Hong Kong WTO Summit
Hong Kong WTO Summit
Date: Friday, December 02, 2005 4:15 PM
JOB DESTRUCTION NEWSLETTER
December 02, 2005 No. 1378
In November 2001, the WTO held trade talks in Doha, Qatar with 127 nations
including the U.S. Fortunately they didn't agree to anything substantial
(less is better when it comes to the WTO). They main thing they agreed on
is to have more meetings which are usually referred to as the "Doha Round".
The next Doha Round will soon occur in Hong Kong. The Doha Round hearings
should get very close attention because they will have a direct impact on
U.S. immigration policy and employment. More than likely the only ones in
the media that will mention what is going on is Lou Dobbs and a few Indian
newspapers.
Before I begin this series, it wouldn't hurt if you spent some time going
to the archive and reading these newsletters about the Doha Round. As you
will see, H-1B and immigration is one of the key issues in the Doha Round.
2005-09-16 Bush's Pledge to the United Nations
2005-07-22 India Complains to WTO about H-1B quotas
2005-07-08 The Real Story Behind Visas
2005-07-04 WTO Negotiations for Unlimited H-1B Visas
2004-09-09 Indo-US FTA negotiations progressing
2004-09-02 Do Republicans Want to Raise H-1B
2004-08-09 Indo-US FTA May Cicumvent H-1BL-1 Visas
2003-04-08 India Demands Results on Doha WTO Report
2004-03-31 Harris Miller Blitzkrieg - Part 1 and 2
2003-02-24 Doha Round - March Report
To fully understand the article below it's useful to understand the
terminology used by the WTO. Like all big organizations they have developed
their own vernacular. Here is a quick guide, and of course you can get the
official politically correct version at the WTO website.
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/cbt_course_e/c1s3p1_e.htm
GATS TRAINING MODULE: CHAPTER 1
Basic Purpose and Concepts
*** WTO ***
World Trade Organization. The WTO is an international organization of
globalists that deals with the rules of trade between nations. Not only
does the WTO make policy, it has enforcement powers through world tribunals
and by imposing trade sanctions.
*** GATS ***
The WTO manages a worldwide agreement called the General Agreement on Trade
in Services (GATS). This agreement was put into force in January 2000 to
oversee multilateral trade negotiations. GATS was designed to control trade
in worldwide services, and the people that provide the services. Some of
the services that readers of this newsletter are involved in that are
included in GATS are: engineering, architectural, medical (doctors and
nurses), computer IT, science, real estate, management, marketing,
telecommunication, construction, education (K-12 and higher education),
financial, banking, tourism, and transportation by ground, air, water, and
space.
*** Natural Persons ***
The term "natural persons" is an Orwellian euphemism used by the WTO to
describe working class people who are considered to be nothing more than
mere commodities. The WTO divides the world into two groups: natural
persons who provide services, and employers who need services. Most of the
people who run the WTO are not natural persons, they are ultra-rich
corporate entities.
*** Mode 4 ***
The four modes of the WTO are concerned with the movement and free-flow of
commodities across national boundaries. Mode 4 is very important to
understand because the commodity to be moved are "natural persons" that
travel across national boundaries. Mode 4 seeks to eliminate all barriers
to the movement of "natural persons", because restrictions due to
immigration are viewed as impediments to the trade of services. Simply put,
Mode 4 seeks to eliminate all immigration laws so that any willing employee
can immigrate to work for any willing employer, regardless of location or
nationality. (I'm not sure how much President Bush reads, but somebody
obviously told him about Mode 4!) Mode 4 is where you will find
requirements for temporary guest workers such as H-1B and L-1, as well as
liberalization of permanent residency status for migrant workers. Full
implementation of Mode 4 will commoditize all of the world's workers and
will force them into global arbitrage - a situation valued by the
power-elite at the WTO.
Many people argue that H-1B hurts third-world countries because it causes
brain-drains. Perhaps that's true, but countries like India think it's in
their own self interest to send those brains to the U.S.
Supporting expanded U.S. commitments on Mode 4 may just be a
shrewd way of currying favor with developing country
governments that see the temporary professional visa programs
as a way to boost valuable remittances.
Mode 4 mandates the liberalization of employment based immigration. As you
can see, India is really pushing Mode 4 at the WTO talks.
