Making Citizenship Harder

Every year, 600,000 people apply to become citizens of the United States. To become a citizen, immigrants first have to live here for a number of years (usually five years). Then they must apply for citizenship, demonstrate their ability to speak and read and write English, and pass a test on U.S. government and history. (There are a few exceptions to residence and testing requirements, such as adopted children.)

This year, the federal government is making it harder for immigrants to become citizens. First, it changed the written test to make it more difficult. Now, it proposes to increase the application fee from $330 to $595. (And that's only for the application—fingerprint fees and other charges increase the total cost even more.)

The increase in naturalization (citizenship) application fees is only one of many proposed immigration fee increases. The fee for adjustment of status, to become a permanent legal resident, will go up from $325 to $905. Other fees also increase, by an average of 66 percent.

According to the Migration Policy Institute, a non-partisan think tank, "Naturalization of immigrants in the United States brings significant benefits for the country. First, obtaining citizenship allows immigrants to participate fully in the civic life of the country by permitting them to vote in elections, run for office, and work in many government jobs. Further, naturalization is a powerful symbolic gesture of commitment to the United States. In taking the oath of citizenship, naturalizing immigrants pledge to support the values and laws of the United States and renounce their allegiance to any other country. Naturalizing citizens also commit to serving on a jury if called to do so. Further, in order to naturalize, immigrants must learn a basic level of English and study U.S. history and government. The ability to naturalize provides a strong incentive for immigrants to deepen their integration into the country by improving their English and learning more about their country of residence."

Refugees and new immigrants typically have lower incomes. The fee increases hit them especially hard, as they struggle to learn English, support themselves and their families, and become part of their new country. The Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC) is one of the immigrant advocacy organizations opposing fee hikes. SEARAC warns that, "The increased fees may further prolong the citizenship process for many whose incomes are dependent on their attainment of citizenship such as elders and disabled refugees who receive SSI benefits. The inability to obtain their citizenship after the allotted timeframe will result in the termination of their benefits."

The fee hikes do not have to go through Congress. They are set by administrative regulations. But Congress—and individuals—do have a voice in the administrative process. The fees were proposed February 1, beginning a sixty-day public comment period. Along with SEARAC, the National Immigration Forum is urging people to voice their concerns about the fee increases. To comment on the fee increases, email OSComments@dhs.gov. The e-mail message should refer to the docket number of the regulation—DHS Docket # USCIS-2006-0044. (For more information about the comment process, go to www.regulations.gov.)

Worthington, immigration and the devilish details

One mother was reunited with her baby. One father was released from jail to undergo the testing that might make it possible for him to donate a kidney to his (U.S. citizen) son. But most of the rest of the 230 families whose fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters were arrested in Worthington on December 12 are gone. Many have been shipped out of the country. Most of the rest are still in custody, far from Worthington and far from Minnesota.

On February 14, the Immigration Law Center of Minnesota reported on the heroic work done by attorneys from not only their office but also from the Detention Project (ILCM, Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights, Centro Legal) and the private immigration bar and volunteers. The stories were still heart-wrenching, and showed more clearly than ever the inhumane, broken system that is U.S. immigration law.

The thirteen-year-old girl, left without parents when her mother was shipped to Mexico and her father disappeared. Days later, he was found in detention in Atlanta.

The twelve- and thirteen-year-old U.S. citizen children, the only safe members of their families, who had to look for missing relatives, shop for groceries, seek help.

The parents, trying to get passports for their U.S. citizen children, so they could take their sons and daughters away from the towns where they were born and raised and go to school to return to a "homeland" that offers no opportunity for parents or children.

The convoluted laws benefit predators who target immigrant families. "Within the first days, we heard five stories of people who had paid notary publics $3,000 to do the paperwork for them, in full belief that this would get them legal status," reported Cynthia Anderson. "And, of course, it didn't. People fly in, even from other states and charge people money to do nothing."

