Vol. 71/No. 28      July 23, 2007

“Congress’s failure to act … is a disappointment,” Bush said following the vote. “The status quo is unacceptable when it comes to our immigration laws. A lot of us worked hard to see if we couldn’t find a common ground. It didn’t work.”

The bill’s failure reflects sharp divisions within the ruling class on immigration reform. The vote cut across party lines, with 33 Democrats, 12 Republicans, and one independent voting to advance the bill, and 15 Democrats, 37 Republicans, and one independent voting against.

Among those backing the bill were employer organizations concerned with maintaining a stable pool of superexploited labor. These groups, including the American Chamber of Commerce, supported the bill’s “guest worker” provision that would allow temporary visas for up to 200,000 workers per year.

Other employer groups opposed an amendment the Senate passed cutting the annual number of guest worker visas in half from the bill’s original 400,000, and pushed for allowing as many as 600,000 seasonal workers a year.

The defeat of the bill “leaves most of our guys in a pretty tough spot,” Brewster Bevis, director of legislative affairs for Associated Builders and Contractors, told the New York Times. “They wanted this reform so they can sleep better at night and don’t have to fear potentially being visited by ICE,” the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

Factory raids and deportations are bad for business, complained Cliff Butler, vice chairman of Pilgrim’s Pride, the nation’s largest poultry producer and a major supporter of the bill. He was surprised that those opposing the bill didn’t consider “what it would do to our economy to remove that labor force.”

Many opponents of the bill denounced it as “amnesty” for lawbreakers. Following its defeat, Republican senator Jim DeMint said at a June 28 news conference “we can move ahead with expanding our border security, with a verifiable worker ID program.”

Under the proposal, many undocumented immigrants currently in the United States could apply for renewable Z visas, after paying $4,500 in fines. Eventually, after paying additional fees of up to $5,000 and meeting other onerous requirements, they must leave the United States to apply for permanent residency from their country of origin. Preference in granting green cards would shift to a point system emphasizing education and skills, instead of the current criteria of family unification. Bosses in agriculture, construction, and meatpacking, especially, who depend on a pool of less skilled workers, objected to this “merit-based” system, as did many immigrant rights groups.

Labor officials blocked with different sections of the ruling class over the immigration package.

The Service Employees International Union, United Farm Workers, and the hotel and garment workers union UNITE HERE backed the bill as a flawed but the “best possible” deal. The AFL-CIO campaigned against the bill.

The bill was widely promoted in the press as the only chance for some form of legalization for at least some of the 12 million undocumented. The Los Angeles daily La Opinión bemoaned the bill’s defeat as “a serious setback to the hopes of the undocumented for legalization.”

Some workers, however, disagreed. “People shouldn’t be sad that the bill didn’t pass,” said Guillermo Avalaz, a construction worker, at a June 30 protest against recent immigration raids in Santa Ana, California. “Because of the media, people think this is amnesty. It’s not. It’s a guest worker bill. It should be motivation to come out to protest more.” He carried a large sign reading, in Spanish, “No to the ‘Z.’ Naturalize foreign laborers.” About 60 people took part in the action.

Meanwhile, the March 25 Coalition and other groups have called a demonstration in Los Angeles August 4 to demand unconditional legalization of all undocumented immigrants and an end to raids and deportations.
 
 
Related articles:
Los Angeles: 3,000 demand ‘Legalization now!’
Legalize all undocumented immigrants now!  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home