The group has focused on India and in April 2005 issued a joint
statement with the U.S.-India Business Council and the
India-based National Association of Software and Service
Companies (NASSCOM) that outlines their mutual goals in the WTO
of achieving "full liberalization in Information Technology
services and IT-enabled services." 14 The close relationship
with Indian business groups has no doubt been strengthened by
the CSI position on Mode 4, no matter how thin it may be.
So who are the culprits that want to allow floods of foreign workers into
our country? Here's a few of them:
The lead advocate for expanded Mode 4 access in the United States
is the Coalition of Service Industries (CSI), which represents 43
corporations and business associations, primarily in the
telecommunications and financial sectors.
Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates is not in favor of raising caps on
H-1B visas; he is for eliminating the caps entirely.
The American Electronics Association, which represents companies
in all aspects of the high-tech industry, is also in favor of
expanded H-1B visas. In the words of AEA spokesman John Palafoutas,
"America 's well-kept secret is that it has rarely produced enough
American-born workers with the requisite science and engineering
background to support its knowledge economy. Our safety valve has
been the H-1B visa program."
Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research
estimated that reducing obstacles for the entry of four
types of service providers -- doctors, dentists, lawyers,
and accountants -- could save U.S. consumers $160-270
billion per year. 19 Both analyses are based in part on
expected reductions in labor costs resulting from
increased competition among workers. This, of course,
translates into lower wages for U.S.-citizen service
providers.
[COMMENT FROM FROM ROB - What it really translates to is global
labor arbitrage!]
To find out more about "natural persons" and how immigration is embedded in
free trade agreements, read this article:
http://www.thesocialcontract.com/cgi-bin/showarticle.pl?articleID=1201&terms=
The web page below allows you put write comments. Go for it!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/2962
U.S. Immigration Policy on the Table at the WTO
By Sarah Anderson | November 30, 2005
Editor: John Gershman, IRC
Foreign Policy In Focus www.fpif.org
In the contentious negotiations leading up to the December 13-18 World
Trade Organization (WTO) summit, the big drama has centered around
agricultural trade and whether the richer countries will grant expanded
market access to commodities from the Global South. However, there has also
been a battle brewing between developing countries and the U.S. government
over immigration. Led by India , several countries are demanding expansion
of U.S. visa programs for temporary professional workers.
How did immigration wind up on the table at the WTO? Under the global trade
body's General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), governments can
regulate the supply of services performed by foreigners. The technical term
for this type of service trade is Mode 4. Thus far, the types of visas
being discussed are those for executives and highly skilled professionals,
such as Indian software engineers who have come to work in the Silicon
Valley and other high-tech hubs in the United States . Some developing
countries are pushing for the Mode 4 talks to cover less-skilled workers as
well.
The wrangling over visas is just one more example of the WTO's mission
creep. Global trade rules are no longer aimed merely at eliminating tariffs
on goods that cross borders. The ultimate goal of GATS, for example, is to
lift barriers to all manner of services by curbing national and local
government controls on the entry of global banks, insurance companies, and
other service providers into each country's markets. Other WTO rules limit
government efforts to offer affordable generic medicines or to protect
native plants and traditional handicrafts from being patented for profit by
global businesses. And any domestic law, including public interest
regulations, can be challenged under WTO rules as "an unfair barrier to
trade."
With the Hong Kong WTO summit only weeks away, negotiators appear to be
deadlocked on many issues. Regarding Mode 4, the White House has thus far
committed only to maintaining its current level of H-1B professional visas
-- 65,000. To no one's surprise, Washington is also holding steady on the
L-1 program, which grants an unlimited number of visas for professionals
transferring from one division to another within the same company.
Although the Bush administration's reluctance to expand its visa offer has
been a disappointment to Indian and other developing country trade
negotiators, U.S. officials might still be planning to use Mode 4 expansion
as a bargaining chip. The time for pre-summit creative deals is running
short, but the Mode 4 matter is not expected to go away. No matter what
happens in Hong Kong , the issue is bound to re-emerge in future talks.
The inclusion of migration in WTO discussions has stirred up a complex
debate featuring unusual bedfellows. Powerful U.S. corporate lobbyists have
sided with developing country governments in favor of expanded Mode 4
access. On the other hand, many progressives here and abroad, including WTO
critics and migrant rights groups, have come down on the same side as
anti-immigrant groups and some congressional Republicans.
