Immigration: Policy Considerations Related to Guest Worker Programs

[Excerpt] At present, the United States has two main programs for temporarily importing low-skilled workers, sometimes referred to as guest workers. Agricultural guest workers enter through the H-2A visa program, and other guest workers enter through the H-2B visa program. Employers interested in importing workers under either program must first apply to the U.S. Department of Labor for a certification that U.S. workers capable of performing the work are not available and that the employment of alien workers will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers. Other requirements of the programs differ. A variety of bills have been introduced in recent Congresses to make changes to the H-2A and H-2B programs and the “H” visa category generally, and to establish new temporary worker visas. The 109th Congress revised the H-2B program in the FY2005 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-13). Among the changes, a temporary provision was added to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to exempt certain returning H-2B workers from the H-2B annual numerical cap of 66,000. The FY2007 Department of Defense authorization bill (P.L. 109-364) extended this exemption through FY2007. The exemption expired on September 30, 2007. A number of bills before the 110th Congress (S. 988, S. 2839, H.R. 1843, H.R. 5233, H.R. 5495, H.R. 5849) would reenact an H-2B returning worker exemption. Other guest worker bills introduced in the 110th Congress include proposals to reform the H-2A program (S. 237/S. 340/H.R. 371, S. 1639, H.R. 1645, H.R. 1792) and the H-2B program (S. 1639, S. 2094), and to establish new temporary worker visas (S. 330, S. 1639, H.R. 1645, H.R. 2413). Some of these bills also would establish mechanisms for certain foreign workers to become legal permanent residents (LPRs). The Senate debated, but failed to invoke cloture on, S. 1639 in June 2007. President George W. Bush proposed a new, expanded temporary worker program in January 2004 when he announced his principles for immigration reform, and has since reiterated his support for such a program. In August 2007, following the unsuccessful cloture vote in the Senate on S. 1639, the Bush Administration announced that it would seek to streamline the existing H-2A and H-2B programs within current law. In February 2008, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published proposed rules to significantly amend their respective H-2A regulations. The current discussion of guest worker programs takes place against a backdrop of historically high levels of unauthorized migration to the United States, and one question that often arises about proposals for new guest worker programs is whether they would enable participants to obtain LPR status. Other issues raised in connection with guest worker proposals include how new program requirements would compare with those of the H-2A and H-2B programs and how the eligible population would be defined. This report will be updated as legislative developments occur

Tracking Report 2011 North West Company, China 11600151291J

This document is part of a digital collection provided by the Martin P. Catherwood Library, ILR School, Cornell University, pertaining to the effects of globalization on the workplace worldwide. Special emphasis is placed on labor rights, working conditions, labor market changes, and union organizing.FLA_2011_The_Northwest_Company_TR_China_11600151291J.pdf: 3 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

Social Security and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) Provisions in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015

[Excerpt] Title VIII of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (H.R. 1314, P.L. 114-74) makes several changes to the Social Security programs. Among these changes is a temporary reallocation of the Social Security payroll taxes so that a larger share is deposited in the Disability Insurance (DI) trust fund to extend the life of this trust fund beyond its current predicted exhaustion in 2016. Under this provision, the allocation of the 12.40% Social Security payroll tax assigned to the DI trust fund increases from 1.80% to 2.37% and the allocation to the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) trust fund decreases from 10.60% to 10.03%. These changes last through 2018. In addition, these provisions extend the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) demonstration authority for the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) programs, make changes to data and earnings reporting, and increase penalties for benefit fraud. Title VIII of the act includes the following subtitles: Subtitle A. Ensuring Correct Payments and Reducing Fraud Subtitle B. Promoting Opportunity for Disability Beneficiaries Subtitle C. Protecting Social Security Benefits Subtitle D. Relieving Administrative Burdens and Miscellaneous Provision

An Overview of the Nonprofit and Charitable Sector

[Excerpt] A number of policy issues have direct or indirect consequences for the nonprofit and charitable sector, including the establishment of a social innovation initiative, changes in the tax treatment of charitable donations, responses to the economic downturn, and health care reform. The nonprofit and charitable sector represents a significant portion of the U.S. economy. The sector is also highly diverse. Having a greater understanding of the nonprofit and charitable sector as a whole may help policymakers evaluate proposals that may impact the sector. The first section of this report provides a formal definition of the nonprofit and charitable sector. The term “nonprofit sector” is generally intended to refer to organizations with federal tax-exempt status; “charitable sector” refers to the subset of these organizations that have 501(c)(3) public charity status. The next section reports on the size and scope of the charitable sector. Charitable organizations are estimated to employ more than 7% of the U.S. workforce, while the broader nonprofit sector is estimated to employ 10% of the U.S. workforce. In 2009, the charities filing Form 990 with the Internal Revenue Service reported approximately $1.4 billion in revenue and reported holding nearly$2.6 billion in assets. Nonprofit institutions serving households (largely charities) constituted more than 5% of GDP in 2008. The third section of this report examines how charities are funded. Revenue comes from a variety of sources, including private contributions, payments (fees for service), government grants, and investment income. Revenue sources vary significantly across different types of charities: charities involved in health care (including nonprofit hospitals) and educational institutions rely heavily on private payments while arts, culture, and humanities charities and environment and animals charities are more reliant on private contributions. Private contributions to charities are of particular interest as charitable giving may respond to changes in the tax code. As the recent economic downturn has increased the demand for goods and services provided by a number of charities, the impact of the business cycle on funding is also discussed. The fourth section provides an overview of the charitable sector’s relationship with government. From a theoretical perspective, economics suggests that the government should subsidize activities that are either public goods or have positive external effects. It can be argued that some charitable activities possess these qualities. The costs to the government of providing grants, allowing charitable contributions to be tax deductible, exempting investment income of charities from tax, and providing property and sales tax exemptions are presented. The oversight role of the government is also reviewed. Finally, the report concludes with policy considerations. This section opens by surveying what policy options are considered most important by charitable organizations themselves. Building on this, a number of policy options are examined, including (1) increasing government grants and subsidies to charitable organizations; (2) creating an oversight agency within the federal government to gather data, conduct research, and advocate for the charitable sector; (3) implementing policies designed to help charities and foundations in economic downturns; (4) changing the itemized deduction for charitable contributions by limiting, converting to a credit, or making the deduction more widely available; and (5) a variety of other tax issues

