Thursday, January 28, 2010

Longtime Residents Not Allowed In-State Tuition

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — Some high school teachers worry about grooming students for admission to elite universities. Judah Lakin worries about getting his students’ immigration papers so that they can afford college.

Illegal immigrants do not qualify for federal financial aid, and those living in Rhode Island, as in 39 other states, do not qualify for in-state tuition at public universities. Since out-of-state tuition is about three times as high as in-state, many young immigrants forgo higher education.

Full Text: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/education/09teacher.html?scp=1&sq=education%20and%20illegal%20immigrants&st=cse

[Posted by Marina Guastucci]

Where Education and Assimilation Collide


Two girls, a Muslim in a headscarf and a strawberry blonde in tight jeans, stroll arm in arm. A Hispanic boy wearing a Barack Obama T-shirt gives a high-five to a black student with glasses and an Afro. The lanky homecoming queen, part Filipino and part Honduran, runs past on her way to band practice. The student body president, a son of Laotian refugees, hangs fliers about a bake sale.

But as old divisions vanish, waves of immigration have fueled new ones between those who speak English and those who are learning how.

Walk with immigrant students, and the rest of Hylton feels a world apart. By design, they attend classes almost exclusively with one another. They take separate field trips. And they organize separate clubs.

Full Text: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/us/15immig.html?emc=eta1

[Posted by Marina Guastucci]

"Victory in New Jersey! Vote on In-State Tuition Bill Canceled"


A vote scheduled in the New Jersey state senate to allow illegal aliens to receive state-subsidized, in-state tuition rates at the state's colleges and universities was canceled on Monday. The bill's sponsor said he lacked the necessary votes to pass the measure when Senators came under constituent pressure, in-part due to phone calls from NumbersUSA Members.

We just don’t have enough votes,” said N.J. Sen. Ronald Rice.

“I’m hugely disappointed. This was a matter of fairness," said Sen. M. Teresa Ruiz.

If passed, the bill would have allowed the estimated 2,000 illegal aliens in New Jersey who attended a New Jersey high school for at least three years and hold a diploma or equivalent pay reduced rates. The in-state tuition rate in New Jersey is about $11,000, half as much as the out-of-state rate.

Governor-elect Chris Christie will be sworn in next week, and he opposes the measure, so legislators will be unable to bring back up the issue while he's in office.


[posted by Sonia Vissoni]

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Without Papers, No Full License


www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/14/AR2009041402884.html?sid=ST2009041403442



(Tiffany Perales)

ALIPAC Endorses Scott Brown for US Senate

Americans for Legal Immigration Political Action Committee (ALIPAC) is endorsing Scott Brown for US Senate today due to his campaign's focus on the issue of the illegal immigration and his opponent Martha Coakley's support for Amnesty for illegal aliens.

ALIPAC is one of the nation's largest multi-ethnic and non-partisan grassroots organizations dedicated to opposing illegal immigration and amnesty for illegals, while supporting the enforcement of America's existing immigration laws and borders. "Scott Brown has publicly stated he opposes Amnesty for illegal aliens while Coakley has state she supports Amnesty," said William Gheen President of ALIPAC. "His vote in opposition to Amnesty will be needed in a few weeks as President Obama, with Democrats in the Senate and House, and a handful of misguided Republicans attempt to pass new Amnesty legislation.

[rest of article here]

posted by Maria Rohani.

Opinion: Ruben Navarrette Jr.: Don't assume that immigration reform is dead

Sometimes conventional wisdom is wrong.

That's how it is with the assumption that Republican Scott Brown's victory over Democrat Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts Senate race means that there will be no immigration reform this year.

The senator-elect has said that he opposes what he calls "amnesty" for illegal immigrants. In fact, Brown already knows how to turn illegal immigration into a wedge issue. As a state senator, he recently introduced a bill that would require anyone suing employers for violating state wage laws to show proof of citizenship or legal residency.

That is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. Under current law, just because people are in the country illegally doesn't mean they don't have legal recourse if employers don't pay them. That's how it should be. Ironically, Brown's bill would produce more of what he says he opposes: illegal immigration. By signaling to companies that they can get away with not paying illegal immigrants, we will only encourage employers to hire more of them.

