Immigrant Integration Ignored in Reform Debate

June 12, 2013; Forbes

Senators, advocates, and other stakeholders in immigration reform have been dueling over border enforcement, federal benefits and entitlements, the pathway to citizenship, and even gay bi-national couples. The sparring will continue through the House of Representatives soon enough. Howard Husock, vice president for policy research at the Manhattan Institute, correctly points out that missing from the debate has been the integration of millions of undocumented immigrants who will be eligible for legalization should reform pass.

Husock highlights a provision in the Senate Gang of Eight’s bill, which he argues is just as important as more controversial sections. He writes, “The proposed Office of New Americans, designed to encourage what used to be called assimilation (or, in the politically correct parlance of the bill, ‘integration’), will try to use a special commission, public foundation, and some federal assistance to help immigrants ‘join the mainstream of civic life’…there should be broad agreement in any bill that passes that we should seek an increase in the number of immigrants who speak English, and in the number who become citizens.”

Husock realizes that “there’s likely to be dispute about just what that means—and how much should be spent toward the goal,” but he believes that “finding effective ways to realize these goals are far from side issues. Helping to bring the latest—and, in sheer numbers, the largest ever—wave of immigrants into the cultural mainstream will be crucial in defusing what may be lingering anti-immigrant sentiment, even if reform legislation passes.” He contends, however, that government might not be the right agent for the job and that integration is best left to philanthropists and nonprofit organizations.

Indeed, an Urban Institute study of immigrant-serving community-based organizations documents why these nonprofits are best suited to help immigrants integrate into our economic, political, and social mainstream. They are embedded in immigrant communities, are founded and run by immigrants, and know the particular needs of their constituents along with the most effective way of reaching and assisting them.

But will foundations and philanthropists step up to the plate and give adequate funding to immigrant-serving nonprofits that will no doubt be inundated by individuals and families seeking legal and other support services? Adriana Kugler and Patrick Oakford, senior fellow and research assistant respectively, at the Center for American Progress, estimate about 85 percent of 10.6 million undocumented individuals will be eligible for legalization. Community-based organizations are already stretched to the limit as it is. The current version of the Senate bill does include a provision authorizing about $50 million in grants to nonprofits that assist eligible immigrants through the process, but this will most likely be stricken out as the debate continues.

Experts from all sides have made projections about how much immigration reform might cost, even though the details are in flux and passage of legislation is not guaranteed. Nonetheless, we need to factor in how much it would cost immigrant-serving nonprofits, and the philanthropic class had better be ready to loosen their purse strings.

Originally posted on Nonprofit Quarterly’s Newswire.

Fallout Continues Over Boy Scouts Debacle

June 3, 2013; NPR

June is Pride Month for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. Nationwide, members of the community, their friends, families, and allies celebrate hard-won civil rights while calling attention to the fact that there is still a long way to go to full equality and acceptance.

Last Sunday, a couple of weeks after the Boy Scouts of America’s national council approved a resolution lifting the ban on gay scouts, a few scouts marched in Utah’s Pride parade. The youth and adults were in trademark Cub Scout, Boy Scout, and Eagle Scout uniforms, in outright defiance of organizational guidelines prohibiting such visible socio-political advocacy. The Utah group might have been protesting for full inclusion in scouting for youth and adults who happen to be gay.

Many others have decided to break away from the 103-year-old organization and form their own troops. The New York Times reports that parents disgruntled by the decision have formed alternative and independent scouting troops, including “the Royal Rangers, which offers ‘Christ-like character formation’ for boys, as well as SpiralScouts International, founded by the Aquarian Tabernacle Church of Wicca, which awards badges named for pagan holidays.” Some parents are cutting ties because they think national leadership went too far, while others are doing so because the compromise decision did not go far enough.

It remains to be seen how many troops and members the Boy Scouts will lose. Congregations sponsor 70 percent of the organization’s 116,000 troops and packs. The Church of Latter Day Saints and the Roman Catholic Church, among the largest faith groups in the Boy Scouts, have issued statements that they are now okay with young gay scouts, despite initial opposition to the idea. The United Methodist Churches have indicated that they will continue supporting the Boy Scouts. The Southern Baptist Convention, however, is expected to tell its member churches to abandon the Boy Scouts for the Bible-based Royal Ambassadors program.

The dust will eventually settle and people will find out that the sky has not fallen. If the Scouts wish to remain relevant in a society that has become more accepting of LGBT people, they should end the ban on gay adults.

