Good Immigrant-Bad Immigrant: codifying a caste system

On Thursday, President Obama will once again meet with the movers and shakers in the Immigration Reform debate. Having already punted the ball down field, postponing any meaningful reform until next year, Obama will take this opportunity to reassure those concerned that he hasn't forgotten them, and more importantly, their constituents and members who worked so hard to put him in office.

And when the niceties and glad-handing are over, they will hunker down to the kind of horse trading that goes on in proverbial smoke filled rooms.

Political calculations and public relations strategies will as much topics of conversation as policy and legislative change. And when the smoke clears, we'll be one step closer to some sort of Frankenstein compromise, cobbled together of various bits and pieces of previous legislative initiatives, concessions to numerous special interests, and easily sold sound bites intended to mollify the great middle of the uninterested or uninformed.

And so it goes

But one thing we know will be included in the Great Compromise of 2010 will be the division of all immigrants, both current and future, into a two tiered caste system that places one value on those with education, skills, English language proficiency, or financial resources, and another on the vast majority of others who come with little more to offer than a yearning to make a better life.

We first saw this division of future immigrants into "desirable" and "undesirable" in the merit based system proposed in the 2007 legislation.

According to that system, each new prospective immigrant would be rated according to his or her "desirability" and ability to "contribute" to society. Points were given for English language proficiency, educational achievement, ability to be employed in certain fields, job history, whether one had personal health insurance, and finally, family ties.

Under this system, the Migration Policy Institute found that a marked shift in immigrant demographics would result. A shift from an essentially hemispheric migration model that favored family reunification and opportunity for the kind of low-skilled workers that have traditionally made up immigrant population for over 100 years, to a global model that favored high skilled immigrants with access to higher education and English language acquisition.

Put more plainly … those who came from countries that can afford to educate their populations to provide the skills needed in a new global economy would be welcome.

Those from regions too poor, rural, or politically unstable to provide world class educations … they'd be shit outa luck.

Additionally the system would have meant a defacto closing of the door to our closets neighbors.

After spending 200 years meddling and destabilizing our southern neighbors for either profit or geopolitical machinations, the vast majority of prospective immigrants from the region would be ill equipped to compete in a system that placed added value on certain attributes they lacked, while making sure to minimize the valuable contributions they have made not only in the past, but could continue to make in the future.

But that's all past history .. right? The bill crashed and burned.

This time around is different.

We've got a majority in both houses, a liberal President, and a right-wing in shambles … no need for ridiculous restrictions just to mollify a minority of rabid racists bend on stemming an imaginary "invasion."

Well think again.

One of the cornerstones of Chuck Schumer's seven-point plan to finally accomplish what Tom Tancredo couldn't, reintroduces a new merit system for the 21st century:

we need to recognize the important contribution that high-skilled immigrants have already made, and must continue to make, toward revitalizing and reinventing the American economy.

No immigration system would be worthwhile if it is unable to attract the best and brightest minds of the world to come to the United States and create jobs for Americans—as has been the case for Yahoo, Google, Intel, E-Bay, and countless other companies.

That being said, any reformed immigration system must be successful in encouraging the next Albert Einstein to emigrate permanently to the United States while, at the same time, discouraging underpaid, temporary workers from taking jobs that could and should be filled by qualified American workers.

link

While Schumer vaguely alludes to the institution of an immigrant caste system …. The Council on Foreign Relations, who appear to have written the blueprint for Obama's immigration compromise, flesh it all out:

Attracting Skilled Immigrants

The United States needs to develop a conscious and explicit policy for attracting highly skilled immigrants. For most of its history, America has enjoyed a considerable skills and education advantage over its largest economic competitors. This is unfortunately no longer the case. Other countries are producing highly skilled workers faster than the United States, and such individuals will be in increasingly high demand in the U.S. economy in the coming years.

America’s economic future, as well as its diplomatic success, depends greatly on its ability to attract a significant share of the best and brightest immigrants from around the world.

