Republican Talking Points on Immigration Reform

/ The Old Crank

House Republican Immigration Resource KitBefore leaving for August recess, Republican members of the House received this document from the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-VA). According to Rep. Goodlatte, the document was was put together to help members communicate to their constituents “the importance of immigration reform and the House Republican plan to produce solutions that actually fix the problems that plague our immigration system.” The document summarizes the individual immigration bills the House Judiciary has passed this session, as well as a list of concerns about the Senate comprehensive bill. (For those of you involved in adult education or English/Civics instruction, while not mentioned specifically, I think it is safe to say you are probably considered part of the “slush fund” mentioned in “Concern #10.”)

According to some sources, there hasn’t been a lot of activity on either side of the immigration debate during the break, so how I don’t how important these talking points have turned out to be, but I thought the document was interesting to read.

CIRbrief-2013House-SenateBills-Side-by-SideIf you are looking for a less partisan comparison between the Senate comprehensive bill and what the House has produced so far, the Migration Policy Institute has published a helpful side-by-side comparison.

I’m long past my own self-imposed deadline for posting an update on immigration reform  from an adult education perspective—which I’ll try to do this week—but in the meantime I thought I’d pass these documents along.

Interesting New DACA Data to Ponder

/ The Old Crank

MPI - One Year DACA ReportThe Migration Policy Institute has just published a new policy brief, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals at the One-Year Mark: A Profile of  Youth and Applicants, which includes MPI’s most recent estimates on the current and prospective Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) population, and broken down into categories, such as educational attainment, English proficiency, state of residence, country of origin, age, gender, labor force participation, poverty and parental status.

MPI researchers think that about 1.9 million unauthorized immigrants are potentially eligible for the DACA program, with 1.09 million currently meeting the age, education, length of residence, and other criteria. About 392,000 of these individuals are too young to apply now but would become eligible once they reach age 15 if they stay in school or obtain a high school degree or equivalent.

It’s the remaining 423,000 young people who appear to meet everything but the education requirements that are of most interest to adult education advocates. MPI’s brief includes some interesting estimates regarding the educational attainment, English proficiency, state of residence, country of origin, age, gender, labor force participation, income, and parental status for this population. Not surprisingly, these individuals tend to be poorer and less English proficient than those who appear to meet all the DACA requirements. However, more of the individuals in this subset (71%) are in the labor force.

Sequestration Cuts May Be Forcing Some Parents to Quit Their Jobs

/ The Old Crank

This story, from Bloomberg’s William Selway, highlights a really important point about the cuts to Head Start caused by sequestration:

A U.S. preschool program for low-income families allowed single mother Kelly Burford to take a $7.25-an-hour job as a department store clerk in Maryland. Her son, Bradyn, 2, spent the day with friends listening to stories, singing and drawing pictures — at no cost to Burford.

That ended in June, when Bradyn’s school in Taneytown, seventy miles north of Washington, closed after losing $103,000 because of automatic government spending cuts. Without support from the federal Head Start program, Burford, 35, said she had to quit her job and has seen her son’s progress slip. (my emphasis)

I doubt this is the only low-income parent facing the same dilemma. The question is whether anyone is keeping track of this. It’s important that these “hidden” costs of sequestration are taken into account when assessing the impact.

Boxed in on Jobs

/ The Old Crank

This Kathleen Geier post in the Washington Monthly is good, and her argument is pretty compelling. However, regarding the D.C. big box living wage bill, she writes:

[P]oliticians hate the D.C. living wage bill, because they don’t want to drive Walmart away. The politicians want the photo ops at Walmart openings, where they can boast about bringing “good jobs” — um, well, okay, “jobs,” anyway — into the community.

To be fair, it’s not only about the fear of driving Walmart away. As soon as the bill was passed by the Council, other retailers allegedly began re-evaluating their plans to locate in the District. Isn’t it more accurate to say that politicians are afraid of appearing anti-business in general? In my experience that’s an especially sensitive issue for politicians in D.C., a city that faces tough competition for business from neighboring states Virginia and Maryland. Again, the threats from other retailers may turn out to be bogus—and even if they’re not, the long-term net impact on employment/wages might still by a positive one if this bill were to become law—but this notion that D.C. is “anti-business” is something that District politicians legitimately have to grapple with.

None of which is to deny that it’s a big problem when a Walmart ribbon-cutting ceremony serves as a fig leaf for politicians anywhere who are otherwise doing little to nothing to support good jobs, worker training, etc.