Working Group Letters



  • My Working Group Letter

  • All of the Letters

  • Information on the Chapter 16 Working Group





    September 30, 1997

    Ms. J Bednarz
    Business & Trade Services Branch, Benefit Division
    US Department of Justice
    Immigration and Naturalization Service
    425 I St. N.W.,
    Washington, DC, 20536



    Attn: NAFTA Working Group on Temporary Entry of Business Persons


    I would first like to express my appreciation of the opportunity to make a submission to the Group on behalf of the families surviving under NAFTA status; those both known to me and as of yet unknown to me. I realize that your time as a group is limited. I will attempt to restrict my submission to the following points: my own personal experiences as a NAFTA Trade Dependent Canadian living in the United States, the experiences of my family living under the current restrictions faced by dependent spouses and children and my own personal recommendations for the start of a solution to the issue of spousal employment.

    In February of 1996, my then three-month-old son and myself stood inside a tiny airport in Bellingham, Washington, as we watched his father, my husband, begin his journey towards employment in Northern California's Silicon Valley--without us. At this time, we were not fully aware of the ramifications of NAFTA status on our family and it was our only goal to obtain a Trade Dependent (TD) visa for myself and our son so that we would soon be able to live once again as a family. This is where our struggle began.

    Despite a period of co-habitation that entitled us to the status of "common law" marriage and our shared child, my husband was unable to obtain a TD visa for me at the time of his departure. We believed that the issue would resolve itself, and in the meantime I would simply cross the United States-Canada border on extended visits, not exceeding the yearly six-month visitor limitation, to the United States. As I struggled to care for our son and complete my education back in British Columbia, the issue of my obtaining a TD visa to soon join my husband began to concern me.

    Numerous times while crossing the border--something I had done for many years previous each week to contribute my Canadian dollars to the American economy of the local border towns--I was stopped and questioned at Immigration. The INS border Officers required me to have excessive amounts of cash for my stay ($1500/month US) and limited my visit to a period of one month, over school vacations spanning longer periods. Border officers required seeing my return plane tickets, regardless of method by which I would be returning to Canada. I was repeatedly turned back, harassed and excessively questioned by border officers, despite my continued student status in British Columbia. I persisted because of my belief that our son had a right to have his family remain intact regardless of the massive oversight by the creators of NAFTA in not considering alternate family arrangements.

    Late in the summer of 1996, I decided not to chance the border crossing any longer and discontinued my undergraduate studies in British Columbia in order to remain in California on an extended vacation until winter. That winter, we chose to return to British Columbia in order to spend Christmas with our families, knowing full well that I would not be permitted re-entry into the United States with my husband and our son. On December 24th, 1996, my husband and I were married, in the eyes of the INS. A few days later, I had my TD visa and falsely believed that this would be the end of our problems.

    After first obtaining my TD status, I applied to a number of jobs in Silicon Valley--an area currently facing a massive labour shortage--only to be turned down time and time again for fear of the attempt of sponsoring me for a work visa. I myself barely qualify for a TN visa, and may or may not obtain that status even after a job offer--it would likely depend on the mood of the person issuing the visa. Eventually, after a number of rejections out of the fear of dealing with sponsoring me for a visa, I began to question whether or not I was perhaps simply unemployable. Eventually I gave up on looking for employers who might sponsor me for a visa and decided to preserve what little self-esteem I had left.

    The jobs for which I may have qualified fall within the list of professions for the TN visas, despite those professions being what I believe to be male-dominated. However, none of those professions reflect my true passions and the opccupation I've already put forth a number of years in experience and education in to. A job, at that point, would have simply been a job and not a career.

    I did not manage to complete my undergraduate degree while in British Columbia. Perhaps this was a mistake, in retrospect, as I am now dealing with incomplete transfers forcing me to repeat a large majority of my lower-level underghraduate work in order to satisfy very different general education requirements. I have been unable to pursue studies as quickly as I would have liked. The outrageous international student tuition rates ($13,000 per year for a state school and about $21,000 for a University of California school) are hardly affordable to a typical family. We are ualso unable to afford daycare in addition to those international education rates, having no family in this area to help care for our son. These financial costs are on top of the fact that I am completely unable to work, a right afforded to even those on international student visas who are not even considered residents. (F-1 and J-1 visa holders are permitted on-campus jobs to help pay for their international student tuition.)

    This October, my husband and I will be welcoming an American citizen into our home to live with us. This American citizen will be our newborn baby who, as an infant will have a great number of rights in this country than his own mother. It leaves me to wonder about why it is that we can create a new life in a shorter period of time than it takes the Working Group to resolve a problem that disables us each and every day of our lives.