Opposition to Expanded Mode 4 Access
U.S. Congress
The biggest obstacle to U.S. concessions on Mode 4 is not the Bush
administration but Congress, where many lawmakers in both parties feel that
trade negotiators have no business meddling in immigration policy. The
Constitution gives Congress the power to "establish a uniform rule of
naturalization." 1 The Supreme Court has interpreted this language to mean
that Congress has the exclusive power to formulate policies pertaining to
immigration. Although trade agreements must be approved by Congress,
members have argued that their power is limited by "fast-track" trade
authority, which requires an up or down vote without opportunity for
amendments.
In 2003, lawmakers successfully pressured Robert Zoellick, then the top
U.S. trade negotiator, to promise not to make any concessions in GATS
negotiations that would require changes to U.S. immigration laws. However,
when Zoellick left his position to become deputy undersecretary of state in
late 2004, acting U.S. Trade Representative Peter Allgeier re-ignited the
issue by hinting that the administration might be open to increasing Mode 4
access. In an April 19, 2005 letter to members of Congress, he stated that
provisions on Mode 4 delivery of services were a "critical pillar" for
successful negotiations in the current Doha round of WTO talks.
When Rob Portman was confirmed as the new U.S. trade representative, the
Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James Sensenbrenner,
along with John Conyers, the highest-ranking Democrat on the committee,
pressured Portman to reconfirm the administration's commitment not to
negotiate immigration provisions that would require changes to U.S. law. 2
To date, no response from Portman has been made public.
In June 2005, some House members tried a new tactic to block U.S. trade
officials from negotiating immigration matters. A bill introduced by
Colorado Republican Thomas Tancredo would have prevented the trade
representative from using any funds (including for staff time) to negotiate
improved access for foreign business personnel. Tancredo is widely viewed
as an anti-immigrant extremist, having once attempted to impose an all-out
moratorium on immigration. And yet even with intense corporate lobbying
against the bill, it came within 18 votes of passing . 3 Todd Tucker of
Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch said that even more members sympathized
with Tancredo's position but insisted that they "should not have to
reiterate through new legislation what they feel is their constitutional
mandate." 4
Labor Unions
The U.S. labor movement's opposition to increased market access under Mode
4 is based primarily on criticism of expanding the temporary worker visa
program, which labor views as deeply flawed. The H-1B visa program was
begun in 1990 to alleviate labor shortages by allowing entry to a modest
number of professional and technical guest workers with college degrees. At
that time, demand for information technology (IT) professionals was strong.
Although the numbers vary from year to year, IT workers constitute about
60% of H-1B workers. 5
Then the dot-com bust hit, and between March 2001 and April 2004, the
industry shed 403,300 jobs. Although recession was the cause of some of
those job losses, more than half occurred after economic recovery began in
November 2001. 6 Many IT workers argue that continued use of H-1B visas is
motivated not by labor shortages but by employers' desires for cheaper,
more vulnerable foreign workers.
The AFL-CIO contends that employers have abused the H-1B program to
displace U.S. workers and exploit guest workers. The labor confederation
has been sharply critical of the lack of government oversight to verify
whether claims of labor shortages are legitimate and to ensure that
employers pay guest workers prevailing wages and benefits. Although there
is anecdotal evidence of U.S. companies applying for H-1B workers while
laying off U.S. citizens, the actual impact of the H-1B program on U.S.
jobs and wages has not been widely documented. In 2003, the General
Accounting Office issued a report concluding that more research is needed.