The Task Force recommends that the United States tackle headon the growing competition for skilled immigrants from other countries and make the goal of attracting such immigrants a central component of its immigration policy. For decades, the primary goal has been to ration admission; in the future, recruiting the immigrants it wants must be the highest priority.

… The Task Force recommends that quotas for skilled work visas like the H-1B visa be increased, but fluctuate in line with economic conditions. Similarly, the number of employment-based green cards should not face a hard cap, but should be allowed to increase and decrease as economic conditions warrant. Under most economic conditions, the number of employment-based green cards should be significantly higher than current levels.

For those in the United States on temporary work visas, with the exception of seasonal work visas like the H-2A and the H-2B, the Task Force recommends eliminating the current requirement that these visa holders demonstrate the intent to not immigrate to the United States. Such a requirement is an anachronism that does not reflect how immigration to the United States actually takes place for most people, and does not recognize the U.S. national interest in encouraging some of those visa holders to remain in the United States permanently

The Task Force therefore recommends eliminating the nationality quotas for skilled workers.

link [pg.84]

According to this plan, skilled workers would get more green cards, no national quotas, and not be subjected to real temporary status. They would be actively recruited and their path to citizenship made as easy as possible.

And what about the unskilled …. They get to come as guest workers:

Temporary Worker Programs

Although the U.S. economy has exhibited an enormous and continued appetite for low-skilled labor, the immigration system simply does not recognize the demand. The quotas for employment-based admission by low-skilled immigrants are minuscule, and in practice most of the demand is filled by unauthorized immigrants. Recognizing that the U.S. economy has had and will continue to have a significant appetite for low-skilled workers is a critical part of gaining control over illegal immigration.

.. The Task Force recommends a two-pronged approach. First, the United States should recognize that, subject to economic fluctuations, continued demand for low-skilled labor is likely to be an ongoing feature of the economy. Therefore, the United States should allow greater numbers of lowskilled immigrants to enter on work visas, with the option of seeking permanent residence if they wish. Those numbers should be adjusted regularly based on the needs of the economy, with the goal of enhancing U.S. competitiveness. At the same time, the government should create an expanded seasonal work program—but one that is easier for employers to use and that provides better protections for the foreign workers employed in it.

link [pg.87]

The unskilled, according to this plan, are allowed to enter the country on temporary work visas that have the option to become permanent down the road, or as temporary seasonal workers (see: agricultural workers), who will be presumably treated better than currently is the norm.

This plan is not much different from all the previous guest workers programs proposed in the past from McCain-Kennedy to the Grand Compromise. A promise of some sort of future permanent residency is offered in return for temporary worker status.

This division of the immigrant population into two distinct castes, one actively recruited and provided with an easy path to permanency, another "allowed" to enter under temporary visas or "tolerated" as agricultural guests workers, sets up a dichotomy that is not only morally vacant ..But contrary to a common sense approach to immigration reform.

Any system which attempts to codify some arbitrary value placed upon the worth of human beings, and the contributions they make to society, can never succeed as public policy.

How can the worth of those who provide your food, build your homes, or care for your youngest and oldest, be of any less value than that of those who work in any other fields .

This whole notion runs contrary to the ideals on which not only the nation was founded, but that attracts so many to come here in the first place.

Read More...

Summary only...

The good, bad and ugly: Today's Senate immigration action

It's a given that no one likes the current immigration compromise moving through the Senate. So there's no need to rehash all the pro's and con's of the bill.

But since there is still a chance this thing might see the light of day and actually make it out of the Senate, it's important to try our best to influence those who are supposed to represent us to make the necessary changes to it.

In general, the debate thus far has followed a predictable path. Democrats, in concert with the labor unions and the immigrants-rights lobby, have been trying to limit guest worker programs and add more labor protections to them. They have also tried to ease the quotas and restrictions on family based immigration and family reunification.

The Republican immigration hawks are trying to stiffen penalties and limit participation in legalization programs, and the corporate wings of both parties are just trying to get the bill through with as few changes as possible.