Even so, I think the rumors about the death of comprehensive immigration reform are premature. Here's why:

(rest of article here)

[posted by Maria Rohani]

Millions of Mexican Illegal Aliens Endanger U.S. Security

WASHINGTON – The millions of Mexican illegal aliens in the United States endanger national security by creating a demand for false identity documents and smuggling networks that could also assist terrorists, experts said Tuesday.

The three experts, speaking at a panel hosted by Nixon Center and Center for Immigration Studies, also said that amnesty for Mexican illegal aliens in the United States should not be considered until immigration enforcement at the U.S.-Mexican border is strengthened.

Robert Leiken, a guest scholar at Nixon Center, said that Mexican illegal aliens themselves did not pose a terror threat. But operating in the shadow economy, they help to undermine the rule of law in the United States and in Mexico, he said.



http://news.ronatvan.com/2009/02/16/millions-of-mexican-illegal-aliens-endanger-us-security/


Posted by [Melissa Diaz]

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Woman sues officials over immigration arrest in Maryland

(CNN) -- A Salvadoran immigrant, backed by two immigrants' rights organizations, is suing the sheriff's office in Frederick County, Maryland, and federal immigration officials, claiming that she was unconstitutionally interrogated and detained last year because of her Hispanic ethnicity.
In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in federal court, Roxana Orellana Santos says that two Frederick County deputies improperly questioned her about her immigration status after they spotted her sitting on a curb, eating lunch. She is seeking compensatory damages of at least $1 million, according to the lawsuit.
The suit also names federal officials from Immigration and Customs Enforcement as defendants.
According to the complaint, the deputies had no probable cause to question Orellana Santos, who didn't speak much English and could not communicate well with the officers, about her immigrant status. She was detained for five weeks without charges before being released, the court document states. The incident happened in on October 7 of last year; she was held by federal immigration authorities who released her on humanitarian grounds on November 13, 2008.
"Despite having committed no criminal offense under Maryland law, Ms. Orellana Santos was detained, taken into custody and subsequently transferred to the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement," the complaint alleges.
Repeated calls for comment to the Frederick County Sheriff's Office were not immediately returned.
Her detention by immigration authorities suggests that Orellana Santos possibly was held for being in the country illegally, but her attorney, John C. Hayes, would not confirm her immigration status.
"We're not commenting on that at all," Hayes told CNN.
Orellana Santos had given the deputies a Salvadoran national identification card in hopes of appeasing the officers, Hayes said.
Despite the language barrier between Orellana Santos and the deputies, the officers arrested her, according to the complaint.
At issue is a nationwide federal agreement with local law enforcement agencies that allows trained local officers to enforce federal immigration laws in certain instances.
Under the arrangement, known as a 287(g) agreement, local officers are limited to asking about immigration status to instances where a crime is being committed. But in Orellana Santos' case, the officers had no reason to arrest her, the complaint states.
Furthermore, the two deputies who arrested her were not trained or certified in the proper procedures, as stipulated in the agreement, court documents say.
In addition to attorney Hayes, two immigrants' rights groups, -- CASA de Maryland and LatinoJustice PRLDEF -- are representing Orellana Santos.
While the current case is about a single incident, Jose Perez, an attorney for LatinoJustice, told CNN that it draws attention to the "misguided efforts" of 287(g) agreements.
"This evidence shows all the reasons why this program is wrong," Perez said.
Greg Weeks, associate professor of political science at the University of North Carolina-Charlotte, who has followed the debate over the use of 285(g), said there's a disconnect between local and federal authorities that makes the arrangement fail.
Federal authorities devised the partnerships as a way to deport criminals who were in the country illegally, freeing up prison space and court resources, Weeks told CNN.
But at the local level, the goal of law enforcement in some places is to expel undocumented immigrants, period, he said.
The result is an environment where local officials find themselves profiling potential illegal immigrants, creating a climate of fear among the Latino population, Weeks said.
"What this case shows is that people are being picked up for any reason," Weeks said. "There is not supposed to be any profiling at all."
Perez said that profiling is what happened in the case of Orellana Santos.
"This is only the tip of the iceberg," he said. "We're going to see more as more people come forward."
The lawsuit is not the first time the 287(g) agreements have been in the spotlight.
Last month, federal authorities renewed such an agreement with Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Jose Arpaio, but with limitations.
Under the umbrella of the agreement, Arpaio's deputies conducted street-level enforcement of immigration laws that typically fall to federal officers. The sheriff also checked the immigration status of everyone booked into his jail. Arpaio's strategy was scrutinized by critics who accused the sheriff's office of racial profiling.
The new agreement allowed for the continuation of the jailhouse checks, but put an end to the street stops.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/11/immigrant.lawsuit/index.html?iref=allsearch

