Event

Following yesterday's news that a "hire American" provision added to the stimulus bill is forcing investment banks to rescind job offers made to highly qualified immigrant workers, some banks have indicated that they want to return the stimulus money, as the strings attached are actually very bad for the bottom line.  Also today, the Dean and Assistant Dean of Dartmouth's Tuck School of Business explain why it's a terrible time to reject skilled workers: 

1. "Supporters say the law will help U.S.-born workers and stimulate our economy, but this is just wrong. The economy is not of fixed size, in which more foreign-born workers necessarily mean fewer U.S. workers. Productive foreign-born workers can help create more jobs here. Keeping them out damages us."

2. "Over 400 firms now face a sharply curtailed talent pool, precisely when they need visionary talent to rebuild amidst the world's most severe economic crisis in decades. Without the best talent, ultimately they'll create fewer jobs."

3. "There is also indirect, unforeseen damage that's beginning to appear in higher education.  If foreign-born students cannot legally work here after earning their degrees, fewer will enroll."

The bottom line is, foreign workers are needed if the U.S. is to remain competitive in a global, 21st century economy.  Data from the National Science Foundation reveal that in 2005, the foreign student population earned approximately 34.7% of the doctorate degrees in the sciences and approximately 63.1% of the doctorate degrees in engineering.  In 2005, foreign students on temporary resident visas earned 30.8% of the doctorates in the sciences, and 58.6% of the doctorates in engineering.  Not to mention, according to the Department of Labor and Congressional Research Service, the U.S. benefits from the intellectual property developed by foreign high skilled workers because their talent remains in the U.S. for the most part: Approximately 56% of foreign doctorate degree earners on temporary visas remain in the United States, with many eventually becoming citizens.  Adjustments from temporary visas to permanent status increased by 68% from 347,416 in 2003 to 583,921 in 2004. And it's estimated that by 2010, more than 50% of all employment-based workers would adjust from temporary to permanent status.  

But that won't happen if these employees continue to feel like second-class workers and citizens, constantly discriminated against for being foreign-born.

In addition to foreign workers' contributions to higher education, skilled immigrants have long contributed to American jobs and standards of living because they bring ideas for new technologies and new companies.  And importantly, they bring connections to business opportunities abroad, stimulating exports and affiliate sales for multinational companies.  A perfect example is Alice Su. 

Su grew up internationally between China, Hong Kong, Belgium, and worked in Japan. She did her undergraduate work in finance and electrical engineering at Wharton. She worked for four years at consulting firm Bain & Co. and the International Finance Corp. (the World Bank's private-sector investment arm) in Hong Kong, before coming back to Wharton for her M.B.A. in 2007.  But we don't want her knowledge and know-how helping OUR companies figure out how to improve OUR economy.  No thank you. Please, let's not think outside the box here.

Many in the scientific community maintain that in order to compete with countries that are rapidly expanding their scientific and technological capabilities, the country needs to bring to the United States those whose skills will benefit society and will enable us to compete. The underlying problem of foreign students in graduate science and engineering programs is not necessarily that there are too many foreign-born students, but that there are not enough native-born students pursuing scientific and technical disciplines. 

The Real Problem With Foreign Workers is that the current immigration system is broken, for them as well.  We should be focusing on how to fix the current flawed immigration laws that can sometimes hurt and hold back skilled workers when they work for U.S. firms, rather than focusing on putting up walls to keep out the best and brightest for the sake of demagoguery. 

I. Immigrants Bear the Brunt of Political Posturing Yet Again - It is no coincidence that this morning USA Today published an article citing "experts" alleging that undocumented immigrants would obtain jobs from the money provided under the economic stimulus.  It just so happens that the U.S. Senate is considering an omnibus bill today that could extend the electronic verification system known as "E- verify" through September of 2009, or longer (depending on passage of certain amendments).  The absence of data indicates that these "experts" are simply jumping in on the politicking to vent their anti-immigrant views and to try to persuade public opinion to favor renewal of the current e-verify, which has been determined to be ineffective and impractical.  The article cites that "pro-immigrant and business groups" call e-verify dangerous and ineffective, but fails to note that e-verify is also determined as such by legitimate research institutions, government agencies (GAO and Inspector General reports, etc.), Congress, and others.   These "experts" provide no methodology to support their contention that of all the jobs created under the stimulus, 300,000 construction jobs would go to "illegal immigrants."  