According to the report, "Although some employers acknowledged that H-1B
workers might work for lower wages than their U.S. counterparts, the extent
to which wage is a factor in employment decisions is unknown." 7
U.S. unions also argue that the visa program gives employers excessive
power over guest workers. An H-1B visa requires a sponsoring U.S. employer
and is good for three years with one three-year renewal allowed. After the
visa expires, the foreign worker must remain outside the United States for
at least one year. This arrangement gives employers tremendous power to
retaliate against guest workers who attempt to join a union or ask for
better wages or working conditions by threatening to withdraw the workers'
visas or deny renewal of visas in the future. 8
The AFL-CIO has couched its opposition to increased Mode 4 access in a
broader critique of the WTO. In 2002, for example, the AFL-CIO Executive
Council adopted a GATS resolution that calls for negotiations to be
suspended pending an assessment of potential impacts on economic and social
development of poorer countries, provision of public services, government
subsidies and procurement policies, services regulation, and the protection
of worker rights, the environment, and human rights. With regard to Mode 4,
the resolution states that the AFL-CIO opposes any new commitments
regarding temporary entry until U.S. guest worker programs are reformed to
"include more rigorous labor market tests, involve labor unions in the
labor certification process, and guarantee the same workplace protections
for temporary workers that are available to all workers." 9
In 2003, the issue of negotiating visas through trade agreements was one of
the few points of controversy in congressional debate over U.S. free-trade
agreements with Chile and Singapore . The Labor Advisory Committee for
Trade Negotiations and Trade Policy, through which unions give input to
U.S. trade negotiators, strongly objected to provisions that created a new
visa category for 6,800 Chilean and Singaporean professional guest workers.
The committee complained that "this makes no economic sense for [ U.S. ]
workers facing stagnant wages and high unemployment, and it is totally
inconsistent with our right to engage in a full, democratic debate with our
elected representatives on immigration issues." 10 Largely as a result of
union pressure, the new visas for Chileans and Singaporeans are counted
under existing guest worker quotas.
Migrant Rights Groups
Some migrant rights groups, such as the National Network for Immigrant and
Refugee Rights (NNIRR), are critical of the inclusion of migration in WTO
discussions because they feel that such negotiations reduce migrants to a
commodity to be exported and imported. The NNIRR and other migrant
advocates worked with trade activists to develop a statement on Mode 4
based on the idea that "migration policy must acknowledge migrants as human
beings and address their dignity and human rights." The statement also
raises criticism (similar to the AFL-CIO's) of the existing U.S. temporary
guest worker programs and calls for a democratic and transparent process
for developing migration policy. Whereas the AFL-CIO has focused on
domestic consultation, the NNIRR statement also emphasizes the need for
including international migrant communities and advocates, labor unions,
the International Labor Organization, and the United Nations in immigration
discussions.
Advocates of Reduced Immigration
The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) cites two primary
reasons for concern about Mode 4. The group feels that Washington 's
current offer of codifying existing provisions for H-1B and L-1 visas
strips its power to restrict these programs in the future. For example, if
there were a recession with mass layoffs of American workers, the U.S.
government could not respond by lowering the number of such visas granted.
Secondly, FAIR says that these types of visas "provide a major impetus to
the outsourcing process, because the visa programs bring foreign workers to
the United States , where they are trained in the operations of the company
in order to facilitate outsourcing contracts with that company when they
return abroad." 11 There is anecdotal evidence that this is occurring but
no data on the extent of the trend. The Center for Immigration Studies
raises the additional concern that by including visa matters in the WTO,
U.S. trade officials open the door for other countries to challenge U.S.
immigration laws as barriers to trade in services subject to the WTO
dispute resolution mechanism. 12
Promoters of Expanded Mode 4 Access
Coalition of Service Industries
The lead advocate for expanded Mode 4 access in the United States is the
Coalition of Service Industries (CSI), which represents 43 corporations and
business associations, primarily in the telecommunications and financial
sectors. To address concerns in Congress about trade negotiators usurping
power over migration, the CSI has insisted that increasing the number of
H-1B visas would not constitute a change in immigration policy because
H-1Bs are only for temporary entry and not permanent immigration.
And yet despite the CSI's work on Mode 4, the group's primary goal is to
use GATS to expand opportunities (and eliminate barriers) for its members
in foreign service markets. Wish lists prepared for a 2005 CSI conference
on GATS included extensive details on what corporations hope to obtain
regarding deregulation of insurance, banking, computer services,
telecommunications, media, express delivery, and other service sectors but
not a word about Mode 4. 13 Likewise, a CSI press release glowingly
reviewed the revised U.S. plan for GATS in May 2005 without even mentioning
that the offer contained no new concessions on H-1B visas.