[Posted by: Gloria Jimenez]

Main Page Our Staff Press Releases Media Sources Press Kit Mason Media Blog Mason Gazette Mason Speakers University Relations George Mason University

Nov. 5, 2009
Media Contact: Tara Laskowski, tlaskows@gmu.edu 703-993-8815

FAIRFAX, Va.—A study by George Mason University researchers has found that a majority of residents in two Manassas neighborhoods express deep-seated anti-immigrant sentiments, though fewer than half say immigration has affected them personally. The survey, which included life history interviews, was conducted from Spring 2008 to Summer 2009 to attain an in-depth understanding of the forces inciting a local movement to adopt legislation to "crackdown" on illegal immigration in Prince William County.

Forty-six percent of those surveyed indicated that immigration had had either no effect on them personally or has had a positive effect. A total of 79 percent stated that they like their neighborhoods and 56.9 percent said that they planned to stay in their neighborhood in the next 5 years.

Yet, 53 percent of residents in the Weems and Sumner Lakes neighborhoods surveyed stated that the U.S. should take decisive action to deport illegal immigrants, and/or blamed them for depleting local resources such as health care and education. Some expressed strong anti-immigrant sentiments as indicated by the statements: “The place is being barraged with Latinos…Everywhere you go, there are swarms of them,” and, “Can I send them on a bus and load it up until they all speak English?” Others were more moderate in their sentiments, citing the issue of immigrants having entered the country illegally as a key concern.

“Our research suggests that the changes that have taken place in Manassas in the last 20 years have been unsettling for some residents," says Debra Lattanzi Shutika, assistant professor of English at Mason. "Many of these residents seemed to be experiencing what I have identified as a type of ‘localized displacement'—they feel out of place in their home community. In some cases, residents told us that they found it difficult to adapt to the changes taking place around them, and that these changes that made their 'home' seem unfamiliar.”

Interviews were conducted in selected neighborhoods revealed by Census tract data and press accounts to have become home to both white, native-born Americans and Latino immigrants in the preceding decade. An unknown number of immigrants are alleged to have entered the U.S. without documentation. The survey employed an in-depth sampling strategy, the ethnosurvey, which requires in-person interviews at randomly-selected street addresses. The survey produced 104 responses for face-to-face interviews of approximately one hour in which residents were asked their opinions on a number of neighborhood quality of life measures. These findings were followed by 21 life history interviews that were taped and transcribed verbatim.

Shutika and colleague Carol Cleaveland are examining the discrepancy between the perceived high quality of life for most residents and the expression of strong anti-immigrant sentiments. One explanation, the researchers note, might be the patterns of residency – in particular the use of residential property to house large groups of men. Neighbors believed the men had been recruited for the construction industry, which had flourished in the area prior to the recession. Sixty-six percent of those interviewed complained of overcrowded houses, and 59 percent stated that too many cars are parked on streets as a result of this crowding. Fifty-three percent said some homes in their neighborhood were poorly maintained. Seventy percent cited foreclosures as a problem in their neighborhoods.

“Homeowners naturally want their investments to appreciate,” says Cleaveland, a faculty member in Mason's Department of Social Work. “What becomes problematic is turning this discussion into one about the presence of a particular group of people, and creating a social issue in which a certain segment of the population is targeted. We would have hoped for a debate and response that concerned trash pick-up, parking and overcrowding, instead of one in which a particular group is singled out as problematic."