Funds go to the construction industry because it's among the hardest hit, not because it employs immigrants.  The numbers used by CIS are from 2005, long before - as reported just a few days ago, also by USA Today - the unemployment rate in the construction industry hit 21.4%, causing layoffs among largely Hispanic workers, thus contributing to the now 10.9% unemployment rate among Latinos.  Leaders of labor groups have openly stated that the construction industry is in a "near depression."  According to the White House estimate of the impact of the stimulus, 18.4% of overall job creation would occur in the construction industry, translating to about 678,000 jobs.  CIS believes that half of these jobs would go to undocumented immigrants, but provides no basis for this. Yes, most construction workers are minorities, but CIS leaps to a very fragile connection between minorities and legal status, given that most Hispanics/Latinos in this country are in fact not "illegals."

Moreover, CIS has no credibility.  As we have discussed before, CIS is a recognized hate group.  Second, it has lost credibility because it's always wrong.  It was wrong about everything from the GOP no longer needing Latino voters to its allegations of the "surge" of immigrants that would "flood" into the U.S. after the 2008 Presidential election. Not only are their assumptions flawed, they even contradict each other.  In July 2008, CIS alleged that a "homeward-bound" exodus of immigrants leaving the U.S. was happening, and a few months later, in October, it argued there would be a "surge" of immigrants that would "flood" the U.S. after the elections.  Neither has occurred.  Clearly, their "research" is full of discretionary "data" and assumptions come up as needed, when needed.

Lastly, CIS has said it itself: it is against both legal and illegal immigration.  Data actually suggests that immigrants (both legal and illegal) contribute to state economies, as indicated by IPC research in several states.

This is yet another example of why Congress and the Administration can't be centrists on the issue of immigration.  As long as Comprehensive Immigration Reform is not enacted,  domestic policy and items like the omnibus will continue to get caught in the crossfire and held up over immigration proxy wars and political posturing.  This demonization of our community has to stop.

II. Immigration Policies That Bring Global Shame on the U.S. and Put Us At Risk - Another ember kindling the hatred against Hispanics is a little-known program called "287(g)," named after the section of immigration law that contains it. The 1996 immigration law ("IIRIRA")brought 287(g) into being, authorizing the federal government to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies to train local officers to perform functions of an immigration officer.  This week GAO presented testimony before Congress once again pointing out concerns about the inefficiency and dangers in this program, in addition to the fact that it is an unfunded mandate.  GAO concluded that the program lacks key internal controls: guidance on how and when to use the program authority is non-existent or inconsistent, there are no guidelines on how ICE officials are to supervise officers in participating agencies, and there are no performance measures to track and evaluate progress toward meeting the program objectives - probably because GAO also found that program objectives have not
been documented in any materials.  These findings are serious, and the investigation also concluded that 287(g) participation has led to documented violations and racial profiling.  Racial profiling, stopping motorists because they "look illegal" can't be accepted in the America that elected Barack Obama as president - a president that speaks about how we are all one, how we are all our brother's keeper.  

More than a "program," I see 287(g) as a symptom of a larger disease; it is an expression of the disease of hate and demonization of Hispanics that has spread across the country. It is telling that 287(g) came into being in 1996, but the first 287(g) agreement didn't come into being until 2002 - that means that for six years we had undocumented migration, but no one felt it necessary to send police after immigrants.  But all that changed after 9/11.  The desire to seek out and scapegoat immigrants for all our ills took hold as the far right, anti-immigrant talk show hosts and narrative flared.  From 2002-2008, we saw the number of 287(g) agreements balloon to 67, in 29 states. 

