes years to process applications and for mistreating some of those applying for benefits. Some in Congress are pushing to divide the BCIS, believing it would be better run if its services were split between two agencies. Ziglar believes that will be counterproductive, said Joe Karpinski, congressional liaison for the BCIS. "Congress can do anything legislatively it wants. The downside is it takes a long time and you have to wonder if anything can get through," Karpinski said. The commissioner wants to keep the agency intact and work with Congress on changing it, Karpinski said. "He is working now to put together his own restructuring plan. He wants to do as much of it as he can administratively," Karpinski said. Ziglar will present the plan to congressional leaders, he said. Ziglar, who had no experience on immigration issues, took over his post three weeks ago. He toured an USCIS center last week to get a firsthand look at the long waits that routinely confront people seeking help from the agency. In addition to reforming BCIS, the Bush administration is weighing whether to allow some three million Mexican immigrants who are in the country illegally to become legal residents. The administration is also negotiating a guest worker program with Mexico. Those who support splitting the duties of immigration law enforcement and benefit distribution say it will eliminate the poor service that arises from the conflicting missions of BCIS. But detractors fear dividing the agency will lead to more money being spent on enforcement, which historically has been more popular with Congress. Ziglar also opposes a proposal for the Department of Justice to create an assistant attorney general who would be responsible for USCIS and oversee its two divisions, Karpinski said. "The types of reforms needed, according to most people, would need legislation," said Jeff Lungren, spokesman for Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis. Sensenbrenner is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which oversees BCIS. Sensenbrenner and Rep. George Gekas, R-Pa., chairman of the immigration subcommittee, have said USCIS reform must occur before Congress considers creating a guest worker program with Mexico. They plan to hold hearings on USCIS problems when Congress returns next month. Leon Buck, a spokesman for Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, said Jackson Lee also wants congressional action on BCIS. Jackson Lee, a member of the immigration subcommittee, is sponsoring legislation to create the assistant attorney general position overseeing BCIS.
USCIS Plans to Boost Oversight of Entering Foreign Students
By Christopher Windham
The Wall Street Journal
WASHINGTON -- As President Bush is championing greater acceptance of millions of illegal immigrants, the Immigration and Naturalization Service is preparing to beef up oversight of students who enter the U.S. legally. The USCIS soon will require foreign students to pay a new $95 fee to fund a database devised to track them. To students like Catalina Vasquez -- and to American university officials who assist many financially strapped foreign students -- the levy is more troubling than the agency's interest in keeping tabs on visiting scholars. "Ninety-five dollars might not be a lot for Americans," says Ms. Vasquez, a 28-year-old Colombian who legally entered the U.S. earlier this year to pursue a master's degree in business administration from Webster University in St. Louis. "But in Latin America ... that's high." The new fee "is a mistake," says Victor Johnson, a senior official at a trade group for university officials who counsel foreign students. The organization, called NAFSA: Association of International Educators, says the fee could even impair the U.S.'s ability to compete for foreign students and wants Congress to repeal it. The fee arose as a wave of anti-immigrant sentiment crested in the U.S. during the mid-1990s. A man allegedly linked to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center initially had entered the U.S. on a student visa, and remained here illegally after it expired. Congress decided in 1996 to impose the fee and use the revenue to finance a Student and Exchange Visitor Program database to track the visa status of foreign students. The alleged terrorist ultimately was cleared of wrongdoing three years after Congress acted. But even as anti-immigrant sentiments have waned and the Bush administration considers relaxing immigration policy, the tracking program's proponents say it remains a good idea. "We don't have effective control of our borders," says L. Paul Bremer, an ex-ambassador who was chairman of a national commission on terrorism that recommended the fee to Congress. The USCIS is preparing final regulations to implement the plan. If it passes muster with the Justice Department and the Office of Management Budget, the program is due to take effect this fall. Prospective students would have to pay the one-time $95 fee in order to apply for a student visa. The first students