|
|
|
National Jewish Community
Relations Advisory Council Guide to Program Planning Of the Constituent Organizations |
|
Equal Opportunity and Social Justice |
|
Immigration and Refugees Changing Conditions A growth in anti-newcomer sentiment, in part precipitated by concerns about the economy, has stimulated national legislative proposals designed to curtail the flow of some immigrants to the United States and state legislation intended to reduce services for newcomers. The organized Jewish community and other groups are continuing an educational campaign to convey both the positive contribution that immigrants make to American society and the reasons why the United States government should continue its commitment to a generous refugee and immigration policy. In the meantime, policy-makers are challenged to address the question of undocumented newcomers. Background Attitudes Towards Newcomers Contrary to public belief, the overwhelming majority of immigrants to the United States enter legally to join family members. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that less than 1.5 percent of the immigrant population are undocumented. Census data reveal that the average immigrant family pays $2,500 more in taxes than it obtains in services, and utilizes fewer welfare services than the average American-born family. Urban Institute and Rand Corporation studies have concluded that immigrants do not cause increases in unemployment among native-born and/or naturalized Americans. The primary cause of hostility toward newcomers is the estimated 3.5 million undocumented people living in the U.S. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that about 250,000 people enter the country illegally each year; yet, contrary to public opinion, a large segment come from Western Europe and Canada, not only from Mexico and Central America, and many are skilled workers. In addition, most studies of the economic impact of undocumented immigrants conclude that they do not add to unemployment or deplete social services in a given community. In a continuing effort to curtail the flow of undocumented immigrants into the United States, legislative proposals at the state and federal levels have been introduced that seek to enhance the U.S. border patrol along the border with Mexico; post the National Guard on the border; deny social services, including preventive and emergency medical services, to undocumented individuals; require hospitals to report undocumented people to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS); deputize state and local police to enforce laws concerning the undocumented; and introduce a national identification card to facilitate the enforcement of employer sanctions. In early February 1994, the Clinton Administration announced a comprehensive immigration initiative designed to emphasize distinctions between legal and illegal immigration. It seeks to balance tougher border enforcement and quicker deportation of criminal aliens with an increase in resources for the asylum office for education regarding the anti-discrimination requirements in employer sanctions provisions, and for promotion of naturalization programs through public education and cooperative agreements with community-based organizations, ethnic group networks and others. Although the package contains a number of favorable measures, concerns remain regarding the potential for accepting use of a national identification card to facilitate enforcement of employer sanctions. The NJCRAC opposes a national identification card. Within a week of the White House announcement, the Illegal Immigration Control Act of 1994 was introduced in the House, in part a response to the Administration's regulatory reforms. The proposed legislation is broad in scope. It includes support for identification cards and omits any provision for education of employers regarding immigrant-related discrimination. In general, while the Administration seeks to balance tougher immigration enforcement measures with protections against discrimination and improvement in services to immigrants, the Illegal Immigration Control Act focuses primarily on punitive measures. In California, where a third of all newcomers have settled, adding a particular burden to that state's resources, Governor Pete Wilson has advocated a number of measures designed to reduce the flow of newcomers. He has proposed restricting services currently provided to all newcomers, including undocumented people, by denying health, education and social services to children of undocumented individuals and amending the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S to undocumented parents. For years, Florida, Texas, New York and California, states disproportionately affected by undocumented immigration, have borne the burden of having to pay for federally mandated health, human services, and educational expenses, and have been actively seeking federal government reimbursement. California and Florida have filed lawsuits. In the meantime, the State of Florida is denying foster care to undocumented children, claiming that they are the responsibility of the INS. A precedent-setting move occurred when the House amended its emergency relief bill for victims of the Los Angeles earthquake to prohibit longer-term (over 90 days) disaster assistance to victims known to be undocumented residents. The amendment is a first for disaster relief legislation, which has never before