CAFTA - Democrats Where Are You?

Date: Thursday, July 17, 2003 2:01 PM

JOB DESTRUCTION NEWSLETTER

www.ZaZona.com

Talk about coincidence! I wasn't even finished mailing out my last newsletter that asked a rhetorical question why the Democrats have done so little to stop CAFTA, when Norm Matloff's newsletter was received with an answer that makes sense.

*** Here is some breaking news ***

CAFTA just passed at the Senate committee level. It's definitely gaining momentum.

I just received this from a Washington D.C. insider:

The House Judiciary Committee insisted last week that for the purposes of appearance that the name "W" visa be changed to H-1B1. This visa would borrow a lot from the H-1B visa.

The change in the visa name happened virtually overnight, in oral discussions, so there isn't any documentation for public viewing. This is a shrewd marketing change for the visa because "W" for world could cause a lot of anti-globalists to get paranoid. So far most anti-globalists haven't figured out that H-1B was crafted by the WTO in alliance with the corporatists, so they will likely ignore this new visa.

The legislative language was changed so rapidly that nobody knows if the proposal will actually work. Until they figure things out we won't know for sure what the visa will be called.

NOTE: Some of you have reported problems with the telephone numbers that were provided for Congress members.
Usually you can find them at this site:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/legbranch/legbranch.html

Use this toll free number to contact anyone in Congress, but be aware sometimes the lines are full:

(800) 648 - 3516

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Norm Matloff [mailto:matloff@laura.cs.ucdavis.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 1:18 PM
> To: Norm Matloff
> Subject: Democrats, FTAs, etc.

As I have been reporting recently, Congress is currently debating ratification of two trade treaties with Chile and Singapore. These are the first of many more to come, as a result of the fast-track trade agreement authority which Congress granted the president last year. As Rob Sanchez and I pointed out last year, these agreements could have enormous adverse impact on efforts to address the rampant abuses in the H-1B and L-1 visa programs. In particular, the agreements could make it illegal to add U.S. worker protections to H-1B/L-1. Sure enough, when the president signed the treaty with Singapore in May of this year, the treaty did indeed contain such language, as did the Chilean one. This would make, for instance, the excellent L-1 reform bill recently introduced by Rep. DeLauro null and void.

When I started to read the enclosed article (which, as with the vast majority of articles I post, was brought to my attention by a reader), I thought, "Something is wrong with this picture. Rep. Jackson has NEVER been sympathetic to critics of H-1B/L-1; on the contrary, she has actively supported the industry. Why is she suddenly worried about the
immigration provisions in these trade treaties?"

Note that my question is why she is concerned with the IMMIGRATION provisions. The Democrats, being nominally pro-labor, have in general looked askance at trade treaties, notably NAFTA. But why is Jackson suddenly so pro-worker concerning the IMMIGRATION provisions of this treaty, given her continually pro-industry track record on H-1B/L-1?

I then saw the answer:

People entering the country under those provisions won't be able to
petition for permanent residency, work visas or citizenship.

No green cards! One of the major reasons, maybe THE major reason, that the Democratic Party has pushed for liberal immigration policies is that the Democrats believe that most immigrants will vote Democratic once they become naturalized U.S. citizens. That in fact has been the pattern in recent years. The Republicans, on the other hand, like the "pro-business" aspects of immigration, meaning cheap labor.

So, the trade treaties here would seem to allow the Republicans to have their cake and eat it too. They get the cheap labor but avoid the creation of new Democratic voters. No wonder Rep. Jackson, a Democrat, has suddenly "got religion" on the H-1B/L-1 issue!

I must say that it is not clear whether the article is technically correct on the green card issue. In a quick run-through of both the treaties and their current implementation in the bill now pending in Congress, I don't see such a provision. However, it probably doesn't matter, since the treaties would allow UNLIMITED renewals of their proposed new H-1B1 visa. That visa would be very similar to (and in addition to) H-1B, but again, with no time limitation. H-1B has a 6-year limit, while H-1B1 would basically have NO limit, and thus could be used by employers to employer foreign workers permanently. So the essence of the enclosed article would be correct, i.e. that the employers would get their cheap labor but those workers would not become voters.

Note by the way that the supposedly 100%-vote-up-or-down nature of these treaties (Congress cannot pick and choose the provisions it likes in a trade treaty), as supposedly mandated by the Trade Promotion Authority legislation Congress passed last year, seems to have a lot more wiggle room in it after all. These members of Congress are apparently making changes to the treaty in drafting their implementation.

THIS JUST IN:

In the last few minutes, I just got word that the bill did indeed pass at the committee level, and will now go to the Senate floor. My source said that Sen. Feinstein was especially eloquent in speaking out against the immigration provisions in the treaty. Feinstein is another Democrat, of course, but I would not treat her quite like Rep. Jackson. Sen. Feinstein has in recent months expressed serious concern about H-1B in letters to some of her constituents. On the other hand, she has
always voted with the industry on this issue, saying she believes the industry's arguments, and has refused to meet with the Programmers Guild. I hope that her eloquent speech today will herald a change of heart in terms of meeting with the Guild.

Norm Matloff
(a longtime Democrat who has been voting Green the last few years)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0%2C1282%2C-2916114%2C00.html

Chile Free Trade Accord Passes Committee

Thursday July 17, 2003 1:29 AM

WASHINGTON (AP)- The House Judiciary Committee approved a free trade agreement with Chile on Wednesday, but the pact still faces opposition from lawmakers unhappy with its immigration provisions.

Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas, questioned the agreement, noting that the bill contained immigration clauses that U.S. trade negotiators may not have authority to negotiate.

U.S. trade officials have said the immigration provisions promote competitiveness by permitting the temporary entry of people for business purposes.

People entering the country under those provision won't be able to petition for permanent residency, work visas or citizenship.

The trade agreement cannot take effect without approval by the full House and Senate.

Support this Newsletter and ZaZona.com by donating:
www.zazona.com/Donations.htm

To Subscribe or Unsubscribe send an email to

Rob Sanchez is board member of NAEA - www.NAEA.US

Back to archives