affected would be those entering the U.S. for the spring 2002 semester. In the House, Rep. Betty McCollum of Minnesota has proposed repeal legislation. But the first-term Democrat has attracted only five co-sponsors thus far. A group of senators wrote the USCIS in May, requesting that collection of the fee -- which had been slated to start this summer -- be postponed until problems with the proposed payment system were resolved. The start was delayed, but no senator was willing to sponsor a bill calling for repeal. "This is going to be an uphill battle," concedes Ms. McCollum, a member of the House Education and Workforce Committee. But, she says, "As a leader in global learning, the United States should encourage and enhance our relationship with students abroad and not place unnecessary roadblocks on our higher-education institutions." The U.S. remains the world's top destination country for foreign study, with more than 500,000 overseas students in 1999-2000, according to the Institute for International Education. Those students contribute about $12 billion annually to the U.S. economy, the institute says. Since Ms. Vasquez is already in the U.S., the fee wouldn't affect her. But she says it would be a severe strain for foreign students from poor families. A minimum-wage worker in Colombia, she says, earns just $120 in an entire month. Though she comes from a middle-class family, she says she had trouble coming up with the standard $50 fee for the student visa that secured her entry into the U.S. in January. In addition to pinching the wallets of foreign students, the tracking-system database also would require universities to implement costly overhauls of their information systems, opponents say. At Webster University, where Ms. Vasquez is seeking her M.B.A., Bert Barry, director of international services, has joined a grass-roots lobbying campaign against the program. After international educators in the U.S. sent 5,000 protest letters Congress in the fall, lawmakers decided to scrap earlier plans to have colleges and universities collect the $95 fee in favor of requiring the USCIS to collect it. Now NAFSA, the international educators' group, nurtures hope that a similar letter-writing campaign could block implementation altogether. "A multitude of voices can band together," says Mr. Barry.
Immigrants Without HOPE Need Help Entering College
By Mark Bixler
The Atlanta Journal
Constitution Anxiety gripped Jose Alvarado in third-period calculus class at North Atlanta High School. It mounted as students went around the room telling Mrs. Brooks where they would go to college: Emory. Georgia Tech. University of Georgia. "All I could say was, 'I'm planning to see if I can get into a college because of my situation,' " he recalled. Alvarado earned a 3.5 grade-point average and 1110 on the SAT. He led the soccer team and was in the National Honor Society and the Latin and Spanish clubs. Until recently, though, college seemed out of reach. That's because when Jose Alvarado was four months old, his parents broke immigration law by bringing him from Mexico to the United States without permission. By all outward appearances, Alvarado is as American as any other 17-year-old. He listens to the Dave Matthews Band and Tupac Shakur, watches "The Simpsons" and "MTV." But in the eyes of the law, he is an illegal immigrant. He has lived in Atlanta for six years, but most Georgia colleges would charge him out-of-state tuition. He qualified scholastically for a HOPE scholarship, but he can't get it because of his immigration status. He's ineligible for most student loans and cannot pay his own way because he lacks the Social Security number needed to work legally. "When I say I'm an illegal alien, my friends think it's a joke. They can't believe me because I don't look the stereotype," said Alvarado, who speaks English at school and Spanish at home. Help arrived this month for him and five students in similar straits. They each got a $2,000 scholarship from Teodoro Maus, former Mexican consul general in Atlanta. Maus said he used $12,000 from his parents' estate to award scholarships to undocumented students who graduated from a Georgia high school and have been accepted to college. With help from Latino businesses, Maus plans to give $50,000 in scholarships to 10 students next year. Through private benefactors like Maus and waivers of out-of-state tuition from college presidents, a few undocumented youth like Alvarado are getting a chance to go to college. A lawsuit asking the state to let qualified undocumented students get HOPE scholarship money has gone nowhere, but Latino advocates are trying hard to drum up support for the state to do that. On Tuesday, Alvarado went to orientation at Southern Polytechnic State University in Marietta.. In addition to the money from Maus, he got a $1,000 scholarship from Southern Polytechnic. And the university's president gave him a break that lets him pay in-state tuition. Now he has enough help to pay tuition for a year and a half. Many other undocumented