 GUEST COMMENTARY: GO AS FAR AS YOU CAN, BY GARY ENDELMAN
GO AS FAR AS YOU CAN
By Gary Endelman Gary Endelman practices immigration law at BP Amoco Corporation. The opinions expressed in this column are purely personal and do not represent the views or beliefs of BP Amoco Corporation in any way.
In a historic shift, the executive council of the AFL-CIO came out this week in support of a blanket amnesty for illegal aliens and an end to sanctions designed to punish the employers who hire them. Announcing the withdrawal of organized labor's support for the I-9 enforcement process, without which Congress never would have made it the law in 1986, AFL-CIO Executive Vice President Linda Chavez-Thompson told us what we already know: " The current system of immigration enforcement in the U.S. is broken. If we are to have an immigration system that works, it must be orderly, responsible and fair." The AFL-CIO resolution reverses one passed by that same body in 1985 which led to enactment of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Organizing the undocumented could no longer be reconciled with support for an employment verification regime that unscrupulous employers could use as a weapon of intimidation or retaliation. Acting partly out of conviction but mostly prompted by self-preservation, big labor sees in the large pool of illegal workers an opportunity to reverse decades of decline. As white males become less important, and people of color rise, particularly in farming, hotels, construction, meat packing and general service industries, the union movement had to change." I think we've really come full circle," John Wilhelm, president of the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Union, 75% of whose membership are immigrants." The labor movement is on the side of immigration in this country. The goal is to make it clear which side the labor movement is on." As the president of the AFL-CIO's Committee on Immigration Policy, Mr. Wilhelm went on to tell the New York Times why the Federation had rejected its own past:
“The present system doesn't work and is used as a weapon against workers. The only reason a lot of employers want to hire a large number of illegal aliens is so they can exploit them.”
Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, perhaps the pre-eminent immigrants' advocacy group in the United States, was quick to recognize the immense importance of what had taken place:
“I think the AFL-CIO's decision is going to be a shot heard round Washington. You have a variety of employer groups saying, ‘We need more immigrant workers and we want our workers to be legal,’ and you have the AFL-CIO saying, ‘We want more immigrant workers to be legal and we're willing to talk to employers about their legitimate needs.’ You have the makings of a business-labor compact that could draw new immigration policies for the next decade.”
Big business welcomes the change. Randy Johnson, vice president of labor policy for the United States Chamber of Commerce, said that this was " an area where the business community and organized labor can work together." Bruce Josten, executive vice-president of the Chamber, and Ali Cleveland, its manager of labor policy, termed it "an embrace of amnesty from an employer's perspective" and made the cogent point that the shortage of high tech workers had now spread beyond Silicon Valley to many diverse industries, particularly in the service sector such as hotels and restaurants. That was precisely what Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan had in mind this same week when he looked into his crystal ball for the House Banking Committee. In his opening remarks, Greenspan directly linked, as he has before, the prospects for economic expansion with a more liberal immigration policy:
“Imbalances in labor markets perhaps may have even more serious implications for inflationary pressures. While the pool of official unemployed and those otherwise unwilling to work may continue to shrink, as it has persistently over the past seven years, there is an effective limit to new hiring, unless immigration is uncapped.”
Not everyone welcomes the big news. Rep. Lamar Smith, chair of the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on immigration, and not known before as a staunch champion of the workingman, called it a "betrayal of American worker s." Dan Stein, executive director of the inaptly named Federation for American Immigration Reform, was harshly critical as well, warning that the nation would now be "flooded with illegal immigration." What is perhaps a more interesting, and certainly a more nuanced, reaction came from Lee Culpeper, senior vice president of the National Restaurant Association, who told the Washington Post that the "AFL-CIO position is significant but it is just one step toward what should be broader reform." Visibly annoyed by organized labor's continued hostility to H-1B temporary worker visas, and perhaps dismayed by the Federation's call for greater involvement in the permanent labor certification process, which it also opposes, the American Business for Legal Immigration (ABLI) coalition responded with a noticeable lack of enthusiasm. Sandy Boyd, ABLI's chairperson and Assistant Vice-President for Human Resources Policy at the National Association of Manufacturers, poured cold water on the Federation's hot new policy initiative:
“Big labor's decision calling for amnesty of an estimated 6 million illegal immigrants and an end to employer sanctions while at the same time reaffirming their opposition to visa programs that permit American firms to hire a small number of skilled foreign employees to bridge the skills gap is ironic. We should be focusing on policies that help American companies gain access to a wide pool of international skilled talent in order to grow our economy.”
We agree. But the real challenge is to get the AFL-CIO to say that. It would be a terrible waste of a golden opportunity for the pro-immigration forces to concentrate on what divides them from organized labor, rather than on what may serve to bring former foes together. Opposition to H-1B expansion does not always mean opposition to more employment-based immigrant visas. If the conversation on the former leads to discord, let's talk about the latter. If cannot do that just yet, then let's start with joining forces to throw out employer sanctions. When ultimate issues cannot be resolved, a spirit of cooperation often emerges from successfully disposing of more preliminary questions. Repeal of employer sanctions is precisely one of these. Success here can prompt the search for a wider consensus and the results of that may surprise all of us. It would be naive to think that talk of structural reform is not sometimes a stalking horse for killing off the H-1B program. It would be equally unrealistic to assume that any agreement, however minor or tentative, will be quick or easy. Down this road lie some little victories but more big defeats. Yet, we who want a humane immigration policy, which this nation does not now have but desperately needs, have no choice but to resist the temptation of pressure group politics and build a national consensus that can last. To those realists who would dismiss this as mushy sentimentalism, I would commend to them the story of the rebellious prince who fled from the palace of his father, the King. A messenger, sent by the King, beckoned the Prince to return. "I cannot," the Prince sadly replied." "Go as far as you can," came back the King's sage reply," and I will come to you the rest of the way."
This article is copyrighted by ILW.COM and is reprinted with permission. You can view other articles by Gary Endelman and subscribe to future articles at www.ilw.com.
|