Even worse, people's desperate attempts to get jobs and support their families, here and "back home," get them in even deeper difficulty. A 1976 law means that anyone who uses false documents to claim legal immigration is barred from immigrating legally in the future. That means that someone who uses another person's birth certificate to get a job—even with that person's permission—is barred from legal immigration in the future.

For people who try to stay within the law, the news is bad. ILCM director John Keller tells the story:

Take, for example, a married couple. The husband is a U.S. citizen and the wife is undocumented. Even though the law allows him to file a petition for her, the "devil is in the details," as they say. As a lawyer, I must inform them that under our current laws and system, the processing of the paperwork will probably take one and one-half years. Not so bad, they think. Wait, there's more ... I have to tell them that after the first one and one-half years, since she entered the U.S. without a visa, she will have to return to her home country and wait, in a worst case scenario, up to ten years, without being able to legally return to her husband and children. Eleven and one-half years for a U.S. citizen to legally immigrate his wife. This is the legal process we want millions to go through? At this point, the U.S. citizen usually says: 'Well, wait, but we have a child, or two children, born in the United States. Surely, that will help ... the government doesn't expect us to separate the little children from their mother ... does it?' That is a difficult question to have to answer. I tell them that the government lets you choose if your U.S. citizen children will separate from you or from her. They could always go with her.

Let me be clear. The current laws and their interpretations do not promote strong, stable, loving families—in many cases, the laws destroy them. A healthy nation, Minnesota, and our Minnesota communities depend on healthy, stable, strong families and our immigration laws must be reformed to that end.

A resolution introduced in the Minnesota House and Senate this week calls for Comprehensive Immigration Reform to promote family reunification and a path to legalization for hard-working immigrants in the United States, which only the U.S. Congress can pass. Illinois, Georgia and New York have passed similar resolutions.

The Minnesota legislature is considering a Commission on New Americans, which would study and recommend specific initiatives to keep Minnesota a strong and welcoming destination for immigrants, and to learn from success stories in Willmar, Pelican Rapids and Worthington, which have been strengthened by the arrival of new immigrants in their work forces and schools. (And it's a bi-partisan issue—while Democratic Senators Mee Moua and Sandy Pappas have taken the lead on immigration legislation over the years, Republican State Representative Rod Hamilton of Mountain Lake is co-sponsoring the Commission legislation.)

Minnesota Care is not enough

"I don't have insurance right now," my friend admitted. "So I'm being really careful to eat right and exercise, and so far I've been lucky." My friend is pushing 60, so her luck has to hold for a little more than five years. She can't afford thousands of dollars a month to purchase a private health insurance policy and, given her age and health history, would have a really hard time getting coverage. She is one of many Minnesotans who make too much money for Minnesota Care but have no available employment-based health insurance coverage.

Today 383,000 Minnesotans, including 68,000 children remain uninsured. That's no private health care insurance. No Medicare or Medicaid. No Minnesota Care. Nothing.

Minnesotans, though, fare better than the rest of the country. Across the United States, 47 million people live without health care insurance, including 9 million children.

Sunday I listened to State Senator Linda Berglin (DFL) and State Representative Paul Thissen (DFL) and Cal Ludeman, representing the Pawlenty administration, talk about health insurance at a public forum. Their earnest discussion was enough to make your eyes glaze over. Do we want 175% of poverty level or 200% of poverty level? Expanded section 125 pre-tax plans? Q-Care standards? Promotion of portability of health insurance coverage? It was enough to make your eyes glaze over. And nothing they said would help my friend.

"All over the place, people are refusing to take wages or cutting their hours so they can stay in Minnesota Care." Senator Linda Berglin said. Minnesota Care has lots of problems, starting with a 26-page enrollment form that has to be filled out twice a year. Even so, it provides one of the few opportunities for sort-of-affordable health care for thousands of Minnesotans. Her health care legislation would do a lot to improve and expand Minnesota Care, and it should pass. But that is not enough.

We need a national health-care program. We need it now. We need it so badly that even Wal-Mart, AT&T, Intel, Kelly Service and other businesses have formed a coalition with SEIU and the Communication Workers of America to call for national, universal health care coverage.

