Groups opposed to mass immigration are the latest organizations to join in the heated debate on Capitol Hill over Trade Promotion Authority, also known as “Fast Track,” arguing the legislation could be a “Trojan horse” for expanding guest worker programs.
The U.S. Trade Representative’s Office and the lawmakers sponsoring the legislation have pushed back, saying there is simply no truth to the claim that Fast Track or the administration’s other initiative, the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, include provisions that could expand immigration.
Critics counter that no one knows what is in the 12-nation Pacific trade deal since the language isn’t public. And for them, the Obama administration has not earned any trust.
“We would be very surprised if there are no immigration provisions at all in TPP,” said Dan Stein, president of the restrictionist Federation for American Immigration Reform. “The bottom line is, why should Congress delegate its treaty-making powers when it hasn’t seen the language?”
NumbersUSA, another group opposed to immigration, is formally opposing Fast Track and the Pacific trade pact and is warning lawmakers that it will score a vote for it as “a vote against American workers.”
Fast Track is a revival of legislation that expired in 2007 that would prohibit Congress from amending any trade deals, limiting it to a strict up-or-down vote. The White House says it needs the power to assure foreign leaders that any deal they negotiate will not be tinkered with.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a 12-nation trade deal the administration concluded earlier this year. The White House is expected to bring it before Congress for approval later this year. Passing Fast Track is widely seen as crucial to the Pacific deal’s chances.
The main spark for the concern linking TPP to guest worker programs was an April 13 op-ed published in the Hill by Curtis Ellis, a former producer for Lou Dobbs who now runs a nonprofit group called American Jobs Alliance. Both NumbersUSA and FAIR cite his column in their criticisms of Obama’s trade agenda.
“The U.S. Trade Representative says ‘temporary entry’ guest worker visas are a ‘key feature’ of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. ‘Temporary entry’ reminds one of [economist] Milton Friedman’s famous dictum: ‘Nothing is as permanent as a temporary government program,'” Ellis wrote.
The op-ed included a link to a 2011 outline of the Pacific deal’s provisions posted on the U.S. Trade Representative’s website. Under the heading “temporary entry,” the document states, “TPP countries have substantially concluded the general provisions of the chapter, which are designed to promote transparency and efficiency in the processing of applications for temporary entry, and ongoing technical cooperation between TPP authorities. Specific obligations related to individual categories of business person are under discussion.”
Though opaque, the section involves visas for managerial employees to work in foreign countries, says a source in the Trade Representative’s office — hence, the reference to “categories of business persons.”
The U.S. version is the L-1 visa program, which requires a multinational company to vouch for the recipient. Ellis argues that the L-1 program is vulnerable to abuse, citing a 2013 Department of Homeland Security Inspector General report on it.
The report notes that there is no statutory limit to the number of visas awarded in program and it allows them for workers with “specialized knowledge,” the definition of which is “vague and unclear.”
“Some [immigration agents] are concerned that consular officers abroad might interpret specialized knowledge too loosely when considering blanket beneficiaries,” the report noted.
The Inspector General’s report found “no conclusive evidence” that the L-1 program was being used to circumvent the H-1B visa program, which is for skilled employees and is capped. “Since FY 2008, the ratio of H-1B to L-1B submissions has actually increased,” the report noted.
The number of visas issued under the L-1 program was 66,700 in 2013, according to a State Department report. Another 74,100 were issued under the L-2 visa program, which is for spouses of L-1 recipients.
Ellis also cites a March speech by President Obama to a Maryland business summit in which he promised to reform the L-1 program to allow corporations to “temporarily move workers from a foreign office to a U.S. office” in a “faster, simpler way.” That would benefit “hundreds of thousands” of workers, he said.
Fast Track advocates counter that U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman has stated in writing that the Pacific deal does not include any immigration provisions.
“The United States is not negotiating and will not agree to anything in TPP that would require any modification to U.S. immigration law or policy or any changes to the U.S. visa system,” Froman said in a letter Wednesday to Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.
He conceded the deal would include a “short chapter on temporary entry” but characterized it as “narrow in scope.” It would “not change any aspect of U.S. immigration laws,” he said.
A source at the Trade Representative’s office argued the section had more to do with reforming foreign countries’ visa programs, noting that the deal involves 11 other nations. To the extent the section applies to the U.S., it is there make it easier for U.S. executives to work abroad, the source said.
“No changes are made to the (L-1) program,” said Doug Andres, spokesman for the House Ways and Committee Committee. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., is chairman of the committee and the chief House sponsor of the legislation to renew Fast Track.
Daniels and Ellis do not trust the administration to keep its word or abide by the letter of the law, though. President Obama’s decision late last year to circumvent Congress and give legal status to millions of immigrants — a judge has temporary blocked the order — has poisoned the well.
“We have heard that they are not contemplating adding L [visas] to the language of the agreement, but we haven’t seen the language of the agreement,” FAIR’s Daniels said.
Ellis says he has a solution. “If they want to eliminate any questions about immigration in this they can eliminate the chapter on immigration in TPP.”