Supporting expanded U.S. commitments on Mode 4 may just be a shrewd way of
currying favor with developing country governments that see the temporary
professional visa programs as a way to boost valuable remittances. CSI
members have traveled around the world to lobby developing country trade
negotiators to make ambitious offers in services negotiations. The group
has focused on India and in April 2005 issued a joint statement with the
U.S.-India Business Council and the India-based National Association of
Software and Service Companies (NASSCOM) that outlines their mutual goals
in the WTO of achieving "full liberalization in Information Technology
services and IT-enabled services." 14 The close relationship with Indian
business groups has no doubt been strengthened by the CSI position on Mode
4, no matter how thin it may be.
Major Employers of H-1B Workers
Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates is not in favor of raising caps on H-1B
visas; he is for eliminating the caps entirely. Microsoft is likely the
largest single employer of workers with this type of visa. The computer
giant tops the list of companies that have applied for permanent residency
for H-1B workers, followed by Oracle, Intel, and IBM. 15 Gates suggests
that limits on temporary visas for technology workers are based on
xenophobia: "It's very dangerous. You can get this idea that the world is
very scary; let's cut back on travel...let's cut back on visas." 16
The American Electronics Association, which represents companies in all
aspects of the high-tech industry, is also in favor of expanded H-1B visas.
In the words of AEA spokesman John Palafoutas, " America 's well-kept
secret is that it has rarely produced enough American-born workers with the
requisite science and engineering background to support its knowledge
economy. Our safety valve has been the H-1B visa program." 17
Echoing employer groups, some economists have argued that expanded visa
programs for service providers would be a boon to consumers and the
economy. A University of Sussex professor estimates that an increase in
quotas for skilled and unskilled temporary workers (equal to 3% of
developed country work forces) could produce economic gains of $150
billion. 18 In a more narrowly focused study, Dean Baker of the Center for
Economic and Policy Research estimated that reducing obstacles for the
entry of four types of service providers -- doctors, dentists, lawyers, and
accountants -- could save U.S. consumers $160-270 billion per year. 19 Both
analyses are based in part on expected reductions in labor costs resulting
from increased competition among workers. This, of course, translates into
lower wages for U.S.-citizen service providers.
An Opportunity for Dialogue
Whatever the outcome of the Hong Kong WTO summit, the debate over GATS Mode
4 has created an opportunity to raise awareness of the expanding reach of
the global trade body into policy areas that have profound impacts on
virtually every aspect of life. Do we really want something as sensitive as
migration decided in backroom deals, perhaps in return for lower tariffs on
alfalfa? If asked, most people would likely say "no." The Mode 4 debate
also raises the opportunity for progressives to work with partners in the
Global South to develop not only a shared critique but also a shared
positive agenda on international migration. In October 2005, the
UN-sponsored Global Commission on International Migration issued a report
that identifies principles for action to achieve rights-based migration
policies. 20 This report should be viewed as an important starting point
for a broader international dialogue involving migrants and other
stakeholders.
End Notes
Article I, section 8, clause 4.
Inside US Trade, June 17, 2005.
Ibid.
Personal email communication, June 20, 2005.
D. David Beckman, "Congress Allows H-1B Limit to Drop," WashTech News,
September 30, 2003.
Snigdha Srivastava and Nik Theodore, " America's High-Tech Bust," Center
for Urban Economic Development, University of Illinois at Chicago,
September 2004.
GAO report number GAO-03-883, "H-1B Foreign Workers: Better Tracking Needed
to Help Determine H-1B Program's Effects on U.S. Workforce," September
2003, available at < http://www.gao.gov/atext/d03883.txt>.
AFL-CIO Executive Council Resolution, "Reform the H-1B and L-1 Worker Visa
Programs," August 6, 2003.
AFL-CIO Executive Council, "General Agreement on Trade in Services,"
February 27, 2002. Note: Since disaffiliating from the AFL-CIO in mid-2005,
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters has also made statements in
opposition to expansion of Mode 4.
"The US-Chile Free Trade Agreement," Report of the Labor Advisory Committee
for Trade Negotiations and Trade Policy, February 28, 2003.
Federation for American Immigration Reform, "Immigration and Trade
Agreements," November 2003.
Jessica Vaughan, "Be Our Guest: Trade Agreements and Visas," Center for
Immigration Studies, December 2003.
<http://www.uscsi.org/pdf/briefing_book.pdf>.
