tommyt1alacrana
3rd December 2002, 06:09
According to a recent article in nation and world news, migrants account for half of new workers. So what?
A new study of census data concludes that recent immigrants were critical to the nation's economic growth in the past decade, accounting for half the new wage-earners who joined the labor force in those years.
There is a report out by Northeastern University which offers powerful evidence of the growing impact of immigrants in American society.
The newly analyzed work force numbers show immigration also is redrawing the profile of the U.S. work force, in some cases transforming entire industries. More than 13 million legal and illegal immigrants came to the United States from 1990 to 2001, drawn by the healthy economy and family ties. The report said 8 million immigrants jointed the labor force, which means they were either working or looking for work, over a period when the total number of new workers was 16 million.
86 percent of the work force is American-born. For decades, the nations immigration policy has been a subject of intense debate, which criticts saying the large numbers strain schools and other government services and take jobs from American-born workers.
The Northeastern study argues that the research indicates the opposite: The U.S. economy would have stumbled in the past decade without the new arrivals, and most immigrants contribute more in taxes than they use in services.
"THE AMERICAN ECONOMY ABSOLUTELY NEEDS IMMIGRANTS," said Andrew Sum, director of the labor market center. "OUR ECONOMY HAS BECOME MORE DEPENDENT ON IMMIGRANT LABOR THAN ANYTIME IN THE LAST 100 YEARS."
More blood on the hands of the Americans. There is no one to blame once again. Love thy neighbor. Chiwauwau!
With tears running down his face, the spit flies out of his mouth as he screams from the pain and frustration of yet another injustice that will just have to wait, in the mean time, to help ease your little mind...here's another letter, a token of our impotence.
Letter to the Senate Finance Committee on the Restoration of Benefits to Legal Immigrants in TANF Reauthorization
June 6, 2002
Hon. Max Baucus
Chairman
Senate Finance Committee
219 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Hon. Charles Grassley
Ranking Member
Senate Finance Committee
203 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Re: Restoring Benefits for Legal Immigrants in TANF Reauthorization
Dear Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley:
We write to you on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to urge you to support efforts to restore benefits for legal immigrants as the Committee considers reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program.
Legal immigrants pay taxes, serve in the armed forces and are subject to the military draft. There is no legitimate reason they should be denied public services for which their taxes have paid. Yet severe restrictions on benefits for legal immigrants were adopted in 1996. These restrictions applied to a host of programs, not just TANF.
President Clinton supported welfare reform despite strong opposition from many organizations, including ACLU. However, President Clinton also made clear that he strongly disagreed with immigrant restrictions, saying that they have nothing to do with the fundamental purpose of welfare reform.[1] Earlier this year, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich agreed, saying, In a law that has reduced welfare by more than 50 percent, this is one of those provisions that went too far. In retrospect, it was wrong.[2]
Current restrictions on immigrant access to benefits include (1) outright bans on assistance for a specific period, and (2) rules that restrict eligibility for benefits by deeming that the income of an immigrants sponsor is available to the immigrant, even when that is not in fact true.
As you consider legislation reauthorizing the TANF program, we urge you to heed the bipartisan consensus that restrictions adopted in 1996 went too far and adopt the broadest possible restoration of benefits for legal immigrants. In particular, we urge you to adopt proposals that:
Eliminate the five year bar on legal immigrant eligibility for TANF,
Reduce the current requirement of ten years of sponsor deeming and liability, to no more than three years, without problematic language that could make the deeming requirements even more onerous,
Restore eligibility for the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, with no more than five years of sponsor deeming,[3]
Provide that instruction in English as a Second Language (ESL) counts as a direct work activity for purposes of TANF, permitting immigrants to use ESL classes to satisfy their work requirements, and
Provide benefits to immigrant pregnant women and children under Medicaid and the State Childrens Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), without deeming restrictions.
Ultimately, we support complete elimination of the unfair restrictions adopted in 1996, including a problematic definition of unqualified immigrants that excludes many legal as well as undocumented immigrants from needed public assistance. Nevertheless, adoption of the above measures would undo some of the injustice of the 1996 laws.
As President Clinton said, punishing legal immigrants had nothing to do with the goal of reforming welfare. Many Republicans now agree these restrictions went too far. The time to remedy this injustice is now.
Sincerely,
Laura W. Murphy
Director, ACLU Washington National Office
Timothy H. Edgar
ACLU Legislative Counsel
LaShawn Warren
ACLU Legislative Counsel
Cc: Members of the Senate Finance Committee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENDNOTES
[1] Remarks by President Clinton at the Welfare Reform Bill Signing, Aug. 22, 1996.
[2] Robert Pear, White House Seeking to Restore Food Stamp Aid for Noncitizens, N.Y. Times, Jan. 10, 2002. The plan to restore food stamps to immigrants was enacted this year in the Farm Security Act. Restoring food stamps to immigrants received the strong, bipartisan backing of the House, in a 244-171 vote on a motion to instruct conferees. (Roll Call No. 106).
[3] Some have proposed further study of the effects of SSI restrictions on immigrant populations. Further study is not needed. Hardship among immigrant families as a result of the 1996 restrictions, including the restrictions on SSI, is well documented. See Randy Capps, Hardship among Children of Immigrants: Findings from the 1996 National Survey of Americas Families, New Federalism Issue Brief No. B-29 (Urban Institute Feb. 2001), available at http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/anf_b29.pdf.