Both researchers emphasize that that the work they’ve done is not meant to be a representative sample of the larger population in Prince William County. "Our intent was to gain a more in-depth understanding of how the controversy broke out in Manassas, and to understand how residents interpreted the events happening in their community," says Shutika.

http://eagle.gmu.edu/newsroom/783/

[Posted by: Gloria Jimenez]

Harvard's Faust Backs path to legal residency

Harvard's Faust backs path to legal residency
Illegal immigrant bill called 'lifeline'
By Maria Sacchetti
Globe Staff / May 21, 2009
Email| Print| Reprints| Yahoo! Buzz| ShareThisText size – + Harvard President Drew Gilpin Faust yesterday backed federal legislation that would clear the way for illegal immigrant students to apply for legal residency, an endorsement that stunned students and drew criticism for a president who has largely steered clear of fierce debates.

In a letter this week to federal lawmakers, Faust expressed "strong support" for legislation known as the Dream Act, which would allow students who have been in this country since they were 15 to apply for legal residency under certain conditions. She acknowledged that students with "immigration status issues" attend Harvard, and said the bill would be a "lifeline" to such students.

"I believe it is in our best interest to educate all students to their full potential - it vastly improves their lives and grows our communities and economy," she wrote in a letter to Senators Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry and Representative Michael E. Capuano, thanking them for their support for the legislation. "This bill will help move us closer to this goal."


http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/05/21/harvards_faust_backs_path_to_legal_residency/

Posted by [Yessenia Garcia]

Monday, January 25, 2010

Easy-to-Get Licenses Expose Md. to Fraud

Out-of-State Illegal Immigrants Exploit Rules

No. 5284 Randolph Rd., in a Rockville shopping center, is a modest Parcel Plus store where small businesses rent mailboxes by the month. It's also the address used by at least 42 undocumented immigrants living in states along the Eastern Seaboard to fake a Maryland residence so they could get a driver's license, records show.

Most of them got away with it, authorities say, evidence that Maryland -- the last holdout east of the Colorado Rockies in the nationwide effort to tighten rules on how states issue driver's licenses -- has become a magnet for illegal immigrants from Georgia to Delaware seeking driving privileges.

Along with New Mexico, Hawaii and Washington state, Maryland does not check the immigration status of drivers when they apply for a license. The policy has made the state vulnerable to widespread fraud by illegal immigrants living outside Maryland -- as well as to criminals seeking to create false identities -- according to court records and interviews with state officials.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032703555.html


[Posted by Maricela Gutierrez]

Illegal Immigrant License Debate Heats Up
(CBS)  This story was written by CBSNews.com political reporterBrian Montopoli.

The question of whether or not illegal immigrants should have access to driver's licenses has stayed under the radar for most of the 2008 presidential campaign. 

But that changed Tuesday night, when Sen. Hillary Clinton made vague comments at a Democratic presidential debate about whether or not she supports New York Gov. Elliot Spitzer's driver’s license proposal. Clinton's rivals quickly criticized her for what they characterized as a refusal to take a position on the issue. 

Spitzer's revised plan calls for a system in which three licenses will be available to New York residents. One type of license, which would be available to legal residents, would conform to the Real ID Act of 2005, a controversial federal standard designed to tighten homeland security by making it more difficult for illegal immigrants to get state driver's licenses. This license would be sufficient identification for residents who want to fly domestically. Critics, among them the ACLU, contend that compliance with the Act "would turn state driver's licenses into a national ID card." Fourteen states have refused to comply over potential cost and privacy implications.



[Posted by Maricela Gutierrez]

Immigrants detained in N.Y. in post-9/11 roundups reach $1.26M settlement with U.S.

Immigrants detained in N.Y. in post-9/11 roundups reach $1.26M settlement with U.S.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/11/immigrant_detained_in_post-911.html

By The Associated Press

November 04, 2009, 11:55AM

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft. A suit, filed in 2002, claimed that former Ashcroft, prison personnel, FBI supervisors and other officials violated more than 170 detainees' rights by imprisoning them on the basis of their race and religion. Five of those men reached a settlement with the government Monday.NEW YORK — Five immigrant men who were detained in roundups in New York and eventually deported following the Sept. 11 attacks have reached a $1.26 million settlement with the U.S. government.

The men were part of a lawsuit against the government over the roundups that put them in federal detention and the abuse they say they suffered while they were there. Two other plaintiffs are still part of the lawsuit.

Rachel Meeropol, a lawyer for the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents the detainees, said she hoped the settlement would serve as a deterrent to prevent similar government practices.