Insurance companies are the least effective way to finance health care. They are the reason that the United States has the highest per-person health care cost in the world, and still doesn't provide universal health care coverage.

Think about every dollar you spend on healthcare: one-third of it now goes to the insurance companies for their profits, their administration, their advertising, their lobbyists, so if we take that one-third that we’re now spending on spurious -- we don't need them, we don’t need the insurance companies --and that would cover literally everybody who is uncovered in the United States for a lot less money and provide for the kind of system that most countries in the world, most of the advanced countries in the world, enjoy. Marilyn Clement, National Coordinator of Healthcare-NOW!, speaking on Democracy Now, 2/9/07

Publicly-administered health care plans—like Medicare, which covers all people over the age of 65—deliver medical care at a lower cost than private health care insurance.

Publicly-funded, universal health care coverage is the right thing to do. People are suffering, people are dying because they cannot afford health care. The number of uninsured in the United states has risen by nine million since 2000.

Publicly-funded, universal health care coverage is good for business. It would cut employer costs far more than any tax break proposed by the Bush administration and it would help make U.S. business more competitive internationally. Think about it. Employers in countries with universal public health care do not pay any health insurance costs. That automatically lowers their labor costs.

This is not just a healthcare crisis, this is a business crisis. By next year, health benefit costs will exceed profits in the Fortune 500 companies, and if we look at companies like Starbucks, they're spending more on health benefits than coffee beans. It's no longer just a healthcare crisis, it's an economic crisis. Jeanne Lambrew, Senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and an associate professor at George Washington University, speaking on Democracy Now, 1/9/07.

Minnesota can and does do a lot of good work on health care, but it cannot do the whole job. What we need is UNIVERSAL, publicly-funded and administered health care coverage. That can only happen if it happens nationwide.

Family Farms Forever

More than a dozen legislators joined farmers, friends and supporters at a family farm breakfast this morning, feasting on locally-raised food and listening to speakers talk about the legislative support needed to sustain Minnesota's farms and food system for the future. The Land Stewardship Project, now in its 25th year, sponsored the breakfast to promote sustainable farming and advocate for family farmers and local control of food systems.

Family farmers, from beginners to veterans, brought their eggs and bacon, milk and oatmeal to the table, along with familiar messages of protecting clean water, soil conservation, minimizing or eliminating chemical inputs, and caring for the land.

Cheap food prices and overflowing store shelves are hiding the true environmental and social costs of our food and agriculture system—rapid erosion and degradation of soil, the chemical contamination and depletion of our water, the loss of genetic diversity, the poisoning of wildlife and destruction of habitat, the loss of family farmers and impoverishment of rural communities.

The good news is that we now have an alternative. A growing number of farmers are choosing to work with nature, and are adopting farming practices that build up the soil, reduce runoff, create habitat for wildlife, treat livestock humanely and best of all, produce safe, wholesome food. But the most environmentally sound farming practices in the world mean little if they don't provide a good income for the farmer.

[If you want to learn more about buying food from local, sustainable farmers, click here.]

Alternative energy sources were today's big news. "The next generations of ethanol plants are going to be cellulose-based," according to Land Stewardship. "This provides real opportunity for more perennial cropping systems that benefit the environment while producing income from the marketplace."

Increasing markets for ethanol helped push corn prices to four dollars a bushel during the past year, but corn is not the answer for sustainable energy, according to speakers at the breakfast. Switch grass is a better, more efficient energy source than corn, but mixed prairie grasses are even better. Besides, mixed prairie grasses are a perennial crop, less expensive to raise and easier on soil and water resources than corn.

Representative Al Juhnke talked about the "Minnesota model" of cooperative ownership of ethanol plants. Minnesota can continue to provide a national model for sustainable energy, if we support research and development of alternative ethanol sources (such as switch grass and mixed prairie grasses), wind power, and continuing cooperative ownership and local control.