Playing Politics Over People

In a final grilling of his Cabinet members before deciding to sign a welfare reform bill that punishes elderly immigrants more than any other segment of the population, President Clinton reportedly demanded to know whether the behavior modification “incentives” created by the legislation would actually “work.”

The same question should be asked, even more insistently, about two other pieces of immigrant-bashing legislation moving toward the President’s desk: the English Language Empowerment Act, crafted by Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-San Diego), and the Immigration Control and Financial Responsibility Act, which includes a key amendment written by Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley).

Both pieces of legislation are drenched in election-year opportunism. Reading only their poll numbers, members of Congress are creating “incentives” that fly in the face of well-documented facts about the values and behavior of immigrants.

Proponents claim that legislation compelling all federal agencies to conduct their business exclusively in English and abolishing bilingual ballots is necessary to reduce the number of residents with limited English skills. The underlying premise is that the most recent wave of immigrants, especially those from Mexico, are resisting assimilation, defined as the rate at which English proficiency is being acquired.

Today’s new immigrants have no need for politicians to prod them into learning English. In most major U.S. cities, the demand for adult classes in English as a second language far outstrips the capacity to meet it.

Studies show that today’s immigrants, especially Latino children, are acquiring English fluency more rapidly than those of previous eras. The shift into predominant or exclusive use of English now occurs within two generations, compared with three generations in the past. Nevertheless, Congress and many members of the general public see only “unassimilable” immigrants, promoting the “balkanization” of America.

Even if this specter bore some resemblance to reality, the obvious remedy would be to expand access to English instruction. Democratic opponents of the Cunningham bill sought to increase federal funding for such classes and were defeated on a straight party-line vote.

Rather than enabling immigrants to learn English faster, the “English only” bill would administer a gratuitous slap in the face, while complicating the work of government agencies that must continue to communicate with limited-English-proficiency residents. “English-only” laws already on the books in California and 23 other states have had no discernible impact on the use of foreign languages or on the growth of their immigrant populations.

The immigration reform legislation now undergoing revision in a House-Senate conference committee would enable states to deny free public education to illegal immigrant children. Those reaching the seventh grade or trying to enroll for the first time would be required to pay full tuition (about $5,000 per year in California).

Gallegly predicts that his public school ban will cause the parents of illegal immigrant children to return to their native countries and deter potential unauthorized migrants by eliminating the “magnet” of free public education.

There is not a shred of reliable evidence that supports either of these expectations. A huge body of research has demonstrated that the overwhelmingly important motives for migration to the U.S. are the availability of jobs and the desire to be reunified with relatives, not the availability of tax-supported services.

The same studies show that adult immigrants accompanied by their dependents are those who have made a permanent commitment to work and live in the U.S. For the vast majority, repatriating themselves and their children is not an economically realistic option.

The long-term consequences of this federalized version of California’s Proposition 187 are completely predictable: underenrollment of younger children, higher dropout rates among teenagers, more crime and increased dependence on public assistance. Under the just-approved welfare reform law, such aid will have to be provided by already hard-pressed city and county agencies rather than by the federal government.

The public should be under no illusion that by embracing know-nothing laws like these their elected representatives are striking effective blows for immigration control. They are merely creating incentives for voters to return them to office.