high-school students in Georgia --- perhaps a few hundred, based on various estimates --- are not so lucky. Some drop out. Others graduate with good grades, only to realize that college is not a realistic option. The University System of Georgia clarified its policy last year to say public colleges and universities can admit undocumented immigrants, but not at in-state rates, making cost a barrier. Out-of-state tuition is triple what state residents pay. Alvarado's father supports a family of six by installing insulation. He would have trouble paying out-of-state rates. The other five recipients of Maus' financial aid have backgrounds similar to Alvarado's. There is a Gainesville student brought here illegally when he was 9. He finished high school with a 3.4 grade point average. An Atlanta woman bound for the University of Georgia came at age 10 and graduated with a 3.7 GPA. "Hopefully this works as an incentive, that they continue going to school," Maus said. The Southern Latino Foundation also provides scholarships to qualified Latino students, including some who are undocumented. Ray Ortega, owner of Ortega Travel, runs the foundation. He said three students received scholarships last year ranging from $300 to $1,000. He hopes to raise money for more scholarships at a Hispanic festival in Centennial Olympic Park on Sept. 15. "They are usually from low-income or middle-income families, but the system requires them to pay the highest costs," Ortega said. "It's extremely unfair." Federal law requires schools to provide undocumented immigrants an education through high school, but no law guarantees access to college. This year, Texas became the first state to let undocumented students pay in-state tuition. Lawmakers in California, Minnesota, North Carolina, Utah and Wisconsin are considering similar proposals. One bill in Congress would legalize some undocumented students. Another would make it easier for them to pay in-state tuition rates. Some of the proposals could conflict with a provision of a 1996 immigration law that says states cannot charge in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants unless they offer in-state rates to U.S. citizens from other states. At the center of the disputes are young men and women like Alvarado. Jose Alvarado was born in Mexico in 1983 and brought to Los Angeles as an infant. He moved from grade to grade as his father made furniture and Venetian blinds. The family moved to Atlanta in 1995, and Alvarado made an impression in school. He won a Most Outstanding Student award in eighth grade and picked up four soccer trophies in high school. Alvarado applied to become a legal resident five years ago. He is eligible for a green card because his father got one after a 1986 amnesty. But Alvarado must wait about five more years before the immigration service gets to his application. The federal government prioritizes green-card applications, and people in Alvarado's category --- unmarried children of legal residents from Mexico --- face long waits because there are so many. It can take them 10 years to become residents. In the meantime, the rituals of adolescence unfold. The brochures began arriving in his junior year, slick pamphlets that promised possibility at institutions such as Tulane University, Middle Georgia College, Colorado State University, Georgia Tech and flagship universities in Georgia, Florida and Tennessee. Friends mailed off applications and shared their excitement when acceptance letters came. Alvarado's best friend is going to Davidson College in North Carolina. Two co-captains of the soccer team are off to George Washington University and Emory-Riddle Aeronautical University. "I knew that no matter what college I applied for, even if it was in Georgia, I would have to pay out-of-state tuition," Alvarado said. He spoke with a few college administrators before winding up in the office of Ron Koger, vice president for student and enrollment services at Southern Polytechnic in Marietta. "This guy is battling everything in the world," Koger said. "He's the kind of student who can come here and do well." Alvarado applied for admission and was accepted. But he faced the prohibitive prospect of out-of-state tuition --- $7,728 a year compared with $1,932 for residents --- until the college president, Lisa Rossbacher, intervened. She gave Alvarado one of about 60 waivers available, allowing him to pay in-state rates. The president of at least one other college, Dalton State University, has granted a waiver that lets a high-achieving undocumented immigrant pay in-state tuition. Koger said he was impressed by the lengths Alvarado will go to just to get to class: two hours each way on public transportation. He plans to take MARTA Bus 44 to the Lindbergh station and ride a train to the Arts Center stop. Then he'll board Bus 10 of Cobb Community Transit to go to Marietta. Alvarado is thinking about a degree involving computers, international business or business administration. Classes begin Thursday. "I know I can be somebody," he said.
