ESL

A Closer Look at the English Requirement in the Senate Immigration Reform Framework

/ The Old Crank / 3 Comments

One of the interesting pieces of the Senate immigration reform proposal released yesterday is the list of requirements for legal permanent residency status for undocumented immigrants. Their proposal would not only require those individuals to “go to the back of the line” of other prospective immigrants, but also require them to meet a more burdensome set of requirements for achieving permanent residency status than are required of other immigrants.

I’m specifically thinking about the English requirement: Under current law/regulations, when you apply for permanent legal status (a green card), there is no requirement that you know how to speak, read, or write English. It’s only when you apply for citizenship that you must “be able to read, write, and speak English and have knowledge and an understanding of U.S. history and government (civics).”

But as I noted yesterday, the Senate proposal would require undocumented immigrants currently residing in the U.S. to, among other things, “learn English and civics” in order to earn the opportunity to apply for lawful permanent residency. It would appear, in other words, that they intend to apply the English requirement now just needed to qualify for full citizenship to the list of qualifications that undocumented immigrants must meet to just get to the permanent residency stage.

If that is the case, this suggests to me that under this plan we’d see a pretty big upsurge in demand for adult English instruction right from the get-go. Where the supply is going to come from is another question.

It’s also worth  noting that under the current requirements for citizenship there are are exceptions to the requirement that applicants for citizenship know English. Specifically, applicants are exempt from the English requirement, (but not the civics test) if they are:

  • Age 50 or older at the time of filing for naturalization and have lived as a permanent resident (green card holder) in the U.S. for 20 years; or
  • Age 55 or older at the time of filing for naturalization and have lived as a permanent resident in the U.S. for 15 years.

Applicants may also be eligible for an exception to both the English and civics requirements if they are “unable to comply with these requirements because of a physical or developmental disability or a mental impairment.”

It remains to be seen whether similar exceptions will be included in the English requirement for permanent residency that is apparently going to be part of the immigration reform package introduced by the Senate.

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…

Report: Immigration Reform Push To Begin This Month

/ The Old Crank

An Obama administration official has told the Huffington Post that despite the likelihood of another time-consuming fiscal confrontation with Republicans later this winter, President Obama still plans to push for immigration reform in January:

An Obama administration official said the president plans to push for immigration reform this January. The official, who spoke about legislative plans only on condition of anonymity, said that coming standoffs over deficit reduction are unlikely to drain momentum from other priorities. The White House plans to push forward quickly, not just on immigration reform but gun control laws as well.

Bu the story goes on to say that the path to an approved bill could be a long one:

Aides expect it will take about two months to write a bipartisan bill, then another few months before it goes up for a vote, possibly in June. A bipartisan group of senators are already working on a deal, although they are still in the early stages. Rep. Zoe Lofgren D-Calif. will likely lead on the Democratic side in the House. While many Republicans have expressed interest in piecemeal reform, its still unclear which of them plan to join the push.