Yesterday we had one major change to the bill when the total number of Y-visas guest workers was cut in half. There were also a few important modifications made by both side of the aisle.

• Senator Bingaman (D-NM) entered an amendment to cut the number of Y-visa guest workers from 400k to 200K – despite opposition from Kennedy (D-MA) and Martinez (R-FA) - the amendment passed - 74-24.


• Senator Feinstein (D-CA) introduced an amendment that attempts to improve the way the federal government treats those unaccompanied alien children in its custody who have no other family members in this country - amendment was agreed to by voice vote.


• Senator Graham (R-SC) introduced an amendment calling for mandatory minimum penalties for those who have been removed from the country and attempt to reenter unlawfully. The amendment calls for a minimum mandatory jail sentence of 60 days for anyone previously removed and who attempt an unlawful reentry or is found to be present unlawfully in this country. It also calls for jail sentences ranging from a minimum of one year to a maximum of 20 years for those who attempt to reenter unlawfully after having been convicted, prior to removal, of 3 misdemeanors or 1 felony. - amendment was accepted by unanimous consent.


• Senator Gregg (R-NH) introduced an amendment to provide additional resources aimed at shoring up the southwest border, above what is already called for in the underlying bill. Specifically, the amendment calls for an additional 375 miles of real and virtual fencing along the border, additional CBP agents, and detention beds above what is already called for in the underlying bill It also requires certification that the requirements have been satisfied before implementation of certain other provisions in the larger bill can be triggered , including the new worker program. Finally, that the Secretary of DHS certify in writing that they have achieved and demonstrated operational control over 100% of the U.S.-Mexico land border. - amendment was accepted by voice

That brings us to today's action:

THE GOOD

Menendez/Hagel Amendment - amendment to restore the ability of over 800,000 U.S. citizens to be reunited with close family members. Without this bipartisan amendment, they would lose their place in the legal immigration line and get shifted into the untested and unpredictable Point System for visa allocation. Reducing opportunities for citizens who have waited to be reunited with close family members should not be part of the overall compromise. This amendment limits the damage to families and should be the first amendment to be debated and voted upon today.

Clinton/Hagel Amendment – this amendment would treat spouses and minor children of permanent residents as 'immediate relatives' for immigration category purposes. If adopted, the amendment would mean that spouses and minor children would no longer have to endure up to five years of waiting for their visas.

Menendez/Obama Amendments - offer two amendments that would reduce the negative impact on family reunification that would be created by the new Point System. (1)would end the Point System after 5 years unless Congress studies and extends it and (2) give family members a better chance of emerging from the Point System with enough points to qualify for a visa

Dodd/Hatch Amendment - This bipartisan amendment would undo damage in the compromise that makes it more difficult for the parents of U.S. citizens to obtain a visa. The compromise would place a limit on the number of visas for parents at roughly half the current usage. The amendment retains the limitation but raises it to 90,000 visas per year or roughly the current usage.

Sanders (I-V) Amendment(#1223) an amendment to significantly increase employer fees on H-1B Visas and use the resulting resources for scholarships in math, science, engineering and nursing education. The scholarship program would award merit-based scholarships of up to $15,000 per year for students to pursue associate, undergraduate or graduate level degrees in mathematics, engineering, nursing, medicine, or computer science. The scholarships would be awarded to over 65,000 American students each year and would be funded by increasing the current $1,500 employer fee per H-1B worker to $8,500 per worker.

THE BAD

McCaskill Amendment - . In addition to the $5,000 fine, would add various application fees and eight or more year process for eventual legal status that is already in the compromise, the potential McCaskill Amendment would force individuals seeking legal status to admit to the misdemeanor of entering the United States without authorization and to perform hundreds of hours of 'community service.'

