Congress

The Senate Budget Committee Wants to Hear From You on Federal Budget Priorities

/ The Old Crank

This morning I took a look at a new section on the Senate Budget Committee’s Web site, called “MyBudget,” which they describe as an “online platform for members of the public to weigh in as our nation works to tackle our budget and economic challenges.”

I have no idea how influential this kind of thing is, but it’s an easy way to do some federal budget advocacy. I particularly like the “share your stories” section, where people are asked to write about “about how federal budget decisions have impacted your family, your community, and your job.”

Another page asks for you to let the Committee know “what issues we should be focused on.”

A Lot Riding on the Border Security Issue in Senate Immigration Reform Proposal

/ The Old Crank

(Updated below)

While both the Senate “gang of eight” and the President seem to agree on the key components of immigration reform, the border security component, at least in the Senate proposal, looks a little bit more key than the others. From today’s Washington Post:

Under the Senate’s new blueprint for reform, the legalization of undocumented immigrants would only happen if the government “finally commit[s] the resources needed to secure the border,” as well as strict visa enforcement for legal immigrants. It’s a provision that’s similar to Bush’s 2007 immigration bill, which also made legalization contingent on beefed-up border security. (my emphasis)

In other words, if I understand this correctly, the part of the legislation that many of us in the adult education community are most interested in—a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants—will be entirely contingent on an agreement over whether sufficient resources are being provided for border security. And that’s troubling because the language in the Senate document implies we’re not doing enough right now, even though there is evidence that, in fact, we are. Again, quoting that same story in the Post:

The Senate’s language suggests that the government has held back from devoting money, equipment and personnel to border security. In fact, we’ve hit nearly all of the targets that the 2007 bill established for increased border security—except for achieving absolute “operational control” of the border and mandatory detention of all border-crossers who’ve been apprehended.

This raises the possibility that, despite the evidence that we’ve actually beefed up border security over the last five years quite a bit, and achieved most of the targets that were in the 2007 bill, there are members of Congress who are going to push for more no matter what. If so, then I think the debate on border security is not going to be so much a policy debate over whether sufficient resources are truly being committed or not, but more of a political negotiation. That is, it may boil down to those in Congress representing border states pushing as hard as they can to get as much money for border security out of this bill as possible, whatever the need actually is. The higher their price, the higher the hurdle will be for the legalization provision to go forward (and the less likely, perhaps,  that Congress will be willing to invest in other things, like additional English classes).

Even if I’m wrong in my specific analysis, there’s no question in my mind that the negotiations around the border security issue are going to be critical. I’ll be looking closely at the draft legislation that emerges from the Senate to see how they define the level of commitment to border security that will be sufficient to trigger the legalization provisions.

UPDATE: More on the border security “trigger,” from TPM:

Responding to challenges from [Rush] Limbaugh that Obama would demand reforms with fewer border security measures, [Senator] Rubio emphasized his willingness to walk away from a bill if he didn’t get what he wanted on that front. In particular, he said including enforcement measures as a “trigger” for undocumented immigrants to seek permanent residency was key. (my emphasis)

UPDATE 1/30/13: More from Reuters, yesterday:

…[D]ifferences quickly emerged between what Obama would like and the proposals by the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” senators, whose plan is heavy on border security.

Obama pushed for a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants that is faster than the one the Senate group proposed.

Rather than emphasize border security first, he would let undocumented immigrants get on a path to citizenship if they first undergo national security and criminal background checks, pay penalties, learn English and get behind those foreigners seeking to immigrate legally.

“We all agree that these men and women should have to earn their way to citizenship. But for comprehensive immigration reform to work, it must be clear from the outset that there is a pathway to citizenship,” he said.

For Republicans, this is a sticking point. The Gang of Eight plan envisions first taking steps to toughen security along the U.S.-Mexican border before setting in motion the steps illegal immigrants must take to gain legal status. (my emphasis)

Senate Group Issues Framework for Immigration Reform – Press Conference Later Today

/ The Old Crank / 1 Comment

(Updated below)

A bipartisan group of senators has just issued a five-page set of guidelines for  comprehensive immigration reform, with more details (hopefully) to come later today during a press conference on Capitol Hill, one day before President Obama is set to deliver a major speech on immigration reform in Las Vegas.

As with previously announced principles or guidelines, this document includes a requirement that undocumented immigrants learns English, but there’s no specific details about any additional resources to provide English classes (which frankly I don’t expect):

…individuals with probationary legal status will be required to go to the back of the line of prospective immigrants, pass an additional background check, pay taxes, learn English and civics, demonstrate a history of work in the United States, and current employment, among other requirements, in order to earn the opportunity to apply for lawful permanent residency. (my emphasis)

UPDATE: This group of Senators will be holding a press conference today at 2:30 that will be carried live on C-SPAN.

Immigration Reform and Adult Education Funding

/ The Old Crank

VOXXI on the possibility of immigration reform serving as a lever for increasing the federal investment in adult education:

[A]s talks heat up regarding anticipated immigration reform, the grease used to accomplish such a monumental task will indeed be English adult instruction on a national level.

This is similar to the previous large immigration overhaul in 1986 when $4 billion was earmarked towards states providing English classes. However, [Migration Policy Institute Policy Analyst Sarah] Hooker said whatever reform does happen, plenty of questions remain.

“English classes would likely be an element of any major reform bill,” Hooker said. “The one question would be at what point would someone have to demonstrate English proficiency? Is it going to be at the point of adjusting to a temporary legal status or applying for citizenship or some intermediate point along that pathway?”

I think the biggest difference between now and 1986 is that it is much less likely that an immigration reform bill introduced this year will include any new funds for additional English classes. If anything, we’re more likely to see additional cuts to federal spending for non-defense discretionary programs like adult education later this year. [1]

To me, it would be perverse for a comprehensive immigration reform bill to ignore the dramatic state budget cuts to adult ESL classes in states like California. But it appears Congress is going to be stuck in fiscal austerity mode for some time, and so I’m hard pressed to come up with a scenario in which immigration reform results in a significant new federal investment in adult education.

I’d love to be wrong about this.

h/t @otan

[1] As noted in this commentary by Robert Greenstein, the end-of-the-year “fiscal cliff” budget deal only delayed the scheduled across-the-board sequestration cuts that were supposed to kick in on January 2nd:

Sequestration will hit March 1 unless the President and Congress delay it further or replace it with something else.  Republicans are insisting that policymakers must replace every dollar of across-the-board cuts that’s cancelled with a dollar of spending cuts.  The White House, consistent with its dollar-in-taxes-for-a-dollar-in-spending principle, wants to replace sequestration with a package that includes equal amounts of revenue increases and spending cuts.

Both sides, in other words, have already agreed that additional spending cuts will be on the table during the next round of negotiations, and while this doesn’t necessarily mean cuts will be made to adult education, any non-defense discretionary program is pretty vulnerable as both sides look for things to cut. Further, the likelihood of any increases in discretionary spending for things like adult education seem to me to be pretty unlikely in an environment where both sides are looking for $2 trillion in deficit reduction…