Permanent Employment-Based Immigration and the Per-country Ceiling

[Excerpt] The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) specifies a complex set of categories and numerical limits for admitting lawful permanent residents (LPRs) to the United States that includes economic priorities among the admission criteria. These priorities are addressed primarily through the employment-based immigration system, which consists of five preference categories. Each preference category has specific eligibility criteria; numerical limits; and, in some cases, distinct application processes. The INA allocates 140,000 visas annually for all five employment-based LPR categories, roughly 12% of the 1.1 million LPRs admitted in FY2017. The INA further limits each immigrant-sending country to an annual maximum of 7% of all employment-based LPR admissions, known as the per-country ceiling, or “cap.” Prospective employment-based immigrants follow two administrative processing trajectories depending on whether they apply from overseas as “new arrivals” seeking LPR status or from within the United States seeking to adjust to LPR status from a temporary status that they currently possess. While some prospective employment-based immigrants can self-petition, most require U.S. employers to petition on their behalf. In both cases, the Department of State (DOS) is responsible for allocating the correct number of employment-based immigrant “visa numbers” or slots, according to numerical limits and the per-country ceiling specified in the INA. This report reviews the employment-based immigration process by examining six pools of pending petitions and applications, representing prospective employment-based immigrants and any accompanying family members at different stages of the LPR process. While four of these pools represent administrative processing queues, two result from the INA’s numerical limitations on employment-based immigration and the per-country ceiling

Heart of Darkness: New Hampshire Campaign Finance Law Since Citizens United

[Excerpt] “Perhaps one of the greatest election law paradoxes in the United States is that New Hampshire—the First in the Nation Presidential Primary State—a State whose citizenry famously prides itself on political engagement—is also a State with some of the most complicated and sporadically enforced campaign finance laws in any jurisdiction. The post-Citizens United world, wherein vast quantities of unlimited and anonymous corporate and individual donations by some of the wealthiest citizens are freely flowing (so-called “Dark Money” because the identities of donors are shielded by law), has only exacerbated the loud creaks of the rickety campaign finance law firmament in New Hampshire. Further, a maze of statutory loopholes, known to few and understood by fewer, operate to allow for parallel large-dollar transactions of campaign financing which echo the freewheeling spending of corporations and individuals through nonprofit organizations and Super PACs that Citizens United and subsequent court cases allow. Republican Grant Bosse, a one-time congressional candidate and conservative political commentator, captured the sense of the New Hampshire campaign finance law landscape in 2010 in a line that became prophetic of what the next four years would hold, and what this article takes as its daunting subject: “Over the years, a series of legal cases and administrative rulings have poked so many holes into New Hampshire’s once strict campaign and expenditure limits that even Gov. John Lynch has been forced to ask the attorney general what’s allowed and what isn’t.” With these dynamics as a backdrop, this article examines two spheres of major change in New Hampshire campaign finance law in 2014 in an effort to shed some light on the dark heart of campaign finance law in the most political of states. First, a great deal of campaign finance law was made during the contentious 2014 midterm election in the form of decision letters issued by the New Hampshire Attorney General’s office—the office charged by law with enforcement of campaign finance and election law. The significance of these administrative law decision letters—typically issued to a small circle of attorneys, candidates, and political leaders—cannot be underestimated in both understanding New Hampshire’s campaign finance law as it stands today, and the contribution of these quietly-issued letters to the general state of confusion, where such significant legal developments are often neither statutory nor even a matter of case precedent. Like weathered and tattered family histories, these decision letters are jealously guarded and handed down from campaign to campaign as the stuff of lore—and, for better or worse, the stuff of precedent. The frequency of and publicity surrounding high-profile campaign finance law complaints in the 2014 election have also established campaign finance complaints and litigation as a new arena for sophisticated electoral battle in New Hampshire, as this article will show. Second, this article reviews changes to New Hampshire state law, which have been made in reaction to the influx of Dark Money and related outside spending since 2010. The reforms contained in Senate Bill 120, proposed by Senator Jeb Bradley of Wolfeboro, the Senate Majority Leader, are summarized along with a discussion of post-Citizens United developments in New Hampshire that illustrate some of the perceived ills Senate Bill 120 is intended to remedy. Compliance with the new law is mixed, and rumblings of constitutional challenge are on the horizon, as this article will discuss. From the outset I note, for the purposes of full disclosure, that I served as counsel to Governor Maggie Hassan’s reelection campaign. I have endeavored to write with reasonable objectivity about major changes to campaign finance law that have recently evolved—many of which arose out of complaints against the campaign that I defended. Any hints of opinions that may peek between the lines are strictly the author’s own and not those of Maggie ’14 or the Friends of Maggie Hassan.