Although the GAO did not track the amount of resources a state diverts away from fighting actual crime when it decides to shift its energy to acting as immigration police, there are plenty of other reports documenting the increase in the number of criminal investigations that languish unsolved as police decide to instead stake out U.S. residents or citizens of color to make sure they're "legal."  This lack of attention to criminals and particularly to organized crime could not come at a worse time.  We are definitely facing a war against drug traffickers at the border.  And this war is not only the responsibility of the Mexican government, the U.S. must decide to fully engage its resources - DHS, FBI, DOJ - to find and pursue the drug buyers and suppliers in the U.S. - the ones providing Mexican cartels with business.  Therefore, the unintended consequences of 287(g) go far beyond the serious offense of racial profiling, we are putting our communities at risk by irrationally and unjustly changing the priorities of our first responders.  The priority should be to keep our communities safe and pursue criminals. Immigrants do not threaten our lives and our safety, criminals and drug traffickers do. With limited resources, let's keep our eye on the ball.   

For more information, check out an IPC fact sheet on 287(g) partnerships, and a report by Justice Strategies.

III. More on the Economics of Immigration - Scientists fear that the broken immigration system and the troublesome visa system will drive foreign students to other countries.  Business Week reports that some data shows skilled immigrants are actually leaving the U.S. as debate over programs like the H-1B visa intensifies. And a very interesting article in Nashville, TN reminds us of an important lesson: Tennessee has actually used immigration to bolster its economy since the era of Reconstruction.

IV. We Can't Stress the Importance of the 2010 Census enough - The GAO presented assessments of Census methodology at House and Senate hearings last week, and warns that at this moment, the bureau is behind schedule.  Moreover, the accuracy of the 2010 Census remains threatened by computer problems and untested methods the Census Bureau plans to use for conducting the count, according to testimony by Robert Goldenkoff, director of strategic issues for the GAO. And we can't forget that the Congressional Black Caucus has been calling for a very involved President in the development of the Census.  If they work together, the CHC and CBC can carry a great deal of influence on this process to the benefit of minority communities.  

V. The Race for Rahm's Seat - Cook County Commissioner Mike Quigley won the Democratic special primary election to contend for Rahm Emmanuel's seat on April 7.  On immigration, Quigley noted, "I sponsored a measure with Cook County Commissioner Roberto Maldonado to create an immigrant protection ordinance in our Cook County system."  This is another race in which we have a pro-CIR Democratic candidate against an anti-immigrant Republican candidate.  In this case, the Republican is Rosanna Pulido, director of the Illinois Minuteman Project (I know, go figure).  We'll keep a close eye on this one. 

VI. And in case you missed it - the "Top 10 Immigration Issues From 2008."

The leaders of the Republican Party, reeling from their painful string of defeats, seem stuck in two of the classic stages of grief, denial and anger. This week, Rush Limbaugh replaced Bobby Jindal as the leading and most colorful example. Limbaugh may seem like too easy a target, since talk radio always tends toward hyperbole. Nonetheless, the essence of the message from the presumptively addled Mr. Limbaugh is that Americans would be better off if the President’s economy program failed. Even if their homes slip into foreclosure and their kids have to drop out of college, American families would at least escape the degradations of “socialism” or, as another popular conservative pundit put it, “left fascism” (that’s from the hard-right blogger and historian, Ron Radosh).

The rhetorical excesses of talk radio and the Web would hardly be noteworthy, if the same strain of non-thinking didn’t also dominate the Republican Party’s current economic positions. Let’s set the stage: of the three natural sources of demand in a market economy, consumers have stopped spending, businesses have stopped investing, and exports have fallen off the proverbial cliff. That leaves government stimulus as the only possible source of new demand to at least slow the accelerating downward momentum of the economy and most of the people in it. Perhaps the best explanation, then, for why every Republican in the House and all but three GOP senators voted “no!” on the President’s stimulus is, well, denial and anger.

To be sure, economic ideology almost certainly plays a role here, too, on top of their denial (about the consequences) and anger (about no longer calling the shots). This came through vividly at a conference I attended earlier this week for the National Chamber Foundation. My panel was asked to talk about whether the Administration’s plans foreshadowed a permanent change in the relationship between the public and private sectors. Set aside the fact that the leaders of the central private institutions in this drama, big finance, have begged Washington to amend that relationship long enough to preserve their jobs and the assets of their bond holders. 

