EDITORIAL U.S. welfare reform establishes caste policies
The Welfare Reform Act, which took
effect late last year, has left many issues festering. Immigration-related
policies top the list.
The question of whose benefits must be cut will not go away. Nor
should it: It has much to do with our identity as a nation. Similarly, cutting
welfare for immigrants has to do with the history and soul of our nation.
Under the new law, immigrants are no longer to be viewed as the
latest guests to our table. These vulnerables will not be served the food
shared by the rest of us. No matter that these immigrants are living in the
country legally; no matter that they are usefully employed and paying
taxes.
This welfare reform law, hailed as landmark legislation when it
was signed by President Clinton last September, came at the expense of some of
the weakest among us.
According to analysts at the National Immigration Law Center
headquartered in Los Angeles, "The immigrant provisions of the welfare bill
dramatically reduce access to government services for both legal and
undocumented immigrants." The summary, written shortly after the legislation
passed in August, continued: "For the first time, legal immigrants who have
lived here for many years will not have equal access to the programs that their
taxes fund.
"Immigrants were by far the biggest losers in the bill, singled
out for more than 44 percent of the total federal budget cuts effected by the
bill, even though they represent only about 5 percent of all welfare
recipients."
Roberto Lovato directs the Central American Resource Center --
CARECEN -- in Los Angeles. He told NCR, "There are people who desperately need
what little support welfare gives them." The percentage of immigrants who
receive welfare is similar to the percentage in the U.S.-born population. The
welfare reform act, he said, puts "the safety net at risk."
Elderly and disabled immigrants -- many no longer physically or
mentally able to take the steps required to become U.S. citizens -- are an
especially vulnerable group affected by the reforms. Analysts predict aged
immigrants living on Supplemental Security Income in nursing homes will face
uncertain futures. Without the checks, the homes will find it difficult to care
for these patients. In addition, the broad reforms will simultaneously
undermine the capacity of their families to provide for them.
The president, signing the welfare reform bill, said he recognized
it was not fair and that it needed change. The harshness with which it deals
with immigrants should be a top concern. There should be no question about
benefits for legal immigrants and their families. We invited them into our
house, and we should treat them well.
Meanwhile, the debate over the future of legal immigration
revolves around numbers. At its core is the question of how many newcomers
should be let into the country. But while there seemed to be bipartisan support
for reducing legal immigration in line with the recommendations of an
independent commission, efforts to legislate such cuts ran into stiff
opposition, not just from ethnic and immigrants' rights lobbies but also from
business.
The matter goes back at least to 1965 when the United States
switched from a modest flow of mostly skilled immigrants coming proportionally
from the countries where Americans had until then come from, to a broader flow
of less skilled people and their extended families, many from the Third World,
including restless, nearby Mexico. The debate is about whether the resulting
mix is suitable.
The surge in legal immigration is attributed in large part to a
decade-old amnesty law that legalized 2.6 million illegal aliens, many of whom
have become citizens and sought permanent resident status for their family
members. Unlike other immigrant categories, "immediate relatives" of U.S.
citizens have no numerical visa allotments.
The recent influx has raised alarms in Congress over the long-term
impact of immigration, particularly on the country's population growth.
Lawmakers concerned about the high levels of immigration also complain about
the more immediate social costs of the system and a loss of control over who is
allowed to immigrate.
According to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, legal
immigration increased about 25 percent during fiscal 1996 over the previous
year, meaning that about 900,000 people entered the country. When other
categories of newcomers are factored in, such as asylum seekers and "parolees"
granted special admission, the total approaches 1 million.
Historically, immigrants have played vital roles in re-energizing
American life. They vitalized inner-city neighborhoods. They took jobs others
would not take. They contributed to America's high-tech edge.
According to the Census Bureau, about one-third of U.S. population
growth stems from immigration. When U.S.-born children of recent immigrants are
included, immigration accounts for more than half the population growth, the
bureau says.
The new Congress is expected to have its hands full with what some
legislators say is the "unfinished business" of immigration reform. Sen. Edward
M. Kennedy, D-Mass., wants to restrict the ability of employers to use
temporary foreign workers to replace Americans. Kennedy, a senior member of the
Senate committee that deals with immigration, says he favors a "modest
reduction" in legal immigration, but indicates he is most interested in
obtaining additional Labor Department inspectors and cracking down on employers
who hire illegal workers.
"The key question next year is whether we protect American workers
or coddle the unscrupulous employers," Kennedy said.
If the overall number of those admitted is to be reduced, who
should be cut? Current immigration law gives preference to family members,
including married brothers and sisters. This creates a chain migration as
in-laws of citizens, for example, become eligible to bring in their families,
which in turn have in-laws who bring in theirs.
Some reformers have suggested eliminating this preference and the
one for adult children, so that the spouses and children of permanent residents
can be admitted more quickly. These proposals will have to be revisited and
seriously considered in the months ahead.
Perhaps the most difficult question is whether to continue to
emphasize family-related preferences to the detriment of highly skilled
applicants who have no family living in the United States. Canada, for example,
puts a premium on well-educated immigrants who can find employment easily and
fill slots for which qualified Canadians are in short supply.
Whatever the eventual answers, the discussions surrounding them
should be open and inclusive. All voices need to be heard. These matters affect
us all.
Meanwhile, the welfare bill Clinton signed last year needs to be
reconsidered. As discussions since then have shown, the administration will
seek much less than full repeal. Pressure, however, needs to be exercised so
that our nation does not slip into a two-tier benefits system that the welfare
bill has established -- full benefits for citizens and scant few for new
immigrants and legal aliens.
The powerful among us manage to protect their own interests. The
largess of corporate welfare, for example, was never discussed during the
budget cutting debates. Now, in the postelection year we must return to more
reasoned discussions. The poorest and most vulnerable among us -- the newest
arrivals to our nation -- need to be treated with the respect given the rest of
us. Caste systems are not a U.S. tradition -- and must not be allowed to become
one.
National Catholic Reporter, January 10,
1997
|