Bush's Strategy to Woo Latinos
By G. Robert Hillman
The Dallas Morning News
WASHINGTON -- Buenos días. The president delivers his Saturday morning radio address in Spanish. He celebrates Cinco de Mayo on the South Lawn, and Cuban Independence Day in the East Room. He takes his first foreign trip to Mexico and begins his first European tour in Spain, where the prime minister praises his Spanish and notes that soon more people back home will be speaking it than in Spain. Mere happenstance? Hardly. Mindful of a re-election bid in 2004, President Bush has mounted a full-court press to boost his standing among the nation's rapidly growing bloc of Hispanic voters. From his early presidential visit to Mexico to his ongoing efforts to forge new immigration standards, Mr. Bush is building on the Hispanic outreaches that he began as governor of Texas and expanded nationally during his presidential campaign. His invitation to Mexican President Vicente Fox for a state dinner at the White House next month will provide the backdrop for their fourth meeting of the year, to review their agenda of immigration, drug smuggling and other pressing border issues. "The president, from Day One, has said that cooperating with Mexico is an important domestic and foreign policy," said White House political director Ken Mehlman. "That has political benefits, too." Just as aware of the political spoils, Democrats are scrambling to secure what has been traditionally a deep reservoir of Hispanic support for them. "Democrats have been leading on the issue of immigration for many years," House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., said recently as he sought to steal a bit of Mr. Bush's thunder by unveiling a series of Democratic immigration proposals. "We didn't wait until it became politically expedient to answer the call for fairness and justice in our immigration laws," Mr. Gephardt said, reminding reporters that Republicans had rejected similar Democratic initiatives during the last Congress. In the race for president last fall, Democrat Al Gore captured 62 percent of the Hispanic vote. Still, Mr. Bush did well for a Republican, picking up 35 percent just shy of Ronald Reagan's record 37 percent in 1984. But the rapid growth of the Hispanic population at 12.5 percent, the nation's largest minority is dramatically increasing its political clout and forcing Republicans and Democrats alike to pay more attention. For Mr. Bush, long accustomed to the Hispanic culture and politics of Texas, his overtures from the White House are more than just a new chapter in his political playbook, his aides say. "The president is not a Johnny-come-lately to reaching out to Hispanics," said Chief of Staff Andrew Card, pointing to Mr. Bush's record in Texas and his personal rapport with Mr. Fox, going back to their days as governors. Or as Mr. Mehlman emphasized, "This president believes, based on his experience in Texas, that this will be good for America, good for Mexico and good for the world." So, word went out early to the far reaches of the young Bush administration to pay attention to the growing Hispanic political clout, not just among Mexican-Americans, but among Cuban-Americans, Puerto Ricans and other Latinos as well. "This is not a monolithic Hispanic bloc," Mr. Mehlman said. "It's an important group of voting blocs." Increasingly, their clout is being flexed not only in Texas and California, with their growing numbers of Mexican immigrants, or in Florida, with its large Cuban population, but also in Illinois, with vibrant Mexican and Puerto Rican communities, and even in Iowa, where Mr. Bush actively sought out Hispanic voters during the last campaign. Just last month, Mr. Fox, a frequent visitor to the United States, was in Chicago for a campaign-style rally in a mostly Mexican neighborhood. "He is a known entity in the Mexican-American community," Mr. Card said. "I think we probably provide him some coattails, and he provides us with some coattails." Mr. Fox returns to the United States after Labor Day for his official state visit. And just as Mr. Bush chose Mexico for his first foreign trip as president, he also chose the Mexican president as the guest of honor for his first state dinner at the White House. At the same time, Mr. Bush is engaged on a pair of front-burner U.S.