Two Basic Principles for Immigration Reform and Learning English

/ The Old Crank

All indications are that the immigration reform legislation currently being drafted in the Senate is going to provide undocumented immigrants currently residing in the U.S. with the opportunity to apply for lawful permanent residency—but with a much more arduous set of requirements than are required by normal green card applicants. Adult education groups are particularly interested in the English language requirement (which I discussed here).

Having now had a chance to think about this for a few weeks, my thoughts on this requirement come down to two basic principles:

  1. A requirement to learn English in order to qualify for lawful permanent resident status shouldn’t penalize or place an unrealistic burden on those with significant learning challenges.
  2. Any requirement to learn English in order to qualify for lawful permanent resident status should address the increased demand for English instruction that would emerge as a result, in a way that leverages the success of adult education programs that already provide these services.

The first has to do with basic fairness and ensuring equal opportunity. A requirement to learn English in order to qualify for lawful permanent resident status shouldn’t penalize or place an unrealistic burden on those who have special learning challenges, such as:

  • Those with limited education or literacy skills in their native language.
  • Those who are caregivers of children and therefore may have more limited opportunities to attend English classes. Lack of childcare services is already a significant barrier that prevents many people from attending adult education classes—particularly women.
  • Those who are elderly or disabled. For citizenship, those who are over a certain age and/or who have a disability may be granted an exemption from completing the English and civics tests. Similar kinds of considerations should be made for undocumented immigrants applying for the permanent resident status who are elderly/disabled.

It seems to me that consideration should be given to scrapping English proficiency altogether as a requirement and using satisfactory completion of some form of legitimate English language instruction over a certain period of time as sufficient to qualify. This would eliminate the problem of having to figure out what level of proficiency is going to count as sufficient, and it would largely (although not entirely) address the problem that the elderly/disabled may struggle to gain proficiency easily or quickly. One would still have to know English at certain level of proficiency to become a citizen (other than those who would be granted exceptions anyway).

The second basic principle is that any requirement to learn English in order to qualify for lawful permanent resident status should address the increased demand for low-cost English instruction that’s going to explode as a result, and in a way that leverages the success of adult education programs that already provide these services for free or at a limited cost. (I’m thinking here primarily of the adult English language and literacy programs funded at least in part by federal/state dollars—but also the privately funded nonprofits that are also key adult education providers in many communities.)

  • While the current capacity of these programs may not be sufficient to meet new demand, it will be cheaper to leverage the existing capacity than to create new entities to provide this instruction.
  • Moreover, this existing adult education system already has a track record of success in providing individuals with the English skills needed to successfully enter employment, improve their employment prospects, enroll in job training or in postsecondary education. The adult education system also has a track record in many states of providing adults with the opportunity to co-enroll in English language instruction while obtaining technical skills.
  • Similarly, it doesn’t make sense for the English language requirement to establish its own measure(s) for English proficiency that does not align with those measures already in use by the adult education system in local communities.

Finally, while it’s probably not realistic to expect a big increase in federal expenditures for these programs to be included in this bill, we ought to at least strengthen what we have. Let’s encourage professional and private sector investment in expanded adult English language instruction. One way to do this would be to provide tax credits for businesses that partner with adult education programs to provide English instruction for their employees (or residents of the community)—a variation of an idea was included in the Menendez/Leahy immigration reform bill in 2010.

In addition, I can’t think of a good reason why this legislation shouldn’t include the authorization of the EL/Civics grant program under Title II of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). (WIA is the primary vehicle for federal investment in adult education in the U.S.) EL/Civics isn’t actually authorized by WIA but is a set-aside that has to be approved by Congressional appropriators every year. The lack of authorization leaves the program more vulnerable to elimination than other programs under WIA, at a time when we can least afford for that to happen.

Quote of the Day

/ The Old Crank

This post today by Ezra Klein about Alan Simpson contains just about the best one-line description of the way a lot establishment D.C. people seem to think that I’ve ever run across:

There’s a widely acknowledged nobility and morality to proposing painful plans that would require lots of sacrifice — though the worst of that sacrifice rarely falls on the kind of people putting together these plans.

Can’t wait until March 1, which we might as well go ahead and designate as Bowles-Simpson Scold’s Christmas.

Rep. Griffin Thinks Government Funding for Nonprofits Makes Them Dependent and Lazy

/ The Old Crank

Good coverage in the Chronicle of Philanthropy of last week’s House Ways and Means Committee hearing on the charitable deduction.

It was interesting to read that Rep. Griffin is now employing the “takers vs. makers” rhetoric when describing nonprofit organizations’ relationship to government funding:

Some lawmakers hinted they were itching to explore nonprofit issues beyond the charitable deduction. Rep. Tim Griffin, Republican of Arkansas, said he was shocked to learn that some nonprofits in his district rely on government money for up to 80 percent of their revenue.

He questioned whether it would be more efficient to encourage people to give to them directly, rather than to pay taxes to the federal government, which then trickle down to the nonprofit through the state and county.

“They’ve become dependent nonprofits,” he said. “The tools in the philanthropy tool box rust. They don’t have to court big donors, and they love that. They don’t have to have annual dinners, and they love that. They just get that big check from the federal government.” (my emphasis)

Odds and Ends

/ The Old Crank

I’ve been under the weather for several days and haven’t had the energy to post anything. A couple of quick things:

  • Also on Friday, Democrats on the House Education and the Workforce Committee reintroduced their WIA reauthorization bill from last year. It’s now called the Workforce Investment Act of 2013 (H.R. 798). Press release here.

A lot of old legislation gets reintroduced at the beginning of a new session, so I have no idea how excited to get over this. It’s worth remembering that it has zero chance of passing the Republican-controlled committee.

My recollection is that Republicans on the committee were planing to reintroduce their WIA reauthorization bill early this year as well, and while that presumably would pass the committee (like their bill did last year), whether it would get to the floor anytime soon, and whether it would get through the Senate or form the basis for a compromise bill is another question.