Originally posted on Nonprofit Quarterly Newswire.

Boy Scouts Risk Losing Tax-Exempt Status

John Kropewnicki / Shutterstock.com

May 30, 2013; The San Luis Obispo Tribune

A couple of weeks ago, the Boy Scouts of America’s national council approved a resolution that lifted the organization’s ban on gay youth while keeping in place its ban on gay adult leaders. Some lauded this development as a step in the right direction, while others, including California lawmakers, thought it was not a big enough step. Last Wednesday, California’s Senate voted to end tax breaks for the Boy Scouts and any other youth group that discriminates based on sexual orientation or gender identity. SB 323, dubbed “The Youth Equality Act,” amends the state’s tax code and revokes exemptions on state sales, use and corporate taxes.

“While the Boy Scouts of America took a step in the right direction to include LGBT youth, the standing ban on LGBT adults is premised on absurd assumptions and stereotypes that perpetuate homophobia and ignorance,” said Sen. Ricardo Lara, a co-sponsor of the bill. “Equality doesn’t come with an expiration date and we shouldn’t allow discrimination to be subsidized; not in our state, not on our dime.” He argues that this is “out of line with the values of California” and SB 323 aligns laws with Californian values.

The Boy Scouts has yet to release a comment on the Senate vote, but during preliminary committee hearings, a former president expressed his concern. “You’re talking about taxing revenue that is important, especially to the local scouts,” said Rick Cronk. Some critics questioned the constitutionality of the bill. Supporters countered, however, that churches which charter scout troops would not be affected, while the statute would send an unequivocal message about equality. Faith-based groups sponsor about 70 percent of scout troops nationwide.

The Boy Scouts took a tentative step towards progress, but the compromise position on gays was not enough for many. Polls reveal that a majority of Americans support the organization’s decision to end the ban on gay youth but oppose the continued exclusion of gay adults. A similar bill has been introduced in the New York Senate, and it wouldn’t come as a surprise if other states follow suit. This is clearly an instance when compromise is not politic.

Originally posted on Nonprofit Quarterly Nonprofit Newswire.

New Zealand Nonprofit Loses Status in Culture War

May 6, 2013; TVNZ

The culture war has cost Family First, a New Zealand nonprofit that promotes marriage between one woman and one man, its charitable status. The independent Charities Registration Board has removed the organization from the Charities Register and endangered the nonprofit’s tax-exempt status because it does not meet New Zealand’s definition of a charity.

“At a recent meeting of the board, the members determined that Family First’s purpose did not meet the charitable purpose recognized in New Zealand law and set out in the Charities Act 2005,” said Brandon Ward, General Manager Charities at the Department of Internal Affairs.

According to New Zealand’s Charities Act of 2005, “charitable purpose includes every charitable purpose, whether it relates to the relief of poverty, the advancement of education or religion, or any other matter beneficial to the community.” Ward contends that Family First’s main purpose is “to promote particular points of view about family life” and “under the Act promotion of a controversial point of view is a political purpose.”

Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First, counters that the Charities Registration Board’s decision is a “highly politicized decision which is grim evidence that groups that think differently to the prevailing politically correct view will be targeted in an attempt to shut them up.” McCoskrie and his organization were very vocal in its opposition to New Zealand’s marriage equality bill, which was enacted last month.

Family First is free to advocate for its belief about marriage and families. The nonprofit is also free to believe that its advocacy is good for society. “Family First maintains that it is beneficial to the public that it promotes debate and discussion of different points of view on family life,” Ward conceded. He went on to say, however, that “the current legal position is that promoting debate on particular points of view is not a charitable purpose.”

Ironically, the pro-marriage equality Green Party has come to Family First’s defense. “Advocacy in charities is where we also keep our democracy,” said Green MP Denise Roche. “Not-for-profits and charitable organizations have a real role in advocating for a better society, and if they are unable to do that then we lose a voice.” Roche believes that the current law should be revisited and is working on a bill that would include advocacy under the “charitable” rubric.

The ability of nonprofits to advocate on behalf of their constituents and causes is indeed crucial to any vital democracy. Establishing rules, however, on defining and regulating the participation of charitable organizations in the democratic process is a fraught exercise. Should Family First decide to appeal to the High Court, New Zealand will be forced to reconsider the role of nonprofits beyond providing charity. Many of us will be watching.

Originally posted on Nonprofit Quarterly Nonprofit Newswire.

