Stealing From Immigrants

To help pay for President Bush’s war on drugs and other worthy federal programs, the Senate recently raided a fund created to help newly legalized immigrants. Such shortsighted budgeting will adversely affect many California residents and local governments. It must be reversed by the House of Representatives.

When Congress passed the landmark Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986, one of the key provisions was a legalization program, commonly referred to as an amnesty, for immigrants who had been living illegally in the United States. Almost everyone involved in the debate over illegal immigration agreed that it would be inhumane to deport people who had lived in this country long enough to establish ties here. What did become controversial, however, was precisely who should pay for providing government services to these people and their families once they came out of hiding and began using public hospitals, schools and other facilities.

Officials for cities and counties with large immigrant populations successfully argued that since immigration is a federal responsibility, Congress should reimburse them for part of the cost of serving newly legalized residents. So when the immigration reform bill was enacted, a little-noted section of that law set aside $1 billion each year, for four years, to reimburse local governments. These so-called State Legalization Impact Assistance Grants (SLIAG) are important to counties like Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego that have large populations of immigrants legalizing their status under the reform act.

It was this year’s $1-billion appropriation for immigrant aid that was raided by the Senate last week, with the encouragement of the Bush Administration. Claiming a surplus in the fund, Administration officials asked that $400 million be redirected to drug programs, and the Senate took out another $155 million for health research. The so-called surplus in SLIAG exists because the funds accumulated while the federal government has been slow in reimbursing local governments and not because there is no demand for the money. For instance, Los Angeles County, with the largest number of immigration amnesty applicants of any local jurisdiction in the nation, has asked for $230 million from the federal government in the current fiscal year and gotten only $28 million back so far. San Diego County is seeking a more modest $2 million, but has received only $300,000.

And, because of other provisions of the immigration reform act, the need for that money will increase in the next few months rather than diminish. In order to complete the amnesty process, for example, immigrants must complete study courses in basic English and civics by late next year. There won’t be enough classes to meet the demand if public school districts don’t get money from the federal government to pay for them.

In an effort to reduce the negative impact the cutbacks in SLIAG will have, Sen. Bob Graham (R-Fla.) introduced an amendment to restore the missing $555 million in 1991. But that will be too late to help many local governments and school districts. Besides, as Rep. Edward R. Roybal (D-Los Angeles) points out, there is no guarantee that money will actually be available for Congress to hand out in 1991. So, rather than undermine the process of immigration reform, the House should restore the SLIAG money and tell the Senate to find its “surplus” funds elsewhere in the budget.