"Our hope is that it will keep the government from rounding up individuals based on religion and ethnicity," she said Tuesday. "My clients were really treated as terrorists based on nothing more than their religion and where they came from."


[Posted by Ida Micaily]

Writer calls Iran our best hope for an ally

Writer calls Iran our best hope for an ally

Stephen Kinzer argues that it shares strategic and democratic interests with the U.S.

America's ideal ally in the Muslim world is not Jordan or (the new and improved) Iraq - and certainly not Saudi Arabia - but Iran.

So argues journalist and historian Stephen Kinzer, author of the acclaimed 2003 political study, All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror.

Would that be the same Iran that reveled as militants took 66 Americans hostage in 1979?

Yes, says Kinzer, who argues that the pro-democracy movement in Iran inevitably will lead the country to adopt a new, more open regime. He argues that America will profit greatly from this change.

Kinzer will discuss Iranian politics Monday with Inquirer columnist Trudy Rubin at the Central Library of the Free Library of Philadelphia.

The event is part of the citywide literacy project One Book One Philadelphia, now through March 17, which this year focuses on Iranian-French author Marjane Satrapi's two-volume comic-book memoir, Persepolis.

One Book features eight weeks of readings, lectures, workshops, and film screenings that will explore not only Satrapi's work, but also aspects of Iranian culture and the genre of the graphic novel.

Other programs will consider the image of Iran in the media; the role of women in Iran; the psychology of the Iranian people; and traditional and contemporary Persian literature.

"We thought that Kinzer's book was a great way to start a discussion about Iranian politics and history," says One Book program manager Gerri Trooskin.

Kinzer, a New York Times foreign correspondent for more than 20 years, has taught journalism and political science at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill., since 2006.

He has written books about the convergence of tradition and modernity in Turkey; the rise of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, and the 1954 CIA-led coup in Guatemala.

In All the Shah's Men, he argued that the anti-American rage that consumes Iranian leaders was incited 50 years ago when the CIA destroyed the nation's first - and so far, only - experiment with liberal democracy after less than a decade.

In 1953, at the request of the British, the CIA orchestrated a coup to oust Iran's prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh, who had instituted democratic reforms and nationalized the country's oil industry - much to the annoyance of Britain, which held a virtual monopoly over Iranian oil production.

The Americans and British installed a repressive regime under the monarch, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

The shah's secular dictatorship was toppled in 1979 and replaced by an equally repressive theocracy.

Despite half a century of repression, Kinzer argues, the spark of democracy has never died out in Iran.

"Maybe we are going back to the last time Iran had a democracy," he says, referring to the protests against perceived corruption in Iran's presidential elections in June. "The government has lost a lot of its legitimacy over the past few months."


[Posted by Ida Micaily]

How U.S. can keep its Muslims moderate

How U.S. can keep its Muslims moderate

By David Schanzer

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/82230697.html

After the Christmas airliner attack, the recent spate of domestic terrorism arrests, and the Fort Hood shootings, people are understandably concerned about the possibility of homegrown terrorism involving Muslim Americans. But while the potential for this form of terrorism is real, it is largely overstated.

Despite a troubling spike in terrorism arrests and incidents in 2009, terrorist activity by Muslim Americans has been rare. In the 100 months since 9/11, 139 Muslim Americans have been accused of planning or carrying out terror-related violence. To put this in perspective, more than 136,000 people have been murdered in the United States since 9/11, and only 31 of those murders were committed by these Muslim Americans.

Together with University of North Carolina sociology professor Charles Kurzman and Duke religion professor Ebrahim Moosa, I have been studying Muslim Americans for the past two years to learn about how they deal with the threat of radicalization within their communities and to identify ways to help prevent homegrown terrorism in the future. We found that:

Muslim American organizations and the vast majority of individuals we interviewed firmly reject extremist ideology that justifies the use of violence to achieve political ends.

Muslim Americans have taken a number of positive steps to reduce the potential for radicalization in their communities. They have consistently spoken out against terrorist incidents. And they have counseled, and sometimes cast out from mosques and community groups, those expressing radical views.

Muslim Americans provide information to law enforcement about radical individuals who might engage in violence.

Muslim Americans feel the strain of living in America in the post-9/11 era. They perceive both official and societal discrimination, endure negative portrayals in the media, and worry about the many barriers to assimilation and participation in mainstream American life.