THE UGLY

Cornyn (R-TX) Amendment - Expanding Restrictions on Immigration Benefits and Due Process (#1184)
The amendment severely limits who would be eligible for legalization programs. Makes anyone who is inadmissible under 212(a) ineligible for the legalization program. This is virtually the entire undocumented population. Also makes ineligible anyone unlawfully present for one year or more and subsequently reentered. Significantly expands class of “Aggravated Felony” crimes and makes them retroactive. Gives the AG unreviewable discretion to use secret evidence to determine if an alien is ‘described in’ the national security exclusions within immigration law. Adds new grounds of deportability for convictions relating to social security account numbers or social security cards and convictions relating to identity fraud

Coleman (R-MN) Amendment– (#1158) - an amendment to outlaw state and local policies that prevent their employees—including police and health and safety workers—from inquiring about the immigration status of those they serve if there is “probable cause” to believe the individual being questioned is undocumented. Essentially outlaws "sanctuary" legalization or policies by municipalities and states. There is no exception where such policies are necessary to protect the health and safety or promote the welfare of the community


There are probably a few I've missed as these amendments are coming out fast and furious.

Please take the time to call your Senators to let them know what you think of these various amendments.

If we are to end up with this legislation passing, we need to do all we can to make sure it's at least better than what we started with at the beginning of the process. It will be a long summer of immigration debate so get ready to start participating ....or you've got no one to blame but yourself if when it's all over and you don't like what we end up with.

Call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 to be directly connected to your Senators’ offices. OR Call your senators using this toll-free number: 1-800-417-7666

[UPDATE]: 6:00 PM EST - Coleman Amendment defeated by one vote. - Sanders Amendment passes 59-35

Read More...

Summary only...

MPI releases data on merit based point systems for immigration

The Migration Policy Institute, a non-profit think tanks that studies global migration and refugee policies , has released a report that sheds some additional light on the proposed "merit system" contained in the compromise immigration reform legislation now being debated in the Senate.

The report, authored by the Institute's President, Demetrios Papademetriou, who is viewed as a leading expert on the use of point systems internationally and has advised more than 20 countries on their immigration policies, looks at how point systems work in general, and more importantly examines recent US immigration trends to see how various immigrant groups from around the world would be effected by the new proposal.

The MPI backgrounder titled, "Proposed Points System and Its Likely Impact on Prospective Immigrants", looks at the current demographic data on the foreign born in the United States as it relates to the immigrant selection criteria expected to be part of "merit system" proposal. These include age, educational attainment, occupation, English proficiency, and labor force participation.

In the report, Papademetriou sets four criteria by which to judge the effectiveness of any point based system:

Things To Watch For

At the end of the day, points selection systems are a bit like government budgets: They tell the reader where a government and a society’s priorities lie. The following are the things to watch for in that regard:

1. The “pass mark,” that is, the points total one would have to earn in order to be admitted to the United States. Setting a high pass mark would likely disqualify applicants with fewer formal skills and less education  but skills which may nonetheless be essential. If the pass mark is allowed to fluctuate (the term of art is “float”) those with the highest formal qualifications and degrees will crowd out all others.

2. The overall number of visas allocated to points selected immigrants. The supply of visas would always be lower than the demand for them by people eager to come to the United States. However, if the number of visas allocated and the difficultly of obtaining sufficient points for entry are not aligned, and not all who earn enough points to qualify for visas can obtain them, the immigration system would once again become clogged by large and growing backlogs.

3. The internal distribution of points—both the categories chosen but, more importantly, the weight distribution within each category. Allocating many points for education but few for employment in high-demand occupations such as carpenters and home health aides, for example, would skew the immigration system toward the high-skilled. Allocating many points for age (youth) or for participation in a proposed apprenticeship program but fewer for employment in a specialty occupation requiring a college degree would skew immigration toward the low skilled. Small changes in the allocation of points could have very large ramifications for the composition of immigrants granted entry through a merit-based system.

4. Mechanisms for revising or adjusting the system. Many of the current problems in the US immigration system – visa supply being out of line with labor force supply and demand, high rates of illegal immigration, persistent backlogs, and systemic delays  all have roots in the inflexibility of the current immigration system. Revisions to the immigration system can happen more quickly and with less national anguish if flexibility is built into the statute and Congress does not need to revisit immigration law on a regular basis in order to update laws to match constantly changing social, economic, and demographic realities. The qualifications desired of immigrants in 2009 may not be the qualifications desired in 2012 or 2020, so the ability to review the points system and revise as needed/desired would become crucial.

