On Reforming our Immigration System

I’ve been meaning to write about immigration reform for a few weeks now. But, it’s a difficult topic and I’ve been avoiding it. Then yesterday, I was linked to this podcast by Mike Rowe about American farm workers having a PR problem (or read the text version here). Shortly after, I followed a link to this video clip of United Farm Workers of American union leader, Arturo Rodriguez, on The Colbert Report. The juxtaposition of the two items and their relevance to my own opinions on our current immigration laws convinced me I needed to speak up and soon.


I have almost ten years of experience working on employer-sponsored, work related visas and immigration issues. I know the ins and outs and quirks of almost all of the visas that allow an individual to work in the U.S. And what I’ve noted most frequently about our immigration laws is that they do not fit the needs of either U.S. companies or people who want to make a new life in our “land of opportunity”. When it comes to employment visas, the emphasis is on individuals who are highly trained, educated, or can perform a specialized skill. These visas are important for two reasons. First, they give companies access to skilled, knowledgeable individuals, regardless of their country of origin. Second, they allow U.S. companies to recruit the best global talent, essentially stealing the top talent from other countries so that their achievements and successes are American ones. In both regards, these visas help our economy, even if it could be argued that they take jobs away from American citizens. There are abuses; especially, it seems, within the computer industry, where companies hire only foreigners to staff their office, paying them a lower wage than an American of similar background and skill would accept. However, for the most part, even companies that frequently use the specialty knowledge visas hire more Americans than foreigners.

However, while there are a number of different visas for educated skilled individuals, there are virtually no visas available to unskilled laborers. This makes sense in many ways. If anyone can do the job, why would you need a foreigner to do it? This is a job that could go to an unemployed American. Unfortunately, America has become increasingly separated from manual labor of any kind, skilled or unskilled. They certainly don’t want the unskilled jobs. They want white-collar office jobs, with career advancement and high paychecks. Companies looking for unskilled laborers find it difficult to fill their open positions with American citizens. This is what both Mike Rowe and Arturo Rodriguez are talking about: Mike Rowe, focusing on how Americans don’t value or want blue collar jobs, to the point that the Future Farmers of American have to rebrand themselves; Arturo Rodriguez, so convinced that no American citizen will do the jobs the immigrant population is doing that he’s willing to find anyone who says they are a job.

Another problem with employer sponsored immigration is with the process for sponsoring an employee for a green card. Obtaining an employer sponsored green card involves a complicated, lengthy process. Typically, an employer waits to sponsor an employee for a green card until just before their other visas have reached the limit of any possible extensions (the maximum stay in the U.S. on an employer sponsored visa is usually 6 years). At that point, the employer must document that it was unable to find an American citizen who was minimally qualified to perform the tasks of the individual for whom they wish to sponsor the green card (and by minimally qualified, they mean equal to doing the job when the employee was first hired, 6 years ago). This recruitment proof is not required for any employer sponsored visas, only for the green card. Personally, I think that this requirement should be something the employer needs to show when they first sponsored their visa. Also, if the purpose of these visas is to steal top talent from other countries, the process of making the permanent citizens should be relatively easy; so that they don’t take their six years of U.S. experience back to their home country and become a high-level competitor.

I certainly don’t have the answer to immigration reform. But, I do know our system needs a large overhaul. Reviewing the current system, researching alternatives and proposing reforms will definitely be a full time job for those who undertake it. If I was involved with designing the reform, I would explore how and why employer sponsored visas are abused and methods to prevent such abuse. I would examine the need for an unskilled laborer category, and explore ways to balance company needs for unskilled laborers with the need to employ American citizens and prevent a large influx of unskilled, legal immigrants. I certainly would reexamine the employer green card process and whether it is more complicated than it needs to be. For this I would explore the point systems that Britain and Canada are using (I’m not sold on the point system, but I’d look at them for ideas). I hope that real reform will take place soon and that those who undertake to draft a reform proposal are able to examine and come up with solutions for these issues.

