Hollywood Acts on Visa Rules

A change in U.S. immigration rules has sparked fear in some quarters of the entertainment industry that California’s built-in advantages as a place to make movies and television shows may be further eroded.

The rule change, pushed in part by such unions as the Screen Actors Guild and the International Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Employees, amounts to what some opponents have dubbed a “Buy American” program for entertainment talent, a program that cynically plays into a xenophobic strain gaining strength these days.

Such opponents say the unions, hoping to demonstrate their effectiveness to their members, have been handed something close to veto power over producers and directors who want to employ foreign talent, both in front of and behind the cameras.

Fears about the new rules caused a flood of visa applications to pour into the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service just ahead of the April 1 effective date, according to an official at a major studio.

But these fears, like much of what emanates from Hollywood, are over-dramatized.

The rule changes concern the standards and procedures for granting visas to foreign artists and technical people. The regulations apply not only to movie and TV talent but also to models, athletes, musicians and certain support people who accompany them.

For years, the standard for admitting such aliens was that they be prominent in their field. The idea was to never block a Vanessa Redgrave or a Luciano Pavarotti from performing here, but rather to keep producers from flooding the labor market with people of no special distinction while there was a large pool of American talent willing and able to do the work.

Believing that the definition of prominence was vague and widely flouted, U.S. labor groups moved to tighten the laws. The result was the Immigration Act of 1990, which imposed a stiffer standard for artistic distinction.

However, the labor groups at that time were unable to persuade Congress to give them a direct say in the process through a kind of peer review. The unions kept pushing and finally, in rules that took effect April 1, gained a mandatory consultation provision.

Under the new rules, a producer who wishes to bring in a foreign actor or cinematographer, for instance, must submit the person’s name to SAG or IATSE or the relevant technical union. The union then gives an opinion on whether the applicant is sufficiently accomplished. The application, along with the union opinion, is then sent to INS for processing.

Richard Fraade, a Beverly Hills lawyer who represents numerous producers in immigration matters, portrays the new rules as a misguided union effort to preserve jobs. What will happen instead, he predicts, is more of the “runaway production” that has seen other countries drain off movie and TV work that traditionally would have been done in California.

By challenging the visa applications, Fraade says, the unions “may be able to keep three people out of the U.S. and lose 300 jobs” when a production goes elsewhere.

Mandatory consultation, says Fraade, practically gives veto power to officials such as SAG’s Hollywood executive director, Leonard Chassman. Fraade adds that while he considers Chassman to be a reasonable fellow, the process could become frighteningly arbitrary.

“Where does the ax fall?” Fraade asks. “It’s going to fall wherever Mr. Chassman and his counterparts in the other unions want it to fall.”

Chassman disagrees, firstly about whether he has an ax at all, and secondly about how great a threat the rule changes pose to the industry.

“We don’t believe we have veto power,” Chassman says, pointing out that the union opinions are purely advisory and that the INS is under no obligation to follow them. Still, he quickly adds, “We certainly hope we can have influence.”

Chassman and his counterpart at IATSE, Bruce Doering of Local 659 of the International Photographers Guild, say abuse has been rife. Doering cites the example of a Dino De Laurentiis production, “Noble House,” in which an entire foreign crew, including caterers, was brought in under visas meant for top-echelon performers.

Mandatory consultation gives the unions a chance to at least be aware of potential abuses instead of hearing about them from members after it’s too late to do anything.

As to the fears of runaway production, Doering says he knows of no case where a producer canceled a major U.S. project over a union-inspired visa dispute.

Throwing obstacles in the path of creative people who want to work in California is no way to improve the competitiveness of the film industry here, but there is little evidence that the unions have taken an obstructionist approach.

Michael Rosenfeld, director of labor relations for Walt Disney Co., says the unions have taken seriously the responsibility that their opinions “not be based on whether the union has people out of work but based on the quality of the alien.”

He adds: “In this town, I think we’re very lucky to have very good relations with labor.”

Doering says he would gladly see the visa regulations scrapped entirely if other countries would drop their own barriers to American talent. Britain, Canada and Australia, to cite three examples, all have tougher restrictions than the U.S. ones, he says. Such a free-trade program does not appear to be in prospect, however.