-Mexico issues that analysts suggest resonate especially well among Mexican-American voters allowing Mexican trucks to roam freely in the United States and the ongoing bilateral talks on immigration. "That's where they can make some headway," said political analyst Charles Cook, noting that Puerto Ricans have long voted solidly Democratic and Cuban-Americans overwhelmingly Republican. Indeed, Puerto Ricans vote so heavily Democratic, Mr. Cook suggested, Mr. Bush's decision to abandon the U.S. military bombing range on the Puerto Rican island of Vieques will yield few political dividends. "What do Mexican-American voters care whether the Navy bombs the hell out of a beach in Puerto Rico?" Mr. Cook asked. "The answer is, not in the least." Among Democrats, the Bush Hispanic offensive has forced a tougher defense, if not an all-out counter-offensive. "They need to make sure they don't get outflanked," Mr. Cook said. For years, Republicans have sought inroads among Hispanic voters, touting faith and family values. But Democrats solidified support by pushing education and health care, among other issues. Now, Mr. Bush is pulling out all the stops, as he is with several other key voting blocs, particularly Catholics and women. In addition to his policies and the events rich in symbolism, Mr. Bush is paying particular attention to the appointment of Hispanics to key administration jobs. Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, for instance, is the first Cuban immigrant of Cabinet rank, and White House legal counsel Al Gonzales, a former Texas Supreme Court justice, is often mentioned as a likely early Bush appointee to the U.S. Supreme Court. Meanwhile, a high-level working group headed by Secretary of State Colin Powell, Attorney General John Ashcroft and their Mexican counterparts has been negotiating a new immigration policy that could lead to a revamped guest-worker program and the legalization of many of the 3 million or more Mexicans estimated to be living illegally in the United States. It is a thorny issue that will ultimately end up in Congress. But analysts note that organized labor and other groups, once opposed, are now more receptive. "For President Bush, it provides a real opportunity to stand up to the very small, but very vocal anti-immigration presence in his party that, frankly, could represent a real political coup for the president," said Cecilia Muñoz, vice president of the National Council of La Raza, an Hispanic advocacy group. Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, agreed. The president clearly is "quite comfortable and at ease with the topic of immigration and with Latinos in general," he said. "This is an enormous opportunity for him," Mr. Sharry added, singling out the U.S.-Mexico immigration talks. "It might be a major foreign policy triumph for a president who wants to look south, as well as east and west." Politically, analysts see many advantages for Mr. Bush, not only to position himself for re-election but also to reposition the GOP as a more immigrant-friendly party. "There are some, unfortunately, in our party who will be opposed. But there are only ups," said John Weaver, a political consultant for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who shares Mr. Bush's views on immigration. "We have no choice if we want to have a shot at being the majority-status party."