At the panel, a well-turned-out executive from a major private equity company (and former Bush Treasury official) laid out what once could have been the reasonable conservative position -- stimulus weighted to tax cuts, a banking rescue that avoids taking over anybody (or dictating anybody’s compensation), and tax-based measures to reduce foreclosures. As a matter of economics, he got his targets right, even if his approaches are weaker than those favored by the Administration. But at least his response suggested that he wants the economy to recover, regardless of who gets the credit. 

Not so from the other member of the panel, Brian Westbury, who on top of being an economist with a Midwestern financial advisory is also the economics editor of the American Spectator and a frequent writer for the Wall Street Journal. He provided an economic-cum-ideological gloss for the denial and anger expressed by the flamboyantly-frustrated Mr. Limbaugh. Westbury’s prescription was no stimulus, no banking rescue and no program for foreclosures. The only constructive government action he could imagine was to jettison current “mark-to-market” rules. Those rules say that the balance sheets of banks and public companies have to reflect the actual market value of their assets and liabilities. So, for example, when a mortgage-backed security goes bust, you have to write down its value while preserving the liability of the money borrowed to purchase it and still owed. 

In this view, none of what seems so important to the rest of us -- collapsing demand, investment and trade, huge job losses, rising bankruptcies -- matters for government policy.  The only thing Washington should do here is to change how the financial losses from these events are reported. This isn’t economics; it’s a prescription that follows from a hard-edged ideological view that government can do nothing of value for an economy, regardless of conditions.   

Unhappily, this cramped understanding isn’t limited to the pages of the American Spectator and the Wall Street Journal op-ed page. Bobby Jindal put the Republican Party on record for much the same view in his awkward response to the President’s address to Congress. He even cited the colossal inadequacies of the Bush Administration’s response to Katrina as proof that the private sector is always the best answer to any problem or catastrophe -- even if it’s under water at the time.

I honestly can’t believe that they’re really so dull-witted. A better explanation for Jindal and Limbaugh, along with commentators like Westbury and Radosh, is that they’re still grappling with the grief of losing the support of the American people -- and the power that came with it. They’re stuck in denial and anger. And that’s a very bad position from which to consider the best policies for a nation and world economy in crisis.   

In anticipation of his visit to the White House today, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown offered the following op-ed in the Sunday Times of London:

Historians will look back and say this was no ordinary time but a defining moment: an unprecedented period of global change, and a time when one chapter ended and another began.

The scale and the speed of the global banking crisis has at times been almost overwhelming, and I know that in countries everywhere people who rely on their banks for savings have been feeling powerless and afraid. But it is when times become harder and challenges greater that across the world countries must show vision, leadership and courage - and, while we can do a great deal nationally, we can do even more working together internationally.

So now is the time for leaders of every country in the world to work together to agree the action that will see us through the current crisis and ensure we come out stronger. And there is no international partnership in recent history that has served the world better than the special relationship between Britain and the United States.

It is a relationship that has endured and flourished because it is based not simply on our shared history but on the enduring values that bind us together - our countries founded upon liberty, our histories forged through democracy and an unshakeable belief in the power of enterprise and opportunity.

But if it reflects our values and our histories, this special relationship is also a partnership of purpose, renewed by every generation to reflect the challenges we face. In the 1940s it found its full force defeating fascism and building the postwar international order; in the cold war era we fought the growth of nuclear weapons and when the Berlin Wall fell we saw the end of communism. In this new century, since the horrors visited on America in 2001, we have worked in partnership to defeat terrorism.

Now, in this generation, we must renew our work together once again. A new set of challenges faces the whole world, which summons forth the need for a partnership of purpose that must involve the whole world. Rebuilding global financial stability is a global challenge that needs global solutions. However, financial instability is but one of the challenges that globalisation brings. Our task in working together is to secure a high-growth, low-carbon recovery by taking seriously the global challenge of climate change. And our efforts must be to work for a more stable world where we defeat not only global terrorism but global poverty, hunger and disease.

Globalisation has brought great advances, lifting millions out of poverty as they reap the benefits of economic growth and trade. But it has also brought new insecurities, as this - the first truly global financial crisis - underlines. Globalisation is not an option, it is a fact, so the question is whether we manage it well or badly.