Proposed Points System and Its Likely Impact on Prospective Immigrants, Immigration Policy Institute

In light of MPI's criteria for effective point systems, we must look at exactly what has been proposes in the current legislation.

The proposed merit system is intended to replace the current "employment based" system for allotting green cards which has relied on employer sponsorship as well as other criteria for determining eligibility. Under the proposed legislation the current number of employment based green cards of 140,000 would be replaced as follows:

Merit worldwide ceiling: Sets 3 different worldwide ceiling levels.

First five fiscal years post-enactment will be set at the level made available during FY05 ( 247K).

• 10K set aside for exceptional Y guestworker visa holders (although Y program won’t be up and running for at least 18 months – 2 years)


• 90K set aside for reduction of employment-based backlog existing on date of enactment


Next 3 or 4 fiscal years (until first undocumented Z visas can start adjusting), sets level at 140K

• 10K set aside for exceptional Y visa holders


• 90K set aside for employment-based reduction of backlog existing on date of enactment


Once undocumented start adjusting (outside the worldwide ceilings), sets level at 380K

• 10K set aside for exceptional Y visa holders

These future green cards would then be issued using the following merit based point criteria:

Section 502. Merit-Based Evaluation System for Immigrants

Eliminates employment preference categories 1, 2, and 3 and replaces it with a merit-based preference system.

Eliminates the labor certification process. Maintains the special immigrant and EB-5 categories but cuts their numbers (total of 7,000 available annually).

Merit points are initially assigned as follows with a total of 100 points that could be earned:

Employment: 47 maximum total points can be earned for:

• U.S. employment in a specialty occupation (20 points)


• U.S. employment in a high demand occupation (16 points)


• U.S. employment in a science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM) or health-related field, current for at least one year (8 points)


• From employer willing to pay 50% of LPR application fee: U.S. job offer or U.S. employer attestation for current employee (6 points)


• U.S. work experience (2 points per year/10 points max)


• Age of worker between 25-39 (3 points)

Education: 28 maximum total points can be earned for:

• Advanced Graduate degree (20 points)


• Bachelor’s degree (16 points)


• Associate’s degree (10 points)


• High School diploma/GED (6 points)


• Certified vocational degree (5 points)


• DOL registered apprenticeship (8 points)


• Associate’s degree or above in STEM field (8 points)

English/Civics: 15 total points can be earned for:

• Native English speaker or TOEFL score 75 or above (15 points)


• TOEFL score 60-75 (10 points)


• Pass USCIS Citizenship test in English and civics (6 points)

Extended Family: for those with total of 55 or above in above categories, 10 total points can be earned for:

• Adult (21 or over) child of USC (8 points)


• Adult (21 or over) child of LPR (6 points)


• Sibling of USC or LPR (4 points)


• Visa application in any category above after May 1, 2005 (2 points)

In addition, the following allocation has been set aside for the new Z visa category:

Agricultural Work: 25 total points can be earned for:

• Agricultural work for 3 years, 150 days/year (21 points)


• Agricultural work for 4 years, 150 days for 3 years, plus 100 days for 1 year (23points)


• Agricultural work for 5 years, 100 days per year (25 points)

U.S. Employment: 15 total points can be earned for:

• 1 point per year of lawful U.S. employment

Home Ownership: 5 total points can be earned for:

• 1 point per year of ownership of place of residence in U.S.

Medical Insurance: 5 points total can be earned for:

• Current medical insurance for entire family (5 points)

Gives DHS authority to establish regulations regarding petition process for merit-based system and creates a standing commission on immigration and labor markets for evaluating the relative weighting and selection criteria included in the point system. Petitions that have not been granted within a 3 year period are deemed denied.