Joint statement, April 4, 2005.
Jeff Nachtigal, "Adding Fuel to the H-1B Fire," WashTech News, January 26,
2005.
ZDNet, April 27, 2005, at
<http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5687039.html>.
EE Times, August 12, 2005.
Alan Winters, "The Economic Implications of Liberalising Mode 4 Trade," in
Aaditya Mattoo and Antonia Carzaniga, "Moving People to Deliver Services,"
Oxford University , 2003. See also, Sumanta Chaudhuri, Aaditya Mattoo, and
Richard Self, "Moving People to Deliver Services: How Can the WTO Help?"
World Bank, Policy Research Working Paper 3238, March 2004.
Dean Baker, "Professional Protectionists: The Gains from Free Trade in
Highly Paid Professional Services," Center for Economic and Policy
Research, September 9, 2003.
Sarah Anderson is the Director of in the Global Economy Program at the
Institute for Policy Studies (www.ips-dc.org) and a frequent contributor to
Foreign Policy In Focus (www.fpif.org).
For More Information
Outsourcing: A Policy Agenda
By Sarah Anderson and John Cavanagh (April 2004)
http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol9/v9n02outsource.html
Progressive Response
Published by Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF), a joint project of the
International Relations Center (IRC, formerly the Interhemispheric Resource
Center, online at www.irc-online.org) and the Institute for Policy Studies
(IPS, online at www.ips-dc.org). )2005. All rights reserved.
Recommended citation:
Sarah Anderson, "U.S. Immigration Policy on the Table at the WTO," (Silver
City, NM & Washington, DC: Foreign Policy In Focus, November 30, 2005).
Web location:
http://fpif.org/fpiftxt/2962
Production Information:
Author(s): Sarah Anderson
Editor(s): John Gershman, IRC
Production: Chellee Chase-Saiz, IRC
Latest Comments & Conversation Area
Editor's Note: FPIF.org editors read and approve each comment. Comments are
checked for content only; spelling and grammar errors are not corrected and
comments that include vulgar language or libelous content are rejected.
Name: jgm Date: Nov 30, 2005
The comment about Congressman Tom Tancredo is utterly biased and completely
inaccurate. Tom Tancredo is honest Congressman who is fighting for the
rights of American workers. He may run for President in 2008 and if he
does, he has my vote.
As far the H-1B program it is one of the most corrupt and destructive
programs ever passed by Congress. A recent study (see
http://news.com.com/Waging+battle+on+foreign+labor/2009-1022_3-5888772.html)
by the Programmers Guild showed how the median salary of H-1B IT workers
in California is $20,000 less then the median salary of American IT
(Information Technology) workers.
There are many well-documented cases where American IT workers have been
forced to train their H-1b replacement and then the American workers have
been laid off. In a recent case (see
http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkzJmZnY
mVsN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2ODIwMjg5JnlyaXJ5N2Y3MTdmN3ZxZWVFRXl5Mg==) a recent
immigrant from India who became a US citizen was employed as a software
engineer. She was forced to train an H-1b worker from India and then she
was laid off. She has been unable to find another IT job and has filled a
class action discrimination suit against the company.
The IEEE-USA reported in March of this year that in the last four years
there has been a decline of over 24% in the number of employed computer
programmers. A decline of 18% in the number of employed computer
scientists, and a decline of 23% in the number of employed electrical
engineers.
In July of this year HP announced it was laying off 15,000 American high
tech and IT workers. Earlier this year Honeywell announced it was laying
off 3,600 high tech workers. IBM announced this year it was laying off over
14,000 IT workers in American and Europe and hiring 14,000 in India. Last
month Novell announced it was laying off 20% of its workforce and Unisys
announced it was laying off 10% of its workforce. Wachoia just announced
it was laying off over 4000 workers and would be outsourcing its IT
functions to India.
With job losses like these its obvious that American does not need any
more H-1b high-tech or IT workers. There is no lack of American high tech
and IT workers who can fill any open position in this country. The only
reason that Bill Gates and his fellow plutocrats want to bring in more H-1b
workers is so they can continue to replace American workers with underpaid
H-1b workers whom they dont have to pay benefits to. Hundreds of
thousands of American workers have lost not just their jobs but also their
careers because of the H-1b program. Their families have been destroyed and
they have been forced into low paying service jobs. H-1b workers are also
destroying the wage scales for existing American workers. The IEEE-USA
reported that the salary for electrical engineers dipped for the first time
ever last year.