NJ: Where the only thing fresher than the produce is the wait staff

I have the dubious privilege of living in New Jersey. NJ has a bad reputation as a place to live not just in the other 49 states of the country, but with its own denizens as well. One of the things biggest things contributing to NJ’s bad reputation is the local government. Even before The Sopranos became a hit series, everyone knew NJ was the mob's playground. In the eight years I've lived here, I've seen two governors resign and no fewer than three federal sting operations that have brought down multiple officials at a time.


Since the election of our newest governor, Chris Christie, there’s been a lot of talk about the state budget and the gap between income and spending. I’m not an expert in government budgeting, and I recognize that the economy has not been booming for the last few years, but it puzzles me that the state’s finances are as bad as portrayed. NJ has the highest property taxes in the nation and our state income taxes are on par with our neighbor states (not to mention that some of the nation’s top earners live here). Yet despite the increased income one would expect NJ to have over other states, we do not get additional, or even better, services from the government. So I wonder where does the income go, if it’s not going to services?

Along with cutting many government budgets, Christie’s answer has been to attack teacher salaries and benefits, as the reason for the government’s budget problems. While I do take issue with the idea of teachers receiving their health insurance without contribution and having a pension plan in an age where most workers are funding their own health insurance and 401k plans, at least in part, I’m not convinced that the cost of paying our teachers is the reason for the budget gap. My parents live in another state, in one of the highest paying school districts in the country, and yet their taxes are a fraction of those in my town. Personally, I believe the real reason for the budget gap is that NJ has too much overhead; too many niche government positions, held by unqualified, or underqualified, individuals and obtained through nepotism, who are kept employed through inertia. I would love to see the political leaders of NJ take a tough look at the people on the government’s payroll and make the effort to better align its workforce with the work.

Despite its problems, I will grant that NJ has some things to offer its residents. My home is (relatively) close to the mountains and the beach, giving me options for activities. I'm within easy travel distance of both New York City and Philadelphia, giving me access to the culture, jobs market and resource availability of a large city, while still having a green backyard. I might move out of the state eventually, but for now, I just shake my head at the political ridiculousness and make the most of the opportunities the state offers.

How You Like Me Now?

The car manufacturer Kia has been running an ad recently that I absolutely love. Because I can't put my finger on exactly what about the ad I love, I've been picking away at the ad and my response to it for the past few days. In brief, the ad shows a bunch of children's toys, enlarged to adult human size, taking on Vegas. As an ad, I'm uncertain of the intended effect, or if it achieves what it set out to do. The ad doesn't make me want to buy a car, let alone specifically a Kia. But I can see where the positive feelings I have for the ad could spill over into my emotions towards Kia, a company I've previously associated with plastic cars, good for someone's first car maybe, but not one I'd probably ever buy.

So why do I like the ad? A lot of reasons. I like the whimsy of the premise: what if your toys were people and did things that people do. I like the cleverness of the details: the sock monkey gets a tattoo that is sewn in with a needle and thread. I like the cinematography of the ad: it's like watching a thirty second art film. The arrangement of the elements in each frame, the bold colors, the use of different speeds for the action. One section grabs me every time: the five toys are walking into a building together, fanned out, with the red one eyed alien (apparently Muno from Yo Gabba Gabba) in center front. The shot is slowed down just slightly and you can feel the swagger in the toys' walk. But I think the real reason I like this ad so much has to do with the message I take away from it. The ad shows a bunch of children's toys going wild, being bad. With the backdrop of the music lyrics saying, "How you like me now," it reminds us that you never know what others are thinking or capable of. Even the most seemingly harmless individual could one day cast off the restraints society puts on them and act out. And it reminds all of us seemingly harmless individuals that we could one day act on the thoughts in their head, saying, "How you like me now?"

Author's Note: I'll be honest, I've been debating whether or not to write about this topic for a few days. Mostly because I do not want to become one of those navel gazing self obsessed bloggers that everyone makes fun of. But two things swayed my decision. First, this blog has already strayed from my original vision of what it would be. So, since it’s already not the professional level blog I thought I'd be writing, what difference does it make if some of my posts are more self reflective? Second, I titled this blog Life Analyzed because it was a good description of my thought processes and the way I approach the world. How applicable would the title be if I didn't every now and then give my readers a glimpse of the ridiculous depth of analysis I give even the most banal of subjects? And third, although it wasn't really a swaying factor, the subject matter really did push me to go outside the restraints I'd put on myself. So, how you like me now?

