immigration reform

What Will Adult Education Advocates Be Looking for in the Pending Immigration Reform Legislation?

/ The Old Crank / 1 Comment

(Updated Below)

The basic outline of the coming immigration reform legislation is pretty clear, but reports are that we probably won’t see any actual legislation until March. (That’s the deadline that the eight senators who signed onto the immigration reform principles last week have set for themselves to deliver a bill.) Meanwhile, the Senate Judiciary Committee plans to hold a hearing on immigration reform on February 13th.

For those of you in the adult education field, what will you be looking for when the bill is finally released? Here’s my list:

Funding. This is the biggest issue, I think. Will there by any new funding for adult English language instruction in the bill? Members of the Senate group have consistently stated that undocumented immigrants will be required to learn English in order to attain permanent residency status. (This is currently not required for those residing outside the U.S. applying for “regular” permanent residency.) That provision is going to create a large increase in demand for adult english language instruction. (We can be certain of this, as we’ve already seen a big surge in demand due to the President’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative.) Will the eventual legislation expand opportunities or provide additional resources for adult English language instruction?

I wasn’t really that closely involved the last time immigration reform was kicked around, but my understanding is that some of the proposals did include additional adult education funding. This time, however, I think it’s highly unlikely, considering the current fiscal climate, that we’ll see a bill that invests any taxpayer money into increasing adult education capacity, (even if it’s the “back taxes” the Senate plan would require of those seeking to obtain probationary legal status)—particularly considering that the primary beneficiaries of that funding would be undocumented immigrants.

But the Senate framework also includes language about additional fines to be paid by undocumented immigrants as well. Could the funds collected from those fines be used to provide funding for additional English classes? Is that something the adult education field would endorse?

Eligibility. In at least one state I know of (Arizona) undocumented immigrants are banned from enrolling in adult education courses administered by the Department of Education at state or federally funded schools. Even if no new dollars are forthcoming for adult education in this bill, could there something in there that might open up access to federally adult education programs to those individuals?

Proficiency. What level of English language skills will be sufficient to meet the English requirement. How will each applicant’s English language skills be assessed? Will it more-or-less mirror the process used by applicants for citizenship, or will it be something else?

Exceptions. As I noted last week, under the normal rules for those applying for citizenship, there are exceptions to the requirement that applicants know English. Generally, those over a certain age who have lived in the U.S. for significant amount of time are exempt from the English requirement when applying for citizenship, and an applicant with “a physical or developmental disability or a mental impairment” may be eligible for an exception to both the English and civics requirements.

Will there be a similar exceptions carved out for older or disabled undocumented immigrants applying for permanent residency status under the Senate plan?

Clarity. Even if the bill addressed none of issues above, the establishment of a fair, open, and transparent process by which undocumented immigrants can acquire some level of legal status will, I’m sure, be a huge relief to many immigrants served by our programs—and their families.

This is not necessarily a complete list. What did I miss?

Those in our field who feel strongly about the role of adult education in the immigration reform package should probably be getting in touch with their representatives in Congress now—particularly those living in the states represented by the eight Senators working on this bill. I think it’s quite possible that no one will be thinking very much about the role of adult education in the bill unless folks in our field speak up. The Senate is on recess the week of February 18th—adult education advocates may want to look into whether their Senators have scheduled town meetings or similar events, and try to raise questions about the role of adult education at those meetings. Program directors might even consider trying to arrange for a visit to their program that week.

I also recommend taking a look at the President’s fact sheet on immigration reform, which outlines the key principles that he believes should be included in the immigration reform package. In this document, the President calls for a proposal that promotes “efforts to integrate immigrants into their new American communities linguistically, civically, and economically.” (my emphasis) Historically, adult education programs have been at the center of those efforts, and so the President’s words may be a good place to start for those advocating for a strong role for adult education in the changes ahead.

UPDATE: I mentioned there was a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on February 13th. For the record, there is also a House Judiciary Committee hearing on immigration tomorrow, February 5th. Because the Senate is going to be out of the gate first with a comprehensive bill, I think it’s the more significant event. For what it’s worth, the House hearing will be focused on the “current legal immigration system and ways to improve it” and “the extent to which our immigration laws have been enforced.”

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)

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.