Section-by-Section Summary of the Senate “Grand Bargain” Bill , AILA

Given the details as presented thus far in the legislation it has obviously not met MPI's first test. The legislation makes no mention whatsoever of a "pass mark" or how these points are to be evaluated. Are the top 140,000 applicants in a given fiscal year to be accepted? Is there a minimum "grade" that must be attained? Will the "pass mark" float? These are all questions that should be answered in the legislation before any serious consideration of this proposal can be made.

So just how will this merit system effect future immigration patterns?

MPI looked at the demographic data from recent immigration and found that the merit system as written will favor certain immigrant groups while making it much more dificult for others to enter.

Some Initial Observations From The Data

The question everyone is trying to answer can be posed most simply (and directly) as follows: In applying the new admissions’ criteria to those who entered during the past 15 years, what would the impacts be on groups with different skill and education mixes?

Immigrants from many Asian countries would likely fare well under a points system as it is currently being described.

• Two-fifths of all recent Asian immigrants to the United States (i.e., those who entered since 1990), and at least one-third from the top five Asian sending countries are in the age range (25-39) that would garner points under the proposed system.

• Over half of recent immigrants from China, the Philippines, and Korea, and 76 percent from India have a bachelor’s or higher degree. If we add those with associates’ degrees, the strong educational advantage of a points system for Asians widens further. (Vietnam is the only significant exception in this regard.)

• The majority of recent immigrants from the Philippines and India report speaking English “very well” and would fare well under a points system.

• About half of recent immigrants from India work in IT, science and engineering, or healthcare occupations, while another 20 percent work in other professional occupations. About one-quarter of recent immigrants from the Philippines work in healthcare occupations. Employment within each of these occupations is preferred under the proposed points system. About one-quarter of recent immigrants from China work in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics occupations, while another quarter work in other professional occupations.

Immigrants from Latin American countries will likely face more difficulties in obtaining entry through the points system, depending on how categories are weighted. Age and occupational characteristics may benefit immigrants from this area, while formal educational attainment and English ability may become barriers.

• More than two-fifths of recent Central American/Caribbean and South American immigrants are in the preferred age range of 25-39. Forty-eight percent of recent Mexican immigrants and 53 percent of recent Salvadoran immigrants are 25 to 39 years of age, as are 48 percent of recent immigrants from both Brazil and Ecuador.

• The vast majority of recent immigrants from South America have at least a high school diploma, and 31 percent have a bachelor’s or higher degree. However, just 45 percent of recent immigrants from Central America and the Caribbean have a high school diploma or higher. Cuban and Dominican immigrants are exceptions in this regard, with high relative rates of college education compared to other countries in the region.

• The vast majority (about 80 percent) of Central American/Caribbean recent immigrants and a strong majority (about 60 percent) of South American recent immigrants lack English proficiency. The trend holds true for the top five sending countries from both areas, with the exception of immigrants from Venezuela, 44 percent of whom report that they are proficient in English. Only 15 percent of recent Mexican immigrants are proficient in English.

• The occupations common among Central American and Caribbean immigrants may earn points under the “high demand” occupation category. Most of the occupations expected to experience the highest job growth over the next ten years require only on-the-job training. The majority of Central American/Caribbean immigrants work in such lowerskill, high-growth occupations as construction, extraction, transportation, service, manufacturing, and installation. Extremely small shares of immigrants from the largest sending countries in the region work in preferred science, engineering, or health occupations.

• The occupations of South American immigrants follow a similar trend to those for Central American and Caribbean immigrants, though slightly higher shares of South Americans work in mid-level or high-skill occupations.

While the United States has received relatively few immigrants from Africa, those who have entered have language, age, and educational characteristics that could help them earn points for entry.

• As with the other world regions examined, about two-fifths of recent African immigrants fall in the preferred age range of 25-39.