BCIS, the Troubled Guardian
By Nicholas M. Horrock
United Press International
http://www.vny.com/cf/News/upidetail.cfm?QID=217205
WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Shortly after President Bush said he would issue plans to reform the handling of illegal aliens in September, the two ranking Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee announced they would pass no immigration reform legislation until the administration sent them Immigration and Naturalization Service reform. The incident disclosed not only the deep fissures in the Republican Party over immigration, but provides an example of the kind contradictions that have plagued the USCIS throughout its history. Americans are ambivalent about immigration. On the one hand, most Americans agree that like any sovereign nation, U.S. residents have the right to let in whom they choose. On the other hand, most Americans believe that this is a nation of immigrants, a land of open borders and open arms. It is a country where citizenship is conferred not on one ethnic group or religion, but on people willing to accept certain values as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. For many Americans, Emma Lazarus's words emblazoned on the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor are not simply 19th century sentimentality: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, the tempest-tost to me. I lift my lamp beside the Golden Door." As the nation has vacillated since the first federal immigration laws in 1875, so has Congress, producing over the years a group of immigration laws that, as Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies argues, "rival the United States Tax Code for complexity." The CIS is a non-partisan Washington research group that advocates "fewer immigrants but a warmer welcome for those admitted." "The macro problem for BCIS," Krikorian says, "is that the USCIS is being asked to carry out crazy policies." First of all, current immigration to the United States is incredibly large -- Krikorian would say "too large." The USCIS processes some 600,000 to 700,000 legal immigrants a year, and another 300,000 people or so enter the population illegally. The total immigration for the past decade, by some estimates 10.5 million people, exceeds the highest previous level in the nation's history, 1901 to 1910, when 8.8 million legal immigrants were accepted. About half of the illegal aliens who enter the country do so surreptitiously, and the USCIS doesn't know they're here. The other half are aliens who entered the United States legally, but have overstayed their visa or work permit. They can overstay with impunity because the USCIS has no real records of who leaves the country or when. There is a myriad of permits and visas to enter the country. Some people come, for instance, under a work program, "H2B," a pilot program of a guest worker-type not unlike the ideas that Bush is examining. Others people come on sort of day-trip passes that allow Mexicans to regularly cross the southern border to a limit of 25 miles, or specialized work permits that let people with exceptional skills work here. There are student visas and general work permits, permanent resident applications and tourist visas, political asylum applications and special medical admissions. When Lazarus wrote her famous words, there were perhaps a dozen major ports on each coast through which immigrants flowed and a north-and-south border with little day-to-day traffic. Now with air travel, there are internal ports of entry at scores of airports where foreign flights make first landing, and teeming land arrivals both south and north. "To understand BCIS," says former USCIS Commissioner Doris Meissner, "you have to start with the responsibilities, and those responsibilities had to be carried out in a time of historically high immigration." She contends that it is not just the past decade that has affected America and the BCIS, but 30 years of accelerating immigration that followed the 1965 immigration law reforms. In the early 1990s, there was a major backlash against the rising tide of undocumented aliens. In California, Gov. Pete Wilson won passage for Proposition 187, which barred illegal immigrants from social services and welfare. This mood of restriction was felt in Congress, and the 1996 immigration laws were a tangle of new regulations for the USCIS to enforce that dealt with issues of welfare and identification. But at the same time that the backlash was occurring on illegal immigration, thousands employers across the country were complaining about the way USCIS was enforcing sanctions against employers who hired the illegal immigrants. Most critics of immigration laws, either from the perspective they are too harsh or too liberal, agree that illegal immigration is nurtured by two factors: employment opportunities and the desire to join family members already in the United States. Opponents of the immigration policy in the past decade say that unless the employment opportunities for the illegal alien are removed, there is no hope of stemming the tide, particularly the tide coming over the Mexican border. In 1996, the USCIS was enforcing sanctions against employers who hire aliens, sanctions embodied in a 1986 law passed under President Reagan. Congress passed the sanctions in 1986 as part of a reform and amnesty program that gave amnesty to some 3.2 million illegal aliens, but set penalties for employers who continued to give illegal immigrants jobs. In those days, USCIS investigators arrested and deported illegal aliens where they found them. They "raided" businesses that had a record of hiring illegal aliens and prosecuted employers who knowingly hired them. But while some in Congress wanted to limit illegal immigration, others were pressing the USCIS to halt its pressure on business. An example was