A Few Thoughts About High Fructose Corn Syrup

Lately, The Corn Refiners Association has been running ads refuting claims that High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) is unhealthy. I find these ads to be of particular interest for two reasons. The first is that while I have been a critic of HFCS for a long time, I have not heard or noted a groundswell of avoidance of the sweetener. The ad campaign almost seems to be bringing the subject up for a majority of people, rather than addressing concerns they may have. (Or maybe it's targeted at me alone. . .) The second is that the ads note that HFCS is like any sweetener: fine in moderation. While I'm a big believer in moderation, including with things that are 'bad' for you, this comment is laughable, because HFCS is in practically every food product the average American buys. Don't believe me? Check the ingredients for your loaf of bread or your pasta sauce. Manufacturers put HFCS even in items that are not supposed to be sweet.

I have long believed that both sugar and corn are unhealthy for a majority of Americans and culprits in the 'obesity epidemic' everyone is so concerned about these days. While every individual's dietary needs and problems are different, for me, cutting these ingredients out of my diet completely and then adding them back only in low quantities has allowed me to arrest rapid weight gain, have more energy, fewer episodes of 'sugar crash', and better digestion. The Corn Refiners Association is probably correct that HFCS is no worse for many people than regular sugar, but for some it is probably the worst combination out there.

While I'm on the subject of food and obesity, I'd like to take a moment to get on my soap box about dieting. I don't subscribe to the calories in/calories out diet. I have not seen where it is a valid weight loss technique. Sure, you can lose weight if you limit your caloric intake to 1200 calories a day, but all you're doing is starving yourself. Unless you want to be hungry for the rest of your life, you're going to gain the weight back (and probably more) when you go off that diet. It's called yo-yo dieting and it's been proven to be one of the most unhealthy lifestyles there is. In addition, I've noticed that reducing foods to caloric value alone leads people to make bad food decisions, such as skipping a healthy vegetable in order to 'save' the calories for desert. I'd much rather see a lifestyle of exercise and good food decisions, with less concern about body weight, shape or size. An active, well fed person who carries a little extra weight is more healthy than a yo-yo dieter who eats dessert instead of vegetables.

An Invasion of Privacy

Not long ago the Pennsylvania school district of Lower Merion came under scrutiny for questionable use of the remote activation of the webcam in school issued laptops. In short, there is a class action suit filed against the school claiming that the school used the webcams to spy on students, without disclosing the remote activation abilities to students or parents. The school has responded that their policy was to only activate the cameras in cases of lost or stolen laptops, but the fact that a student was disciplined for behavior at home with a photo taken by his laptop's webcam belies that claim.

Frankly, I'm appalled by the idea that a school could use the educational materials it issues to students to spy on the students while they are not at school. In my opinion the school's responsibility for student behavior ends when the student leaves campus. Additionally, as others have pointed out, laptops are frequently open and on while people dress or perform other personal activities. Thinking of my own personal laptop, which I take with me when I travel, and how I use it in the morning at a hotel, I'd worry if someone could remotely activate my webcam and watch what I was doing. Adding that the students are under 18 also raises the possibility of child porn laws being broken. All told, while the ability to track thefts of the laptops is useful, the opportunity for abuse and misuse far outweigh the good.

A few critics have raised the idea that problems generated by a "free" laptop from your high school are not really problems, and that these students should suck it up and stop whining. But honestly, a person's privacy is worth more than a $400 laptop. The idea that a person should be willing to trade their privacy and submit to being spied on by their school just to get a laptop they can use, and a decent education is so blatantly false that I can't imagine someone proposing it.

I will be interested to see how this case turns out. I'm glad that at a minimum the school has voluntarily disabled the remote activation system and the new version of the tracking software they have installed will no longer have this feature. Now to make sure my personal laptop's webcam can't be hacked. . .