I believe there is no challenge so great or so difficult that it cannot be overcome by America, Britain and the world working together. That is why President Obama and I will discuss this week a global new deal, whose impact can stretch from the villages of Africa to reforming the financial institutions of London and New York- and giving security to the hard-working families in every country.

I see this global new deal as an agreement that every continent injects resources into its economy. I believe that central to this new investment is that every country backs a green recovery for the future, that every country that wishes to participate in the international financial system agrees common principles for financial regulation, coordinated internationally, and changes to their own banking system that will bring us shared prosperity once again. And that, together, we must agree to reform the mandate and governance of global institutions to recognise the changing shape of the world economy and the emergence of new players.

It is a global new deal that will lay the foundations not just fora sustainable economic recovery but for a genuinely new era of international partnership in which all countries have a part to play. This programme of internationally coordinated actions includes six elements:

First, universal action to prevent the crisis spreading, to stimulate the global economy and to help reduce the severity and length of the global recession. Second, action to kick-start lending so that families and businesses can borrow again. Third, all countries renouncing protectionism, with a transparent mechanism to monitor commitments. Fourth, reform of international regulation to close regulatory gaps so shadow banking systems have nowhere to hide. Fifth, reform of our international financial institutions and the creation of an international early warning system. And last, coordinated international action to build tomorrow today - putting the world economy on an economically, environmentally and socially sustainable path towards future growth and recovery.

I have always been an Atlanticist and a great admirer of the American spirit of enterprise and national purpose. I have visited America many times and have many friends there, and as prime minister I want to do more to strengthen even further our relationship with America.

Winston Churchill described the joint inheritance of Britain and America as not just a shared history but a shared belief in the great principles of freedom and the rights of man - what Barack Obama has described as the enduring power of our ideals - democracy, liberty, opportunity and unyielding hope. Britain and America may be separated by the thousands of miles of the Atlantic, but we are united by shared values that can never be broken. And as America stands at its own dawn of hope, I want that hope to be fulfilled through us all coming together to shape the 21st century as the first century of a truly global society.

On February 19, NDN convened a public forum that made the case for why Congress should pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform this year.  Joining NDN 's Simon Rosenberg were  Rick Johnson of Lake Research, Pete Brodnitz of Benenson Strategy Group, Janet Murguia of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), and Frank Sharry of America's Voice.  

It was a powerful event. For those of you who were unable to watch the video live, or review the compelling package of data and presentations that were part of the event, I encourage you to visit:

"Making the Case for Passing Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year,"
Simon Rosenberg, NDN, 2/19/09

"Immigration08: National Survey and Swing District Polling on Immigration ," 
Lake Research Partners,11/13/08
Polling sponsored by America's Voice and Immigraiton08 found - yet again - that a large majority of voters broadly support Comprehensive Immigration Reform.  The data here demonstrates how voters understand that common sense solutions that help the economy and fix the broken immigration system are a win-win. 

"Attitudes Towards Immigration Reform in Swing Districts,"
Benenson Strategy Group, Updated: 1/27/09
This polling performed in congressional swing districts found that support of a comprehensive approach to immigration reform both increases a candidate's ballot support and improves the public perception of him or her on key qualities and attributes. It's telling that candidates associated with support for comprehensive reform were perceived more favorably than candidates supporting enforcement-only.

"NDN Statewide Polls on Immigration,"
NDN and Bendixen & Associates, 9/10/2008
Similar to the polling done in swing districts, this poll conducted in four battleground states - CO, NM, NV, and FL- found overwhelming support for comprehensive immigration reform. The data here also shows that while the anti-immigrant minority may be loud, it remains a very small minority, with most voters blaming the U.S. government for the broken immigration system - not the undocumented immigrants. 

Taken together, these presentations and reports are essential reading for anyone working on this issue.

We cannot forget that we also have a moral imperative to pass national immigration reform.  Click here to read more about the perfect storm that is being fostered by the consistent immigration debate at local and state levels, leading to dramatic increases in the number of hate crimes and hate groups.  