    My family is struggling with our status in the United States, a struggle that is not only financial but also emotional. Living in Silicon Valley, we find it difficult to afford a reasonable standard of living on one income. Two months ago I read a study stating that the average apartment for rent (among studio, 1 bedroom, 2 bedroom and 3 bedroom) in San Jose--one of the cheapest areas of Silicon Valley--is just over $1400 per month. As our family outgrows our fairly inexpensive yet small apartment, this average sends chills through my body. Is it our responsibility to give up such luxuries as school, new clothing, and car insurance in order to afford this outrageous rent on one income? Should we be expected to live a sub-standard existence because of the choice we made to come to California and meet the needs of an employer (a company that itself relocated from Canada and now employs over 50 Americans, I might add) facing a massive labour shortage? Should our children have to suffer because of this choice? (I should point out, at this point, that since originally writing this letter our landlady asked us to leave our inexpensive apartment as a result of discovering we were expecting another child. Now even making monthly rent on one income is of great concern, and I've been forced to sit out another semester of my education because of this.)

    Since our relocation, my husband and I have faced the greatest amount of stress in our relationship. Not a day goes by when I do not consider packing my suitcase and leaving California to return to Canada. My husband is aware of my feelings, despite my muffled cries late at night, and is caught between providing for his family and being employed and returning to Canada where a future in his chosen occupation is uncertain. Professionally, my husband and I know that he must remain in the North American center for technology--Silicon Valley--yet emotionally we know that our family cannot continue to "live" with the restrictions we face. It is difficult enough moving to a foreign country, paying legal fees, paying international student tuition, and balancing family and work...without having to add living on one income and the other ramifications faced by forced unemployment.

    My days are simple. I wake up, I take care of my son, and I go to sleep. Each Monday I ache inside and each Friday that pain is temporarily lifted until the following Monday. I have yet to meet many people in this area because my activities in terms of education, finances, and employment are seriously restricted.

    I understand the need for my family to remain in the United States, despite the restriction of spousal employment set upon me. My husband would not have the opportunities he has if we returned to Canada. We need to be here. On the other hand, I understand our need to return to Canada. Our relationship is strained, the savings we had intended towards a down payment on a house is now gone, and the negative emotions are running high. I believe that allowing the spouses of NAFTA professionals the right to work would at least give us the opportunity to integrate into our community and begin to live the lifestyle enjoyed by the majority of families in this area--two income earners. We will never be able to get our savings back. We also will never be able to recover my lost earnings over this last nineteen months since my husband's relocation. We can, however, still attempt to recover our relationship and start dealing with the negative emotions in our family, rather than adding to them as our dissatisfaction with this situation increases.

    I believe that the issue of spousal employment can be solved with the introduction of a new visa category for dependent visa holders only. We, the dependent visa holders, are already residing in our host country and I would like to see us able to adjust our status to that of working status. Naturally, I understand that restrictions have to be imposed upon spousal employment just as they are upon the TN worker.

    For our purposes, let's call the new status Trade Worker (TW) status. I will not consider in the development of the TW status is the worry that these workers will be taking jobs away from American workers. The majority of TNs are relocating to areas with labour shortages. These labour shortages are the very reason their employers were willing to go through the extra trouble of sponsoring them and relocating them. I believe that TWs should have limited access to employment. Educational limitations should not be set upon TWs because of the large number of TDs who are the minor children of TNs and have not yet had the opportunity to obtain high levels of education. Professional limitations should not be set forth upon TWs unless they reflect the population for which they wish to serve--TDs. Meaning that these occupational limitations should not be male-dominated, as those occupations are which qualify the majority of TNs for their jobs. Rather, the TW should reflect the diverse population of women, children, and men who hold dependet visas. Considering that it would be the purpose of the TD's employment to provide only supplemental income rather than the primary income for the family, it would be reasonable to set forth a "part-time" limitation upon TW visa holders. This would be our compromise. We do not expect that it should be easier for the TD to obtain a work visa than it was for their TN spouse or parent overall. However, considerations for the fact that we are already residing in the host country should lessen the limitations set forth for TW visa applicants. Naturally, the major limitation set forth upon TW visa holders would be that their visa status be completely and 100% dependent upon the continued TN visa status of their spouse or parent.

    I believe that this should be considered the last opportunity to settle the issue of spousal employment. You have already had over three and a half years to deal with this issue and so far there is no resolution. To the Working Group, this is an issue dealt with in passing only yearly. To the TD, this is an issue faced every day, every hour, minute and second of their lives. Ignore the clock as it hits even midnight, because those additional moments towards a solution will save a number of individuals and families this horrible pain over the next year and perhaps following years if no resolution is found. Think of the employers in the United States, Canada, and Mexico who are struggling to find skilled workers--and if they do manage to relocate these workers under NAFTA those workers return to their home countries because of the suffering of the spouses and children under TD status. Please, think of me, Nicole Carlson, the 22-year-old who is supposed to be starting her way towards a career and enjoying her life as someone in their twenties should be. You hold my future, the future of my family, and the future of many others like us in your hands, today. Do not take that lightly.