Also as American citizen I am outraged that any country would try and
override US sovereignty. Who gets into this country is up to American
voters and not the WTO. Any American political leader who supports this
loss of American sovereignty should be immediately be impeached and removed
from office.
Name: jgo Date: Dec 01, 2005
"The H-1B visa program was begun in 1990 to alleviate labor shortages..."
There have been no "labor shortages" in the USA, and there are none in
science and engineering and computer wrangling for the foreseeable future,
as confirmed by the RAND Corporation and other researchers.
As a matter of fact, the USA has been suffering from a glut of labor for
the last several decades, resulting in suppression of compensation
increases and improvements in the quality of living.
http://www.kermitrose.com/econ.html
As to the issue of reciprocity in trade, the US federal government has
willingly given other countries the advantage for far too long. The time is
long over-due for this imbalance to be corrected.
Name: Rob Sanchez Date: Dec 01, 2005
The article was well researched and quite informative although it failed to
point out that an essential part of Mode 4 is the movement of "natural
persons". The "Movement of Natural Persons," refers to the entry and
temporary stay of human laborers for the purpose of providing "services"
for employers. The term "natural persons" is an Orwellian euphemism used by
the WTO to describe working class people who are considered to be nothing
more than mere commodities. Immigration policies restricting the flow of
"natural persons" would be considered a violation of the WTO rules because
borders must be kept open for the movement of these international laborers.
Mode 4 turns all workers of the world into commodities. The current debate
in the WTO boils down an argument over who gets to use these workers and at
what price and where.
To find out more about how FTAs contain embedded immigration agreements to
enable the flow of "natural persons", go to this link:
http://www.thesocialcontract.com/pdf/fourteen-two/xiv-2-127.pdf
I agree with the comment above that Tancredo was slurred. Mentioning that
"Tancredo is widely viewed as an anti-immigrant extremist" is a very low
blow that mars an otherwise well written article. Tancredo is not
anti-immigrant, he merely wants to require our government to enforce our
immigration laws. That slur is like saying that somebody who drove over the
speed limit is against all speed limits.
Subscribe to the free "Job Destruction Newsletter" to keep up with the
issues such as outsourcing, H-1B, and "free trade".
Go to this link to get on the mailing list:
www.ZaZona.com
Name: Samantha Date: Dec 01, 2005
We are living in very interesting times: when a patriot is called an
"extremist", when the actions and inaction of the Executive Branch strongly
suggest that it has absolutely no intention of even preserving our nation
as a sovereign entity, and when the great majority of our elected
officials, at every level, follow the dictates of the corporate money men.
The law-abiding citizenry are certainly being taxed; are we being
represented?
Name: Tasha Date: Dec 01, 2005
Welcome to the Fascist One World Order. Or, as Italian dictator Benito
Mussolini put it, "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism
because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
Multi-national corporatists are destroying societies around the globe for
the sake of greed. How many more billions do people like Bill Gates really
need, anyway? Just look at what these new fascists have done to Europe with
their outsourcing and insourcing of "guest worker" labor. The fires that
erupted in France and Germany in recent weeks can be laid at the feet of
the global corporatists -- the unemployed children of the last generations'
"guest workers" took to the streets with a vengence against those who
denied them a future. German workers can't find decent jobs, yet, the
corporatists send the German jobs to Eastern European factories with cheap
labor or to factories in Asia with even cheaper labor.
America is on the same road to ruin, led by the Judas goats and Pied Pipers
of globalist greed. That politicians would cave-in to the siren song
spouted by those who rent their votes with massive contributions to both
political parties, is becoming a blight on our Republic. Soon, Americans
will be marching on the castle, torches and pitch-forks in hand, demanding
the death of the Frankenstein monster that is the WTO and the Fascist One
World Order that created it.
www.ZaZona.com
Support this Newsletter and ZaZona.com by donating:
www.zazona.com/Donations.htm
To Subscribe, Unsubscribe or to view the Archive go to:
http://www.zazona.com/shameh1b/JobDestructionNews.htm
Back to archives