• Recent African immigrants tend to be well educated. Thirty-eight percent of all recent African immigrants have a bachelor’s or higher degree, and fully two-thirds have some college education. Those from Nigeria, Egypt, and South Africa have the highest levels of educational attainment among the top African sending countries: over half from each have a bachelor’s or higher degree. Fewer Ethiopian immigrants have bachelor’s degrees – under a quarter – but 60 percent do have some college education.

• English proficiency tends to vary by country but is high overall. Eighty-seven percent of recent Nigerian immigrants, and 96 percent of South African immigrants are English proficient, while just over half from Ethiopia and Egypt are English proficient. Looking at all recent African immigrants, two-thirds are English proficient.

• About 15 percent of African immigrants work in preferred health occupations (27 percent of Nigerian immigrants do so) while the great majority of African immigrants work in low-skill occupations. Very small shares work in science or engineering occupations, though those from South Africa have higher rates of professional occupations than immigrants from other parts of Africa.

Proposed Points System and Its Likely Impact on Prospective Immigrants, Immigration Policy Institute

While there will certainly be intense debate over this hotly contested issue in Washington, we can only hope that those trying to craft this legislation do so not solely with an eye to the next election cycle, or the local polls in their state or district... but with the best interests of both the American people and those who will be future Americans in mind.

Related:

Annual Immigration to the United States: The Real Numbers, MPI, May, 2007

Selecting Economic Stream Immigrants through Points Systems, MPI, May, 2007

A "high demand occupation" as defined in the legislation is one listed on the Bureau of Labor Statistics top 30 projected 10 year growth occupations:

BLS Occupations with the largest job growth, 2004–14

41-2031Retail salesperson
29-111 Registered nurses
25-1000 Postsecondary teachers
43-4051 Customer service representative
37-2011 Janitors and cleaners, except maids and housekeeping cleaners
35-3031 Waiters and waitresses
35-3021 Combined food preparation and serving workers, including fast food
31-1011 Home health aids
31-1012 Nursing aids, orderlies and attendants
11-1021 General and operations managers experienced
39-9021 Personal and home aides
25-2021 Elementary school teachers, except special education
13-2011 Accountants and auditors
43-9061 Office clerks, general
53-3032 Laborers and freight stock, and material movers, hand
43-4171 Receptionists and information clerks
37-3011 Landscaping and groundskeeping workers
53-3032 Truck drivers, heavy and tractor trailer
15-1031 Computer software engineers, applications
49-9042 Maintenance and repair workers, general
31-9092 Medical assistants
43-6011 Executive secretaries and administrative assistants
41-4012 Sales representatives, wholesale and manufacturing, except technical and scientific products
47-2031 Carpenters
25-9041 Teachers assistants
39-9011 Child care workers
35-2021 food preparation workers
37-2012 Maids and housekeeping cleaners
53-3033 Truck driver light or delivery services
15-1051 Computer systems analysts

Occupational employment
projections to 2014, table #3 Bureau of Labor Statistics

Read More...

Summary only...

A look at proposed Merit-Based system in Immigration Reform Compromise

One of the most controversial aspects of the proposed immigration reform compromised announced Thursday is the switch from an immigration system based upon family ties and family reunification to one based on a "merit system" that gives greater weight to educational level, jobs skills, and English proficiency.

Advocates of the compromise claim that the "merit system" will insure that those who qualify for Permanent Residence Status (green card) under the new system would be those who can make the greatest contributions to society.

Those opposed the plan claim it's a high-risk, large-scale social experimentation that would have adverse effects on families and disregards a fundamental, longstanding principle of American immigration policy and of real family values. Additionally they claim it would establish a class of workers who lack family and community roots that would seriously undermine efforts to integrate new immigrants into the American way of life.

There have come assurances from those advocating for the compromise that the "merit system" can still honor the tradition of family values. But from a look at the way points will be allocated under the new system, I don't believe that to be the case. 75% of the points are allocated for education and skills, 15% for English proficiency, and only 10% of the points are allocated for family ties.

Link to Draft Copy of Bill - The Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007


The following is the breakdown of the point allocations under the new merit system.