Muslim Americans are responding to these concerns with increased political activity, community-building activities, and the formation of a strong identity as a religious group.


[Posted by Ida Micaily]

Sunday, January 24, 2010

A Family Divided by 2 Words, Legal and Illegal

A Family Divided by 2 Words, Legal and Illegal

By DAVID GONZALEZ
Published: April 25, 2009

For the father, the choice was obvious: An engineer with several jobs yet little money, he saw no future for his daughter and son in their struggling country, Ecuador. Eight years ago, he paid coyotes to smuggle him into Texas, then headed to New York, where his wife and children flew in as tourists, and stayed.

www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/nyregion/26immig.html?scp=1&sq=family%20divide%20by%20two%20words&st=cse

[Posted by Araceli Vazquez]

Where Education and Assimilation Collide

Where Education and Assimilation Collide


By GINGER THOMPSON
Published: March 14, 2009

WOODBRIDGE, Va. — Walking the halls of Cecil D. Hylton High School outside Washington, it is hard to detect any trace of the divisions that once seemed fixtures in American society.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/us/15immig.html


[Posted by Araceli Vazquez]

Friday, January 22, 2010

Jail Protest by Immigrant Detainees Is Broken Up by Agents

By: Nina Bernstein January 20, 2010

Agents in riot gear from Immigration and Customs Enforcement tried to break up a hunger strike by detainees at the Varick Federal Detention Center in Lower Manhattan on Tuesday, three detainees at the center said Wednesday in telephone interviews.

Matthew Chandler, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, denied that there was “a sustained hunger strike” at Varick, but said immigration agents entered and searched a jail dormitory when detainees complaining about conditions refused to leave it.

A Jamaican detainee in one dorm said “all hell broke loose” after about 100 inmates refused to go to the mess hall on Tuesday morning and gave guards a flier declaring they were on a hunger strike to protest detention policies and practices.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/nyregion/21jail.html?scp=7&sq=immigration&st=cse

[Posted by Juliana Steers]

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Anti-Immigration Activists See Opportunity in Health Care Debate

Town Halls Peppered With Anti-Immigration Questions, Outbursts
By DAPHNE EVIATAR 8/14/09 1:05 AM

When President Obama showed up for a town hall meeting in New Hampshire on Tuesday, he heard more than just protests against health care.

“We don’t need illegals,” yelled a white-bearded protester into his megaphone outside the high school auditorium in Portsmouth, caught on video here. “Send ‘em all back. Send ‘em back with a bullet in the head the second time.”

If the threats of violence weren’t clear enough, the man goes on to say: “Read what Jefferson said about the Tree of Liberty — it’s coming, baby.” Thomas Jefferson’s actual quote was “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

As the heat gets turned up on the health care reform debate, anti-immigrant activists are using the issue to whip up fear and anger toward immigrants, portraying them as a costly and burdensome drain on any taxpayer-supported U.S. health care system. Angry questions about illegal immigrants getting health care at town hall meetings across the country have put many lawmakers on the defensive.

At his town hall meeting in Pennsylvania, for example, Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter had to assure protesters that illegal immigrants would not be covered. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has gone out of her way to make that point as well. Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.) faced similar shouted questions at his town hall forum on Wednesday, and repeatedly emphasized that illegal immigrants are not covered by the House bill. President Obama has also made the point, although it’s not clear that the anti-reform activists have heard it.

The protesters are spurred on in large part by immigration restrictionist groups who are using the health care debate to spread fears about immigrants. The restrictionist group Numbers USA, for example, has been posting video interviews online with unnamed “experts” warning that emergency rooms are overwhelmed by both legal and illegal immigrants, and that subsidized health care won’t be available for other low-income Americans because immigrants will be using it all up.

The Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, meanwhile, a non-profit research organization that says it’s “animated by a pro-immigrant, low-immigration vision,” is sponsoring a panel discussion next week in Washington called The Elephant In the Room: Immigration’s Impact on Health Care Reform. Steven Camarota of the center writes on the group’s web site that “one out of three people in the U.S. without health insurance is an immigrant (legal or illegal) or the U.S.-born child (under 18) of an immigrant,” and claims that immigrants and their children “account for one-fourth of those on Medicaid.” Yet “the enormous impact of immigration, both legal and illegal, on the health care system has generally not been acknowledged in the current debate.”