been tied to an applicant's legal status. In mid-March 1994, the Administration went further, agreeing to Congressional demands for stricter enforcement by requiring that immigration officials check applications for housing assistance. Undocumented people caught seeking aid will be prosecuted. The new screening requirements mark the first time authorities have been instructed to scrutinize the immigration status of applicants for humanitarian aid. In another alarming development, a group of 90 moderate and conservative House Democrats joined with House Republicans in urging that welfare benefits for most non-citizens be eliminated in order to pay for welfare reform. The financing proposal reflects a trend, from state capitals to Congress, of looking to immigrant entitlements as a convenient budget-cutting target. Nearly 94,000 immigrants from Mexico would be affected by the cut-off, along with more than 40,000 Jews from the former Soviet Union and tens of thousands of others from Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, Cambodia and the Philippines. Most of the money would be saved by denying immigrants and other legal non-citizens Medicare and aid from the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. About 11 percent of recipients of SSI are non-citizens, most of them elderly immigrants sponsored by their children. The Clinton Administration's welfare reform proposal also calls for cutting some benefits to legal immigrants who are not yet citizens to pay for reform (see section on Poverty and Welfare Reform). One proposal would deny legal residents SSI and possibly other benefits until they obtain U.S. citizenship, thereby requiring that any family that sponsors an immigrant to the U.S. become financially responsible for that person until he or she becomes a citizen. This measure could create substantial financial hardship for sponsors, potentially deterring many U.S. residents from seeking reunification with close family members. Of particular concern, the proposed financing policy pits the legitimate needs of immigrants against those of other at-risk groups, in effect denying benefits to one needy group in order to assist another. A significant percentage of Jewish and other immigrants who arrive in this country are elderly parents of refugees or other low-income immigrants. In many instances these legal residents are unlikely to become U.S. citizens because of limited language skills and cultural barriers which deter them from taking the exam required for citizenship. Restricting immigrant access to national benefit programs could ultimately increase their dependence on state, local and non-profit assistance programs, unfairly and adversely affecting social service delivery systems, many of which are already overwhelmed. The NJCRAC believes that the challenges posed by undocumented people must be studied carefully in order to ensure the effective implementation of humane policies that enforce the law regarding undocumented people. Traditionally, the INS has emphasized the enforcement component rather than the service component of its functions. Among the areas of its services neglected is the provision of linguistic proficiency and cultural sensitivity. Legislation supporting the separation of the service and enforcement components of the INS is currently under consideration. At the same time, hostility toward undocumented people continues to fuel negative attitudes toward immigrants in general. On February 10, the Immigration and Moratorium Act of 1994 was introduced in the House with 35 co-sponsors. The bill seeks a moratorium on immigration except for refugees, priority workers, and spouses and children of U.S. citizens. It would eliminate immigration by parents, adult children, brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens as well as spouses and children of permanent residents until at least the year 2000. Refugees For FY 1994, $400 million has been authorized for the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) for 121,000 refugee admissions, including $39 million for the matching grant program. This level of funding, representing a substantial cut from the mid-1980s, is sufficient for only an eight-month resettlement period. This program cannot afford additional cuts without further jeopardizing the effective resettlement of refugees, thereby limiting their full participation in society. (See Joint Program Plan for 1992-93, page 39, and Joint Program Plan for 1993-94, page 16.) The Lautenberg Amendment was renewed in 1994 as part of the State Department Reauthorization bill. The Lautenberg legislation clarifies the burden of proof for Soviet Jewish refugees and certain other groups from the former Soviet Union (FSU) seeking refugee status due to a well-founded fear of persecution. The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, Council of Jewish Federations, the NJCRAC and others had unequivocally conveyed to Congress the urgent need to renew the Lautenberg legislation. Jews still living in the FSU continue to have legitimate fears due to the ongoing unstable conditions in Russia and other republics and the long history of anti-Semitism and scapegoating of Jews during times of instability in those areas. (See section on Jews in the Former Soviet Union.) Asylum Asylum does not account for a significant percentage of the 850,000 people entering the United States each year. Of the 10,000 cases that were adjudicated in