The Champion Brand | Global is Local | Know Whats Next | Integrated Insights | Return on Reputation

The Immigration Debate:

The Challenges and Opportunities of Immigration Reform in the United States Eduardo Aguirre, former U.S. ambassador to Spain
and former director of immigration services in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, opened the discussion noting that immigration law is probably the most complex set of laws in the United States today and, like an onion, the law has so many layers that some of them seemingly contradict each other. It is the subject of a lot of demagoguery making it one of the most polarizing and highly political issues in the United States. Aguirre noted the last significant immigration reform in the United States was the Simpson-Mazzoli Act of 1986, during President Ronald Reagans time in office. Subsequent to that, President George W. Bush tried to push forth a Guest Worker Program in 2004, which in many cases serves as the foundation of the current immigration reform that is currently going through Congress. The Obama administration has established itself as a strong proponent of immigration reform, putting the United States about as close as it has been since 1986 to updating its immigration law. The right of center is focusing on border security; the left of center is focusing on path to citizenship. Both of those issues can be poisonous to each other, and finding the middle ground is going to be the essence of whether or not this passes in 2013. After the 2012 election, the Republican Party experienced a reality check, and that has allowed a number of our politicians both in the House and the Senate to see the light in terms of immigration reform. In the House, it is unlikely to be in the form of one single bill; it will probably be a collection of bills, which will allow senators and congressmen to vote for or against aspects of reform; but they will not have one big package to pass. Tim Roemer, former congressman and U.S. ambassador to India, enumerated all the changes in the global economy since the United States last updated its immigration law in 1986. At the time of the immigration laws drafting, the Internet was barely in existence. Today the cloud, e-commerce, and high-tech jobs and industry dominate a large portion of the U.S. workforce, yet we have antiquated laws determining how we bring people into the country. Oftentimes, if visiting students from India or China earn an

n update on immigration and the challenges of passing the current immigration bill in the U.S. Congress was the focus of discussion during APCOs International Advisory Council (IAC) and Global Political Strategies (GPS) meeting on June 20, 2013. >>

engineering degree from Stanford, Yale or MIT, they are sent back home after graduation. America loses expertise as a result of that. This should become more of the debate in the weeks ahead, as it would likely bring some sense to the Republican moderate and conservative parties. This is essential not only for the United States principles and our history as a nation of immigrants, but would also continue to build the strength and diversity of our nation and its workforce. In addition, the agricultural and business communities are very interested in finding the appropriate balance for a seasonal workforce for the farm sector. But how do we update our competitiveness and make sure that we are in a position to bring in some of the most desired and talented people in the world to grow our economy? Roemer noted that there are probably four to eight different provisions in the Senate immigration bill that enumerate different restrictions for companies that have varying percentages of their employees on H1B visas. For example, the bill would prohibit firms from having more than 50 percent of employees on H1B visas over a several-year period, and would institute penalties on violators. There also is a provision for those that have more than 30 percent of their employees on H1B visas who have to pay higher fees. There is a 15 percent provision on the bill that would say those companies that have more than 15 percent of H1B workers are prohibited from placing H1B workers at a clients site. So there are very restrictive provisions aimed directly and indirectly at companies that are based overseas to some degree, but also U.S. companies that rely on this workforce. Congress should not be mandating to the business community what model of business to run in an immigration bill based upon their percentages of H1B visas. Regulatory costs, administrative costs and job losses will result from a law that is overly prescriptive. Joe Grandmaison, former director of the U.S. Trade and Development Agency and former board member on the Export-Import Bank, said that each member of the Senate, and even more so in the House, is going to look at the politics of what the immigration vote means to them; making it largely impossible to just take three steps back and analyze it politically from a national perspective. All of these interpretations will always be based upon what it means electorally in each individual state to each particular member. So in many cases you are going to need a crystal ball. Former U.S. Congressman Don Bonker remarked that the reality is that there is a serious division within the Republican Party. Moderates like John McCain and others are trying to be realistic about the necessity of outreach to the communities affected by this bill, and they are trying to shape something that is acceptable. But, as we have

seen, the Tea Party has the capability of blocking serious legislation, and it is difficult to present anything that is acceptable to them. The real question is whether the GOP speaker can shape legislation that can pass the House and is acceptable to the Senate. Bill Richardson, former governor of New Mexico and chairman of APCOs Global Political Strategies (GPS), agreed that the key to the immigration debate will be moderate Republicans, who will hopefully prevail at the end. The immigration bill not only improves border security through more funding of boots on the ground and technology, but also the resolution of what happens to the 11 million undocumented immigrants living and working in the United States. It will also improve the legal immigration system, which would allow highly educated individuals that have come from around the world to stay in the United States under the reform of the legal immigration system. Richardson highlighted a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office that said that the immigration bill would improve the U.S. economy, it would create jobs and it would lower the deficit by some $175 billion after its passage. However, the key will be what happens in the House of Representatives with Speaker Boehner and whether the Senate bill will remain intact. It will ultimately be broken up a little bit, but the reason this is so significant is that it could be the only major legislation that gets done this calendar year. In sum, the three main takeaways from the discussion are: The United States is very close to reforming its immigration law for the first time since 1986. How moderates in both political parties are able to manage its more extreme constituencies will be the key factor moving forward as the bill is debated on Capitol Hill, particularly in the House and subsequently, in a conference committee. New emphasis on U.S. competitiveness and jobs is a critical factor in the debate ahead. Ensuring that the United States is able to attract and keep highly skilled and educated students should be the common ground for both parties to work together to find a compromise on immigration. The United States must be able to educate and train its own workforce, through improved Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) programs and also attract key talent from abroad.

Driving Global Dialogue

For more information, please visit www.apcoworldwide.com/forum
2013 APCO Worldwide Inc. All rights reserved.