Immigrants’ advocates vehemently dispute the CIS statistics, and argue that immigrants — particularly illegal immigrants — are actually far less likely to use even emergency health services than American-born U.S. citizens are.

“We’re really concerned about what the anti-immigration community is doing to try and stop health care reform from moving forward,” said Jennifer Ng’andu, Deputy Director of the Health Policy Project at the National Council of La Raza. “We see it as those communities trying to stir the pot and create controversy. These are not folks who come to the table with solutions. They’re not looking to talk about a health care reform plan. They just assume that by creating anxiety about immigrants, that they’ll stop this debate.”

The protests have put lawmakers on the defensive. At town hall meetings focused on the health care debate, they’ve repeatedly been questioned about whether they support providing health care for illegal immigrants. Pelosi, Specter and Obama have all emphasized that illegal immigrants would not be covered under the current health care proposals.

The issue has gotten so heated that even the Congressional Hispanic Caucus issued a statement supporting health coverage only for “legal, law abiding” immigrants who pay their “fair share” for health care.

Under federal law, illegal immigrants are entitled to receive only emergency health care, although some states offer assistance to uninsured children. But conservative groups such as CIS and the Heritage Foundation complain that even emergency care for illegal immigrants is a big problem.

Immigrants’ advocates deny that that immigrants, legal or illegal, are driving up the costs of the health care system or disproportionately relying on government health services. And they point to a stack of studies showing that, on the contrary, immigrants actually use fewer health services than do American-born citizens.

A July 2009 article in the American Journal of Public Health, for example, found that insured immigrants had much lower medical expenses than insured U.S.-born citizens. And while recent immigrants constituted 5 percent of the nonelderly adult population, they were responsible for only 2 percent of adults’ total health care costs.

Meanwhile, a study by the non-partisan Kaiser Commission found that although noncitizens receive less primary health care than citizens, they are far less likely to use the emergency room.

The current House health care bill would not provide insurance coverage for illegal immigrants, and severely restricts coverage even for legal United States immigrants. Immigrant adults have to wait five years before becoming eligible for Medicaid or federal Children’s Health Insurance Plan benefits, for example. (CHIP covers pregnant women in addition to children.) That concerns both immigration and public health advocates.

“Legal immigrants might not achieve equitable access to health coverage in this health care reform bill, but they will be subject to the same requirements to purchase insurance,” said Ng’ara. “They pay the same taxes and will have to share in the responsibility of fixing our health care system, but they may be subject to waiting periods or restrictions before they qualify for many of the benefits.”

Michele Waslin, Senior Policy Analyst at the Immigration Policy Center, made the point in a recent blog post that including immigrants in any health insurance plan would actually help reduce the costs for everyone else. “An important function of health insurance is to pool risks and use premiums collected from the healthy to pay for the medical care of those who need it,” says Waslin. “It is common sense that the more people who pay into the health care system, the more the risk—and thus the costs—are spread out over the entire population.”

What’s more, she argues, public health improves the more people receive regular health care, including preventive services. “It’s also very expensive when people do not receive regular health care and wait until they are very sick to receive care,” she said.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest has concluded that “Comprehensive prevention programs are the most economical way to maximize health and minimize costs.”

The economics of health care may not be what’s actually motivating the controversy, however. The move to bar even legal immigrants from receiving any support to purchase health insurance is consistent with a broader rise in anti-immigrant sentiment that experts who track hate groups are noticing.

A new report from the Southern Poverty Law Center released this week, for example, noted a dramatic rise over the past decade of right-wing militia movements. The group attributes the phenomenon in part to “high levels of non-white immigration and a decline in the percentage of whites overall in America,” which has made race a much larger focus of its anti-government “Patriot movement.” The result, says the law center, has been that even “ostensibly mainstream politicians and media pundits have helped to spread Patriot and related propaganda, from conspiracy theories about a secret network of U.S. concentration camps to wholly unsubstantiated claims about the president’s country of birth.”

http://washingtonindependent.com/55044/anti-immigration-activists-see-opportunity-in-health-care-debate

[Posted by: Gloria Jimenez]