Asian American Academics Boycott Israeli Universities

The general membership of the Association of Asian American Studies (AAAS) resolved in a recent vote to boycott Israeli academic institutions, making it the first U.S. scholarly organization to do so. The secret ballot, which included 10 percent of the group’s membership, took place during its annual conference in Seattle this month.

The resolution explains that as an “organization dedicated to the preservation and support of academic freedom and of the right to education for students and scholars in the U.S. and globally,” AAAS stood in solidarity with Palestinian students and academics who have faced “restrictions on movement and travel that limit their ability to attend and work at universities, travel to conferences and to study abroad, and thereby obstruct their right to education.”

Moreover, the association claims that “Israeli institutions of higher education have not condemned or taken measures to oppose the occupation and racial discrimination against Palestinians in Israel, but have, rather, been directly and indirectly complicit in the systematic maintenance of the occupation and of policies and practices that discriminate against Palestinian students and scholars throughout Palestine and in Israel.” This complicity in “Israel’s violations of international law and human rights and in its denial of the right to education and academic freedom to Palestinians, in addition to their basic rights as guaranteed by international law” prompted AAAS members to endorse “the call of Palestinian civil society” for a boycott.

Rajini Srikanth, the group’s former president, drew parallels to boycotts against South African universities during apartheid and stressed that AAAS was protesting institutions, not individual academics.

“The reason that we’re very clear that this is a boycott of Israeli institutions and not Israeli scholars is that we are very aware that there are Israeli scholars who understand the difficulties that Palestinian academics and students have and speak up in support of Palestinian rights,” Srikanth told Inside Higher Ed. “So we would absolutely be working with them, and providing them whatever support they need to challenge their institutions.” Nonetheless, she stressed that AAAS discourages partnerships with Israeli academic institutions so as to avoid “becoming complicit with the discriminatory practices of Israeli institutions.”

Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME), a pro-Israel organization, condemned the AAAS action. “SPME deplores the AAAS resolution as it is counter to any acceptable academic discourse and is contrary to the search for peace between Israelis and Palestinians,” the group’s statement read. “Additionally, by focusing exclusively and obsessively on Israel, and not on many other countries in the world where actual human and civil rights abuses exist, the actions of those supporting academic boycotts, as well as calls for divestment, are, according to former Harvard University President Lawrence H. Summers, ‘anti-Semitic in their effect if not in their intent.’”

SPME added that “the world academic community frowns upon academic boycotts which it regards as antithetical to the fundamental principles of academic freedom. Whatever their feelings, academics cannot say they support academic freedom and exchange if they boycott, censor, or otherwise interrupt the exchange of ideas, research and information.”

Will other organizations follow suit, or will AAAS be a voice in the wilderness?

Originally posted on the Nonprofit Quarterly Nonprofit Newswire.

Harvard “Reject” to Establish Asian American University

Thinglass / Shutterstock.com

March 31, 2013; Source: Diverse: Issues in Higher Education

Before long, Asian American students may have an alternative to Harvard and other top colleges. Hun Loo Gong, a self-made tech billionaire and Harvard reject, is reportedly establishing a university in California for students he calls “vengeful rejects” of elite institutions, “students who want to let Harvard and Berkeley and Stanford know the schools made a great, big mistake.”

The online college will be named Vincent Chin University, after the Chinese American who was killed in a racially motivated attack in1982, and headquartered in San Francisco. It will target Asian American immigrants and others locked out of top universities. Gong said that enrollment and tuition will be minimal, and that the school will count on future alumni to “pay [the school] when they make it big.” “We’ll give them what they need to succeed,” Gong says. “We don’t have to give them Shakespeare. We’re very focused.”

Last December, the New York Times had various experts weigh in on a discussion about the place of Asian Americans in elite schools, asking, “Are top colleges deliberately limiting the number of Asian-Americans they admit?” Ron Unz, publisher of the American Conservative, wrote, “[J]ust as their predecessors of the 1920s always denied the existence of ‘Jewish quotas,’ top officials at Harvard, Yale, Princeton and the other Ivy League schools today strongly deny the existence of ‘Asian quotas.’ But there exists powerful statistical evidence to the contrary.”

S.B. Woo, founding president of the 80-20 National Asian American Educational Foundation, wrote, “Top colleges are clearly limiting the number of Asians they admit, and what’s at stake for America is of more importance than just the number of Asians going to Harvard.” Woo, the former lieutenant governor of Delaware, cited the work of Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade, who wrote in his book, No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life, that “to receive equal consideration by elite colleges, Asian Americans must outperform Whites by 140 points, Hispanics by 280 points, Blacks by 450 points in SAT (Total 1600).”