FY 1992, the last year for which data are available, only about 30 percent were admitted. Another 70,000 were added to the backlog of cases not yet adjudicated. These procedures for processing people seeking asylum in the United States have raised concerns. The process can last months and sometimes years, during which asylum applicants are allowed to live in the U.S. This has enabled some to disappear and remain in the country illegally. Responding to public concerns about this problem, some members of Congress, as well as the Administration, are supporting measures that would make it much more difficult for those seeking asylum to enter the country. New asylum regulations are under review and are expected to be released by the summer of 1994. The Administration is expected to eliminate work authorization during the asylum review process and to double the number of asylum officers in order to begin to keep up with incoming cases and to work on the backlog. The cost of increased staff would be partially covered by charging applicants a processing fee of $130. The likely introduction of an application fee and imposition of a 180 day (six month) work delay are causing concern among immigration advocates. The combined impact of a fee and imposed work delay could place asylum seekers in the untenable position of having to find the resources to apply for asylum and survive for six months without working. At the same time, there are some in Congress who favor tougher legislative action and charge that the White House proposals fail to adequately address the existing backlog. Legislative proposals include measures to establish an expedited procedure for dealing with asylum seekers who enter at air- or seaports without proper documentation; to make more difficult the standard of proof for the applicant seeking protection; eliminate the appeals process by giving the processing INS officer final authority in considering claims; and, provide for the return of potential asylees to the last country that they were in prior to entry into the U.S., although that country may have been only a point of transit. The NJCRAC, as well as many other immigration advocacy groups, have expressed concerns that this legislation does not provide due process for asylum applicants and that it would impair the right of access to legitimate asylum seekers. In some cases the process even may endanger their lives. As many as 40 percent of asylum seekers are forced to flee circumstances in which they are in great danger and, therefore, may not have had time to gather all the documents that could support their claims. Moreover, the proposed changes would not provide applicants for asylum the opportunity to describe fully the circumstances surrounding their decision to flee. The NJCRAC has called for reforms that would expedite the asylum process without jeopardizing the security and lives of legitimate asylum seekers. These include hiring sufficient asylum officers and guaranteeing prompt hearings, giving applicants for asylum an opportunity for an appeal after an initial hearing by a trained asylum officer, establishing effective and fair procedures to weed out applicants for refugee status who make frivolous claims, and fully adjudicating the asylum claims of applicants before returning anyone to another country in which they have not been firmly resettled. The NJCRAC opposes the detention of legitimate asylum applicants unless there is a compelling public health or safety factor involved, or a compelling reason to believe that the applicant may not appear for the adjudication process. Haitians The Clinton Administration has continued the policy of the previous administration, opposed by the NJCRAC, of interdicting Haitians on the high seas and returning them to Haiti without giving them the opportunity to apply for asylum. On their return to Haiti, they are often harassed and imprisoned by the Haitian military, which continues to refuse to transfer authority to the democratically-elected Aristide government. The NJCRAC continues to urge the Administration to give full off-shore asylum hearings to Haitians seeking refugee status and to admit those who have been found to have a credible asylum claim. [NOTE: In May 1994, the Clinton Administration announced a shift in its policy that will allow off-shore asylum hearings for Haitians to be held aboard U.S. naval vessels. Implementation of this new approach will need to be monitored by advocacy groups, even as they continue to seek further changes in U.S. policy.]
The Jewish community relations field should
[NOTE: For additional strategic goals see Joint Program Plans for 1992-93 and 1993-1994] The Jewish War Veterans of the U.S.A. (JWV) renews its objection to the strategic goal that supports a recommendation which urges the U.S. Administration to cease its repatriation policy with respect to the Haitians, especially those refugees who are infected with the HIV virus, or would be in need of medical care. No immigrant from any country with defined health conditions should be allowed immigration status since this nation's hospitals are presently burdened by the increased requirements from our own citizens, and should not be overwhelmed by the demands of treating infected immigrants. JWV further dissents as Haitians are not fleeing racial or religious persecution, but for economic reasons, and as a result, should not be granted political asylum status in this country. |
