{"id":23296,"date":"2020-07-30T14:37:26","date_gmt":"2020-07-30T18:37:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/?p=23296"},"modified":"2020-07-30T14:37:28","modified_gmt":"2020-07-30T18:37:28","slug":"business-lobby-lawsuit-foreign-guest-workers-immigrationreform-com","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2020\/07\/30\/business-lobby-lawsuit-foreign-guest-workers-immigrationreform-com\/","title":{"rendered":"Business Lobby Sues U.S. Government Over Trump Guest Worker Proclamation, Including Foreign Au Pairs"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

On June 22, President Trump issued an executive action<\/a> temporarily suspending the H-1B<\/a> program, and several other nonimmigrant guest worker programs<\/a>, such as H-2B, J, and L, in addition to foreign citizens accompanying or following to join such guest workers. The move \u2013 which is expected to free up approximately 600,000 jobs for American workers \u2013 was immediately criticized by the business lobby. More recently, on July 21, a coalition of business interest groups sued the U.S. government \u2013 specifically Acting Homeland Secretary Chad Wolf and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo \u2013 over the pro-American proclamation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The lawsuit<\/a> \u2013 filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Retail Federation, Technet, and Intrax, Inc. \u2013 claims misleadingly that the presidential proclamation is \u201cunlawful\u201d and \u201ctakes a sledgehammer to the statutes Congress enacted\u201d by \u201ceffectively repeal[ing]entire visa categories for temporary workers.\u201d (It does not. The proclamation is a temporary emergency move.) The document further waxes melodramatically that the guest worker proclamation is supposedly \u201cinflicting severe economic harm on a wide range of American businesses across all economic sectors\u201d and \u201cdepriv[ing]American businesses of the talent they need.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The claims contained in the lawsuit may be special\npleading, self-serving nonsense, and prompt numerous eye rolls, but they are\nnot surprising. After all, business interests have been repeating it ad\nnauseam<\/em> for the past three decades (i.e. ever since the Immigration and\nNationality Act of 1990 developed distinct categories of visas, including the\nH-1B). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The reality is, as FAIR and other organizations that defend the American worker have long pointed out, is that the programs temporarily paused by the administration are primarily a foreign labor subsidy to employers \u2013 a form of \u201ccorporate welfare\u201d that the business lobby somehow feels entitled to, apparently in perpetuity, and apparently regardless of the economic and unemployment situation. And there is plenty of evidence<\/a> to show that, far from being the \u201cbest and the brightest\u201d and the world\u2019s \u201ctop talent,\u201d many foreign guest workers are run-of-the-mill college graduates with little or no experience.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The business lobby\u2019s justification for importing foreign au pairs is just as absurd, if not even more so. Au pairs  come to the U.S. on J-1 visas<\/a> \u2013 along with physicians, camp counselors, interns, teachers, and trainees \u2013 and their entry was also temporarily suspended by the recent Trump proclamation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The  lawsuit bemoans this<\/a>, stating that au pairs are \u201cused by families that would otherwise lack live-in childcare. That resource is especially critical now, with children forced to stay home by the pandemic rather than attend school in person: Without childcare, many parents will be unable to work, decreasing productivity and deepening the Nation\u2019s economic issues.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Are we seriously expected to believe that the wealthy cannot find 21,500 U.S. citizen or legal immigrant au pairs (that was the number of au pair exchange visitors<\/a> in calendar year 2019) in a country of 330 million people \u2013 particularly at a time when 30 million Americans are unemployed<\/a>?! <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But, of course, in the case of au pairs \u2013 like in the\ncase of other guest workers and visa categories covered by the June\npresidential proclamation \u2013 the business lobby seems not to care much about any\nof that. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The apologists of importing cheap foreign labor usually claim (and this is implicit throughout the lawsuit) that Americans are lazy and will simply not do certain jobs. This, apparently, includes live-in childcare as well. However, the fact is that Americans will do any job<\/a> \u2013 so long as the pay and working conditions are decent \u2013 but they are much less likely to put up with various forms of exploitation. And, unfortunately, the foreign au pair program is all too frequently rife with exploitation (see, e.g. here<\/a> and here<\/a>), which, in turn, ends up hurting the image of America and Americans overseas, thereby undermining the stated public diplomacy<\/a> purpose of the program.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The lawsuit by the Chamber of Commerce et al. should\nbe seen for what it is: a temper tantrum thrown by special interests who have\nbecome accustomed to politicians rigging the system in their favor for way too\nlong \u2013 by supplying them with a constant influx of cheap and exploitable\nforeign labor \u2013 and are now mad that President Trump has had the audacity to\ncut off the gravy train and suggest that American employers put American\nworkers first.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On June 22, President Trump issued an executive action temporarily suspending the H-1B program, and several other nonimmigrant guest worker programs, such as H-2B, J, and L, in addition to foreign citizens accompanying or following to join such guest workers. The move \u2013 which is expected to free up approximately 600,000 jobs for American workers \u2013 was immediately criticized by<\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":76,"featured_media":12890,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0},"categories":[9068],"tags":[1524,986,189,62],"yst_prominent_words":[1938,9473,9474,9469,9467,3072,9468,9014,2181,9472,2349,3971,4424,9476,9475,2502,9471,9026,9470,1937],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23296"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/76"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23296"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23296\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23298,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23296\/revisions\/23298"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/12890"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23296"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23296"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23296"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=23296"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}