Today, MSNBC featured a story on the growth in hate groups and increas in hate crimes.  Since the year 2000, the number of hate groups has increased by 54%, adding up to 926 such groups across the country.  The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) contends that this growth is due almost entirely to the exploitation of the immigration issue by these groups.  Statistics show that these groups are mainly targeting Latinos.  The piece states that the combination of an economic crisis, a rapidly changing demography (it is estimated that by 2042 most of the U.S. population will be of a "minority", and this will happen by 2023 among 18-year olds), and the first black President have served to stir the storm of hate crimes and hate groups - a storm that "only knowledge and understanding" can eliminate.  Let's hope this small percentage of our population starts becoming more informed, and more accepting of the demographic reality of 21st century America.  See the video, with coments by John Amaya from MALDEF and the SPLC, dedicated to tracking such groups.

The Friday Kos poll is in: 

The big winner this week are congressional Democrats, who saw a whopping 13-point net gain in their favorability ratings. That gain came mostly among Democratic respondents, who went from 68-31 favorable/unfavorable to 71-18, and Independents, who went from 38-55 to 47-44.

In the first weekly poll conducted January 5-9, Congressional Democratic favorability rating was 36-53, meaning that passing Obama's stimulus package and other assorted legislation have earned it an increase of 18 points net favorability this year. Congressional Republicans, on the other hand, started the year at 24-64, meaning they've lost 11 net favorability points through this week.

More here, with graphs.

President Barack Obama's superb address Tuesday night had an underlying, unifying logic which some may have missed, but which hopefully those reading this will recognize.  

First, on the financial and economic crisis, he embraced the three basic steps we have urged since last September: on top of a stimulus aimed at long-term investments and helping the states – that’s now done – there will be new requirements that banks getting help from taxpayers use that assistance to expand their lending, and new steps to keep people in their homes and bring down foreclosure rates. It’s just economic common sense – but that’s precisely what most of official Washington casually casts aside in favor of scoring short-term, political points. (Take a look at Gov. Bobby Jindal’s empty and sneering response to the President’s speech. His repeated citing of Katrina as a model for government action, by itself, should be a career-ending act).

The President also laid out a domestic agenda for the rest of his first term, and it looks like the most sweeping since FDR and LBJ. I suppose that personal blogs, by definition, are no place for humility, so here it is straight. The three cornerstone Obama initiatives -- slow down our fast-rising health care costs, expand energy conservation and our use of alternative fuels, and give everybody new chances to upgrade their working skills -- are the exact prescription laid out more than a year ago in my book, Futurecast: How Superpowers, Populations and Globalization Will Change the Way You Live and Work. It’s also been a regular theme of this blog and a series of papers issued by NDN.  

Here, too, it’s just economic common sense, for a world being transformed by globalization.  The underlying logic of the President’s program springs from the fierce new challenges Americans face under globalization to their jobs and incomes. Globalization has made competition much stronger, and that competition leaves American businesses and their workers in a bind. Their costs have been rising very fast, especially for health care and energy, but intense global competition makes it harder for companies to raise their prices to cover these rising costs. The result is that the wages of most American stopped rising since about 2002, even as they became more productive. And most can’t find higher wages by getting new jobs, because before the current crisis began, the same forces had made this period the weakest for job creation since World War II.

The President understands that coming out of the current crisis isn’t enough, if we just return to another period of growth without wage gains or healthy job creation. He also understands another theme of Futurecast and NDN's work, namely that about half of Americans also need new skills if they aspire to jobs with a real future. That’s the basis for the third plank of the domestic agenda he laid out last night -- genuine, new access for young people to go to college or receive other, post-secondary training, and new opportunities for everyone else to upgrade their skills. 

President Obama’s first speech to Congress already ranks as the most serious and thoughtful presidential address on the economy in decades. Perhaps it took an historic crisis to break through the political cant and mental laziness that has gripped our economic agenda for so long. But the President is using this moment to put forward not only meaningful answers for the crisis, but serious, long-term remedies for much deeper economic problems which other politicians routinely ignore. That’s presidential leadership of the sort we haven’t seen since, well, FDR.