*all subject matter was copied from The Tribune, 12/02/02
http://www.aclu.org/PoorRights/PoorRights....?ID=10425&c=154 (http://www.aclu.org/PoorRights/PoorRights.cfm?ID=10425&c=154)
A new study of census data concludes that recent immigrants were critical to the nation's economic growth in the past decade, accounting for half the new wage-earners who joined the labor force in those years.
There is a report out by Northeastern University which offers powerful evidence of the growing impact of immigrants in American society.
The newly analyzed work force numbers show immigration also is redrawing the profile of the U.S. work force, in some cases transforming entire industries. More than 13 million legal and illegal immigrants came to the United States from 1990 to 2001, drawn by the healthy economy and family ties. The report said 8 million immigrants jointed the labor force, which means they were either working or looking for work, over a period when the total number of new workers was 16 million.
86 percent of the work force is American-born. For decades, the nations immigration policy has been a subject of intense debate, which criticts saying the large numbers strain schools and other government services and take jobs from American-born workers.
The Northeastern study argues that the research indicates the opposite: The U.S. economy would have stumbled in the past decade without the new arrivals, and most immigrants contribute more in taxes than they use in services.
"THE AMERICAN ECONOMY ABSOLUTELY NEEDS IMMIGRANTS," said Andrew Sum, director of the labor market center. "OUR ECONOMY HAS BECOME MORE DEPENDENT ON IMMIGRANT LABOR THAN ANYTIME IN THE LAST 100 YEARS."
More blood on the hands of the Americans. There is no one to blame once again. Love thy neighbor. Chiwauwau!
With tears running down his face, the spit flies out of his mouth as he screams from the pain and frustration of yet another injustice that will just have to wait, in the mean time, to help ease your little mind...here's another letter, a token of our impotence.
Letter to the Senate Finance Committee on the Restoration of Benefits to Legal Immigrants in TANF Reauthorization
June 6, 2002
Hon. Max Baucus
Chairman
Senate Finance Committee
219 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Hon. Charles Grassley
Ranking Member
Senate Finance Committee
203 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Re: Restoring Benefits for Legal Immigrants in TANF Reauthorization
Dear Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley:
We write to you on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to urge you to support efforts to restore benefits for legal immigrants as the Committee considers reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program.
Legal immigrants pay taxes, serve in the armed forces and are subject to the military draft. There is no legitimate reason they should be denied public services for which their taxes have paid. Yet severe restrictions on benefits for legal immigrants were adopted in 1996. These restrictions applied to a host of programs, not just TANF.
President Clinton supported welfare reform despite strong opposition from many organizations, including ACLU. However, President Clinton also made clear that he strongly disagreed with immigrant restrictions, saying that they have nothing to do with the fundamental purpose of welfare reform.[1] Earlier this year, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich agreed, saying, In a law that has reduced welfare by more than 50 percent, this is one of those provisions that went too far. In retrospect, it was wrong.[2]
Current restrictions on immigrant access to benefits include (1) outright bans on assistance for a specific period, and (2) rules that restrict eligibility for benefits by deeming that the income of an immigrants sponsor is available to the immigrant, even when that is not in fact true.
As you consider legislation reauthorizing the TANF program, we urge you to heed the bipartisan consensus that restrictions adopted in 1996 went too far and adopt the broadest possible restoration of benefits for legal immigrants. In particular, we urge you to adopt proposals that:
Eliminate the five year bar on legal immigrant eligibility for TANF,
Reduce the current requirement of ten years of sponsor deeming and liability, to no more than three years, without problematic language that could make the deeming requirements even more onerous,
Restore eligibility for the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, with no more than five years of sponsor deeming,[3]
Provide that instruction in English as a Second Language (ESL) counts as a direct work activity for purposes of TANF, permitting immigrants to use ESL classes to satisfy their work requirements, and
Provide benefits to immigrant pregnant women and children under Medicaid and the State Childrens Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), without deeming restrictions.
Ultimately, we support complete elimination of the unfair restrictions adopted in 1996, including a problematic definition of unqualified immigrants that excludes many legal as well as undocumented immigrants from needed public assistance. Nevertheless, adoption of the above measures would undo some of the injustice of the 1996 laws.
As President Clinton said, punishing legal immigrants had nothing to do with the goal of reforming welfare. Many Republicans now agree these restrictions went too far. The time to remedy this injustice is now.
Sincerely,
Laura W. Murphy
Director, ACLU Washington National Office
Timothy H. Edgar
ACLU Legislative Counsel
LaShawn Warren
ACLU Legislative Counsel
Cc: Members of the Senate Finance Committee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENDNOTES
[1] Remarks by President Clinton at the Welfare Reform Bill Signing, Aug. 22, 1996.
[2] Robert Pear, White House Seeking to Restore Food Stamp Aid for Noncitizens, N.Y. Times, Jan. 10, 2002. The plan to restore food stamps to immigrants was enacted this year in the Farm Security Act. Restoring food stamps to immigrants received the strong, bipartisan backing of the House, in a 244-171 vote on a motion to instruct conferees. (Roll Call No. 106).
[3] Some have proposed further study of the effects of SSI restrictions on immigrant populations. Further study is not needed. Hardship among immigrant families as a result of the 1996 restrictions, including the restrictions on SSI, is well documented. See Randy Capps, Hardship among Children of Immigrants: Findings from the 1996 National Survey of Americas Families, New Federalism Issue Brief No. B-29 (Urban Institute Feb. 2001), available at http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/anf_b29.pdf.
*all subject matter was copied from The Tribune, 12/02/02
http://www.aclu.org/PoorRights/PoorRights....?ID=10425&c=154 (http://www.aclu.org/PoorRights/PoorRights.cfm?ID=10425&c=154)