the fate of a pilot program on the meatpacking industry in Nebraska. Meat packers are major employers of immigrant labor, hiring Asians, Latinos and others in large numbers. The USCIS obtained from the Nebraska meatpacking firms records of their employees and searched them for Social Security numbers. In several plants, they identified large numbers of employees whose documents seemed out of order. They didn't raid the plants. They invited the employees to meet with USCIS and straighten out their documents. Three quarters of the employees USCIS contacted fled. The fourth quarter were legal aliens who had some technical problem in their papers. The business community of Nebraska was outraged. The governor and the congressional delegation complained so vigorously USCIS abandoned the test program. By 1998, under pressure from Congress and with vast funds provided by Congress, USCIS shifted its emphasis to border enforcement, spending some $2 billion dollars a year to fortify the Mexican border and reduce the illegal entries. At the same time, however, USCIS sharply reduced interior enforcement of immigration laws. "It's like the old playground game. If you're in the country, you're home free all," said one congressional aide. The same push and pull on the agency has arisen over handling of applications for asylum. Though the agency has been pressed to ascertain whether they are in reality efforts to fraudulently enter the United States, it has been severely criticized for holding asylum seekers in long detentions and denying them due process. Krikorian says that, even with these contradictions, if USCIS were a more efficient agency, it might be able to handle its mission. But he and Meissner and others agree that, as Meissner put it, "USCIS has been a stepchild of the government for most of its existence." Though it is a Department of Justice agency, it has never had the attention afforded to the FBI or even the U.S. Marshal's service, though it is larger than the FBI by several thousand employees. Including the Border Patrol, the BCIS's uniformed border force, the agency has 33,000 employees and an annual budget of nearly $5 billion. But inattention by Congress and several administrations has left it a bureaucratic nightmare. For instance, Meissner said, the USCIS leadership in the 1960s and 1970s decided not to invest in computer technology in order to protect the thousands of jobs of people hand-processing its millions of immigration documents. No administration or attorney general questioned this decision. It was a fatal error. The result is that USCIS is just now getting effective computer operations under way. The quick retrieval of information is vital not only to the smooth process of immigrants, but also to national security. The USCIS is the first line of defense against terrorists, criminals and foreign agents entering the country. But when a known Algerian terrorist was snagged in at the Canadian border two years ago, "it was just good luck," said one congressional source. The need to secure the borders, Meissner said, can work at cross-purposes with the orderly admission and naturalization of citizens. "If the examiner does a good diligent job on examining the applicant for admission, it delays the process and an enormous backlog is created," she said. One congressional aide, who asked not to be quoted by name, said that by her reckoning the USCIS has a backlog of 4.5 million applications of different types from citizenship to permanent residence renewals. It is this administrative breakdown that has resounded in Congress and led House Judiciary Committee leaders James Sensenbrenner, R-Ohio, and George W. Gekas, R- Pa., to issue their ultimatum about holding immigration legislation hostage to USCIS reform. Aides to the congressmen said the legislators have received more constituent complaints about the USCIS than on any other subject. Congress members and senators from states nowhere near a national border said the complaints about USCIS backlog are enormous. None of BCIS's problems are new. It has been "reformed" numerous times in the past three decades, and Meissner calls the cries for USCIS reform a sort of "mantra" on Capitol Hill. "In the 1990s there was a lot of reform and a lot of progress," she said. But the former commissioner is worried that Congress "will put the cart before the horse," mandating USCIS organization reform before broad reforms of the immigration policies. She thinks that the policies should be developed with "USCIS at the table" and then effect organizational reform to fit the needs of those policies. There are numerous bills to both reform immigration and to reform the USCIS alone. USCIS reform ideas, particularly the ones that are likely to be considered in Congress in the next several months, concentrate on the structure of the agency. Some studies in the past decade have called for abolishing the USCIS and spreading its responsibilities among other agencies. These plans, for instance, would give visa applications and naturalization procedures to the State Department, illegal labor practices to the Labor Department, and create some kind of border police under the Department of Justice. Attorney General John Ashcroft is sharply opposed to these ideas. The more politically likely reorganization would be some division of the border and enforcement functions from the naturalization processing within the Justice Department: Either create two separate agencies with associate attorneys general or create two separate services with commissioners who report to the attorney general. Immigrant groups and others sharply oppose a plan that would have two separate agencies funded separately by Congress, fearing that the agency that processes naturalization and provide services to immigrants will not receive as much congressional support as the enforcement agency.