The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights

Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric Escalates

By Antoine Morris

With the economy in free fall, health care dominating the congressional calendar, and other competing priorities, the daunting task of overhauling the nation’s immigration system remained on hold for yet another year. In the absence of reform, anti-immigrant sentiment continued to surge, suffusing the airwaves and complicating the passage of other pieces of other legislation seemingly unrelated to immigration.

Hate Crimes and Immigration
As civil rights groups made a strong push this year to enact a critical hate crimes bill that would remove unnecessary obstacles to federal prosecution, many called attention to the correlation between anti-immigrant sentiment stoked by an increasingly heated debate over reform and a marked increase in hate violence against Hispanics.

In March 2009, the Southern Poverty Law Center released a report documenting an increase in the number of hate groups nationwide between 2007 and 2008, due in part to “fears of Latino immigration.”

A few months later, The Leadership Conference Education Fund released a report (“Confronting the New Faces of Hate: Hate Crimes in America 2009”) that analyzed trends in federal hate crimes data. The report documented a four-year increase in hate violence against Latinos that correlated with the latest national debate over immigration reform fueled in part by an escalation in antiimmigrant vitriol on radio, television, and the Internet from high-profile national media personalities, including Talk Show Network’s Michael Savage and Lou Dobbs, formerly of CNN.

The Office of Intelligence and Analysis at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security was pointed in its assessment of the situation, stating that “in some cases, anti-immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed against specific groups and has the potential to turn violent.”

Immigration and Health Care
Anti-immigrant sentiment has also distorted the health care debate. In a joint address to Congress on September 9, President Obama sought to blunt criticism from the opponents of health care legislation by stating, “There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false – the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”

Conservatives pressured lawmakers to call for additional proof of citizenship requirements in health care reform bills moving through various congressional committees, even though the bills already contained explicit language barring the estimated seven million undocumented immigrants from accessing government-funded care. In the Senate Finance Committee, several senators introduced problematic amendments, including provisions that relied on error prone biometric technology to verify citizenship and the reinstatement of a five-year Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program waiting period for legal immigrant children and pregnant women, which had been repealed with the reauthorization of CHIP in February. All of these amendments were excluded from the final committee bill.

The House of Representatives did not adopt an amendment to bar undocumented immigrants from purchasing health insurance with their own money, but there is a provision in the House bill that denies immigrants access to certain subsidies provided in the legislation.

Health care reform advocates say barring immigrants, including the undocumented, could have substantial costs for taxpayers, since discouraging patients from regular doctor visits could lead to more expensive emergency room visits. Also, as vividly illustrated by the threat of the H1N1 virus, excluding the undocumented – or anyone else – from health care coverage is a threat to the public health that could increase the spread of epidemic. Immigration and the Census

However, no immigration-related controversy garnered as much attention as an amendment to the Commerce Justice and Science (CJS) FY10 Appropriations bill proposed by Republican Senators David Vitter of Louisiana and Bob Bennett of Utah. The amendment would have required the 2010 census form to add a question asking respondents about their citizenship and immigration status in order to exclude noncitizens from the count used to reapportion congressional districts.

In addition to determining representation in local, state and federal lawmaking bodies, census data are used to allocate billions of dollars in funding for schools, housing, health care, job training, economic development and enforcing landmark civil rights laws such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and other civil and human rights groups warned Congress in a letter that the amendment would “deter many residents from responding, and result in an inaccurate census count.” With millions of questionnaires already printed out, “the Vitter amendment would waste the $7 billion in research, planning, and preparation that has occurred for Census 2010,” the groups said.

A bipartisan group of eight former Census Bureau directors echoed these concerns in their own letter to Congress, saying: “We can say unequivocally that adding an untested question at this late point in the decennial process would put the accuracy of the enumeration in all communities at risk and would likely delay the start of the census and all subsequent activities, such as reapportionment.”

More importantly, civil rights advocates said that by selectively counting the number of people who live in the United States, the Vitter amendment violates the Constitution’s 14th Amendment (repudiating the threefifths compromise of 1789), which mandates a full count of “every person” in the country.

Ultimately, a procedural vote cut off debate on the amendment, keeping it from being included in the final version of the spending bill.

Status of Immigration Reform Legislation
In the meantime, legislative action on immigration reform itself in the 111th Congress got off to a slow start in 2009. As we went to press, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D. N.Y., and Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D. Ill., are working on bills to enact a comprehensive solution to the nation’s broken immigration system. Judging by information on their respective websites, Sen. Schumer’s bill will likely focus on enforcement efforts whereas Rep. Gutierrez’ will emphasize worker protections and integration of immigrants into the American society. Both bills are expected to include provisions that would at least afford undocumented immigrants an opportunity to legalize their status, if not a pathway to citizenship.

Still, it is unclear when the debate over immigration reform will resume and whether Congress will pursue a piecemeal approach without addressing larger questions about providing civil rights protections and enforcement. In a November 13 2009 speech at the Center for American Progress, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano articulated the goals of the Obama administration in a reform bill: “Let me be clear: when I talk about 'immigration reform,' I’m referring to what I call the 'three-legged stool' that includes a commitment to serious and effective enforcement, improved legal flows for families and workers, and a firm but fair way to deal with those who are already here,” Napolitano added, “That’s the way that this problem has to be solved, because we need all three aspects to build a successful system.” The secretary said she expected Congressional action on the issue in 2010.

For its part, The Leadership Conference continues to support reversing much of the harsh enforcement polices of the Bush era. The Leadership Conference also supports the passage of the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act (DREAM Act), which would give legal status to high-achieving young undocumented immigrants if they attend college or join the military, and the Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits and Security Act (AgJOBS), which would dramatically improve agricultural and guestworker programs – and provide a pathway to citizenship.

Antoine Morris is a policy associate and researcher for The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and The Leadership Conference Education Fund. Jennifer Ng'andu, deputy director of the National Council of La Raza’s Health Policy Project, also contributed valuable assistance for this article.