Do snowboard instructors merit a carve-out in federal immigration law?
The ski and snowboard world depends on and is influenced by a wide range of occupations and professions, including engineers who design new snowmaking systems, welders and pipefitters who lay new water lines–and politicians who regulate the number and kind of foreign workers who are employed on the slopes and in the base facilities.
Go to any major ski area, and you’ll likely find immigrants filling a number of jobs, including ski and snowboard instructors. (Why ski areas depend on foreign workers rather than domestic ones is a question that would take us into a topic beyond this article.) Instructors are usually here on a special permission called an H2-B visa. Over the years, such as in 2007 and 2008 (PDF), changes to the law have affected the number of people who can get these visas.
Immigration law and policy continues to be a controversial subject that touches on economics, politics, environmental policy, and other topics. Some people favor reforming specific laws that are related to immigration, but major political actors in Washington DC, including the so-called “Gang of 8” members of Congress, favor comprehensive legislation to address many different facets of immigration law.
Recently, snowboarding came up in the immigration debate. Byron York led off widely reprinted article with the question, “Are snowboard instructors key to American immigration policy? Well, they’re important enough to be specifically included in the Senate bipartisan Gang of Eight immigration reform bill.” (See: “Senate skips details in rush to pass immigration bill,” May 6, Washington Examiner.) The association of ski and snowboard instructors, PSIA/AASI, picked up that article and posted it on its website. “News and Announcements,” May 13, 2013.
Under federal law, there are many ways to legally enter the United States. One way is to get a non-immigrant visa as an athlete or coach. If you want to get all lawyer-y, you can find some information in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(P). It says that a visa is available to someone who:
performs as an athlete, individually or as part of a group or team, at an internationally recognized level of performance;
The law carves out a special category for ice skaters, but not people who teach gliding on the snow.
On April 17, 2013, several senators introduced S.744, the “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act.” This comprehensive approach to redoing immigration law, which runs nearly 850 pages in Adobe Acrobat, included language that recognizes ski instructors. It called out anyone who is “a ski instructor seeking to enter the United States temporarily to perform instructing services.”
But what about snowboarders? Not to worry; you, too, can be the subject of a jot or tittle in federal law. A proposal to strike everything from S.744 and start it all over, running a mere 350 pages (PDF), did include snowboarders. It mentions
a ski instructor, who has been certified as a level I, II, or III ski and snowboard instructor by the Professional Ski Instructors of America or the American Association of Snowboard Instructors, or received an equivalent certification in the alien’s country of origin, and is seeking to enter the United States temporarily to perform instructing services.
Congratulations, snowboarders! Maybe. At least we get equality with skiers in immigration law.
Of course, the original version of S.744, and its replacement, will be criticized from many different angles. (It’s too restrictive. It’s not restrictive enough.) And in the debate, snowboarders — look at this rad trick, bra! — are an obvious target for anyone looking to criticize the legislation.
Perhaps the criticism of including snowboarders and skiers is justified. First of all, specifying that someone must be a member of PSIA or AASI, or a foreign equivalent, is a way of dispensing favors to a special interest. Granted, that special interest does a lot of good, but it’s still a special interest. If we’re going to carve out a spot in immigration law for snowboard instructors, requiring AASI membership favors AASI over other, potential organizations of snowboard instructors.
But more fundamentally, do we need a special exemption in immigration law for instructors or athletes? Or legislation that calls out some occupation and not others? In this and almost every other piece of legislation, Congress, a body of 535 people, is attempting to plan the economy of 315 million people. Even if you throw in the expertise of the federal bureaucracy–a million or two people–it’s unlikely that they’ll be able to do a good job.
And yet, ski areas routinely seek out foreign instructors, suggesting that they can’t fill their ranks with people already here.
So what do you think?