New INS Rules Could Aid Disabled Immigrants

After years of delay, federal authorities are putting the final touches on new guidelines that could allow thousands of physically and mentally disabled immigrants to become citizens without passing now-mandatory examinations in English and U.S. civics.

Disabled rights groups and immigrant advocates have been pressing the Clinton administration to issue the new regulations in time for many to become citizens--and thus retain public benefits--before an impending August cutoff mandated by the sweeping welfare overhaul passed by Congress last year.

“This could truly be a gift of hope for all disabled legal immigrants who have been living in fear about losing the only support they have,” said Gladys Lee, director of the Asian Pacific Family Center in Rosemead.

However, advocates of reduced immigration levels regard any easing of citizenship requirements warily at a time when record numbers of people are applying. Many Republican critics openly view the entire process as politically tainted.

“Are we talking about destroying the whole principle of citizenship because a few people on welfare want to become citizens?” asked Dan Stein, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a Washington D.C.-based group that favors reduced immigration.

Congress mandated that the Immigration and Naturalization Service implement the waivers in a little-noticed technical amendment passed in 1994, well before citizenship requirements emerged as a hot-button issue in Washington. Last year’s restructuring, with its virtual mandate that immigrants become citizens to retain many federal welfare benefits, added urgency for the disabled.

The extreme sensitivity of the issue has prompted yet another round of reviews of the long-stalled proposals at an edgy INS, which had been scheduled to release the rules this month before pulling them back at the eleventh hour for legal fine-tuning.

“The INS is working as diligently as possible to resolve the remaining legal issues and to publish final regulations,” said spokesman Eric Andrus.

The agency has estimated that some 300,000 disabled immigrants nationwide could apply for exemptions from requirements that virtually all applicants demonstrate knowledge of English and U.S. civics. Groups working with the disabled in Los Angeles County and other immigrant enclaves say a sense of desperation is setting in among aged, infirm and otherwise disabled noncitizens who face a likely cutoff of federal benefits by August.

“I am so afraid that I will be shut off from any help because I am not a citizen yet,” Li Ji Tam, a 30-year-old former garment worker, told a recent community forum in Los Angeles.

Speaking through a translator, Li said she became mentally disabled after arriving from Guangzhou in 1990 and now lives largely on $482 a month in federal disability payments. “This is the primary source of help to sustain my life,” Li said.

Under the plan, disabled applicants would not have to demonstrate knowledge of English and U.S. civics, including answering such fundamental questions as who was George Washington and how many states comprise the nation.

Activists have also been pressing the INS to expand definitions of who qualifies as disabled, and broaden the pool of physicians who can certify applicants as physically, developmentally or mentally incapacitated.

However, the INS, analysts say, is unlikely to modify the requirement that applicants demonstrate the ability to take a “meaningful oath,” the clinching act of citizenship. During the oath ceremony, typically overseen by federal judges, new citizens renounce allegiance to “any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty,” and pledge loyalty to the United States.

The oath mandate is a major sticking point in a pending federal lawsuit against the INS by groups based in California representing Alzheimer’s patients and others who are mentally incapacitated. Disability rights advocates want to modify the oath requirement for those incapable of demonstrating comprehension, perhaps allowing guardians or caretakers to attest on behalf of applicants.

Not modifying the oath requirement, disabled activists argue, effectively bars citizenship for an extremely vulnerable group that Congress explicitly sought to include in the process.

“Congress is saying, ‘You can skip the final exam,’ but the INS is saying, ‘We’re not going to give you the diploma,”’ said Stephen A. Rosenbaum, a San Francisco-based attorney with the Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund, one of the groups suing the INS.

But authorities have maintained that the oath mandate cannot be modified without a change in federal law.

Lacking formal regulations, INS officials nationwide have been granting exemptions for the disabled on a case-by-case basis since 1995 under a sketchy agency directive urging “compassion and discretion.” But advocates for immigrants and the disabled argue that the agency has been inconsistent, dragged its feet and bottled up thousands of applications nationwide in the absence of formal instructions.

In Los Angeles, the INS is holding up the applications of about 200 disabled applicants who were granted exam exemptions but remain unable to articulate the oath in even simple terms, said Jane Arellano, assistant INS district director in Los Angeles. The agency is awaiting final regulations before acting.

A record 1.1-million new citizens took the oath last year, many prompted by fears of aid cutbacks and other legislative proposals targeting noncitizens. Applications are still soaring, and the INS anticipates an even higher number this year.

In general, would-be citizens must be legal residents of the United States for at least five years, demonstrate an understanding of English--including an ability to read, write and speak--and show a basic knowledge of U.S. history and government. Applicants must also have “good moral character,” meaning they are not alcoholics or drug abusers, did not lie to obtain legal residence, and have not been convicted of a broad range of crimes, from theft to murder.

A major scandal erupted in Washington last year when Republicans charged that the Clinton administration was circumventing safeguards and allowing ineligible criminals to become citizens in a ploy to win election year votes. The White House denied any wrongdoing, but the INS has since tightened criminal checks, creating new delays in the process at a critical juncture.

Under a long-time practice, exemptions to the English language requirement are available for elderly immigrants who have been residing in the United States for at least 15 years. In addition, those 65 and older with at least 20 years as lawful residents have been able to take a simplified civics test, while disabled persons have been permitted to take the citizenship interview and oath at their homes.

However, the new guidelines are not expected to offer any additional relief to elderly applicants who are healthy but have difficulty learning English or passing the civics requirement.