It comes from a draft copy of the legislation that is unverified and my not be complete …but does give us an idea of how those working on the legislation are looking at the different areas and how they plan on assessing the points.

Category	Description	Max pts
Employment Occupation National interest/ critical infrastructure Employer endorsement Experience Age of worker	U.S. employment in Specialty Occupation (DoL definition) – 20 pts U.S. employment in High Demand Occupation (BLS largest 10-yr job growth, top 30) – 16 pts U.S. employment in STEM or health occupation, current for at least 1 year – 8 pts (extraordinary or ordinary) A U.S. employer willing to pay 50% of LPR application fee either 1) offers a job, or 2) attests for a current employee – 6 pts Years of work for U.S. firm – 2 pts/year (max 10 pts) Worker’s age: 25-39 – 3 pts	47

Education (terminal degree)

M.D., M.B.A., Graduate degree, etc. – 20 pts Bachelor’s degree – 16 pts Associate’s degree – 10 pts High School diploma or GED – 6 pts Completed certified Perkins Vocational Education program – 5 pts Completed DoL Registered Apprenticeship – 8 pts STEM, assoc & above – 8 pts

28

English & civics	Native speaker of English or TOEFL score of 75 or higher – 15 pts TOEFL score of 60-74 – 10 pts Pass USCIS Citizenship Tests in English&Civics–6 pts	15
Extended family (Applied if threshold of 55 in above categories.)	Adult (21 or older) son or daughter of USC – 8 pts Adult (21 or older) son or daughter of LPR – 6 pts Sibling of USC or LPR – 4 pts If had applied for a family visa in any of the above categories after May 1, 2005– 2 pts	10
		100
Supplemental schedule for Zs Agriculture National Interest U.S. employment exp. Home ownership Medical Insurance	Worked in agriculture for 3 years, 150 days per year – 21 pts Worked in agriculture for 4 years (150 days for 3 years, 100 days for 1 year) – 23 pts Worked in agriculture for 5 years, 100 days per year – 25 points Year of lawful employment – 1 pt (max 15pts) Own place of residence – 1 pt/year owned (max 5pts) Current medical insurance for entire family (5pts)	25 15 5 5

To see how this new system would work, not only for new applicants, but also the millions of Z card holders who will be part of the proposed "amnesty" program who would eventually be eligable for green cards - one need only check the chart.

A 25 year old foreign applicant with a job prospect, a high school diploma and limited or no English proficiency would receive 15 pts ...par for the course for most unskilled workers from Mexico or Central America (and most traditional immigrants for the last 100 years)...If he/she never finished high school..knock that down to 9pts

The let's take the case of a 30 year old Z card holder with a high school diploma, whose been employed in th US for five years, has an employer sponsor and is now fluent in English - he/she would get a maximum of 45pts.

That's pretty indicative of the max level that most unskilled/semi-skilled worker could attain.

Even someone here 15 years with the same qualifications as our 30 year old plus owning his/her own home and carrying family health insurance would max out at 65 pts.

Compare this to a recent college graduate with a BA from anywhere in the world (16pts), who also spoke English (15pts) and could compete in any of the top 30 fastest growing professions in the nation (16pts), and a willing employer (8pts) ... they would start with a minimum of 55pts.

Add in higher degree, STEM, and a specialty employment and that number goes up to 71 pts...before setting foot in the country

The legislation doesn't mention any parameters as how the merit system "grades" would effect these two applicants, but it's safe to assume that with a finite number of green cards available each year, the low-skilled workers from areas like Mexico and Central America who currently make up the bulk of both legal and undocumented workers would end up somewhere on the bottom of the priority list.

It is quite clear that this is a dramatic change from the family based immigration of the past 40 years. It is also quite clear that it is meant to change the demographic make-up of future immigration. ...favoring high-skilled people who speak English over the working-people and the poor that have made up the bulk of the immigrant population for over two hundred years.

For more detailed information on how the merit system will work and how it will effect future immigration demographics see: MPI releases data on merit based point systems for immigration

Read More...

Summary only...