It will be interesting to see how Gong’s alternative university fares. Will Vincent Chin University attract Asian American students who dream of an Ivy League education but are turned away?

Originally posted on Nonprofit Quarterly’s Nonprofit Newswire.

18 Million Hearts: Asian Americans Flex Muscle on Immigration

February 28, 2013; Source: Asian Week

Many people see and hear Latino faces and voices whenever immigration is discussed, but the Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) community is mobilizing to make sure their countenances and voices are added to the discourse. Last week, the Asian American Center for Advancing Justice, a consortium of legal and civil rights groups, and 18 Million Rising, a civic engagement organization, launched the “18 Million Hearts: Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders for Immigration Reform” campaign. There are approximately 18 million Americans of Asian descent, or close to six percent of the total U.S. population. The campaign urges AAPIs to push members of Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

“The time has come for us to mobilize and let other Americans know how the broken immigration system is separating and hurting Asian American and Pacific Islander families and communities,” said Betty Hung, policy director of the Asian Pacific American Legal Center. “Any reform of the immigration laws must fully incorporate our shared American values of family unity, fairness, and equality.”

Unauthorized immigration and family reunification are key immigration issues for the AAPI community. About 11 percent of undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. are from Asia, according to a 2012 Department of Homeland Security report. These are often parents, children, and/or neighbors of native-born, naturalized, and legal resident Asian Americans. Nearly two-thirds of Asian Americans are foreign born, but immigration backlogs can keep families apart for years or even decades. According to a Department of State Citizenship and Immigration Services report, four our of the top five countries with the longest wait times for relatives of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents are in   Asia: the Philippines, India, Vietnam, and China.

The leaders of the 18 Million Hearts initiative are empowered by their community’s growing number and clout. AAPIs are the fastest growing community of color in the U.S. and were reportedly key to President Barack Obama’s re-election. “Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders are growing in strength, in number and in political power and with this campaign, we plan to flex our political muscles,” said C. M. Samala, director of   18MillionRising.org. “The 18 Million Hearts campaign will highlight our stories as   immigrants and as descendants of immigrants to build America’s future together,” added Chris Punongbayan, deputy director of the Asian Law Caucus. “Asian American   immigrants are an integral part of America – we are workers, neighbors, and small business owners who revitalize communities and contribute to the economy.”

Originally posted on Nonprofit Quarterly Nonprofit Newswire.

Sequestration and Risk to Nonprofits

In a few days, sequestration hits unless Congress and the White House agree on an alternative to $85 billion in automatic spending cuts. Thousands of human service organizations would be affected, along with the communities, families, and individuals that depend heavily on nonprofit programs and services.

An Urban Institute national survey of human service organizations determined that in 2009, over 30,000 nonprofits had about 200,000 contracts and grants from federal, state, and local governments amounting to $100 billion. Government funding accounted for over 65 percent of the total revenue of organizations surveyed. Sixty percent of nonprofits said government contracts and grants were their largest funding source.

Among nonprofits that consider government contracts and grants as their largest source of revenue, 4 in 10 medium to large organizations (those with budgets over $250,000 a year), and 3 in 10 small nonprofits reported the federal government as their largest funder. Four in 10 of all human service organizations also said state governments, which act as conduits for federal monies, were their largest revenue source.

Sequestration would damage human service organizations that contract with the government. A report from the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies warns that automatic cuts on nondefense programs “would have destructive impacts on the whole array of federal activities that promote and protect the middle class in this country—everything from education to job training, medical research, child care, worker safety, food safety, national parks, border security, and safe air travel.”

Head Start, for instance, which provides grants for early childhood services for low-income families, stands to lose close to $622 million, which would result in 96,179 fewer children served. The Community Services Block Grant, which funds 1,100 community action agencies that offer crucial services to low-income families and individuals, is slated to lose over $677 million, which could lead to 1.5 million fewer individuals assisted.

During the Great Recession, human services organizations’ revenue from all sources, including governments, fell. In 2009, nonprofits resorted to various cutbacks including freezing or reducing employee salaries, drawing on reserves, and laying off employees. Some took drastic steps such as cutting back on programs and services and serving fewer people.

Should sequestration be allowed to take effect, human service nonprofits would lose billions of dollars in government funding and might have to make difficult choices, such as laying off much-needed staff, or worse, ending programs and serving far fewer clients. Ultimately, individuals and families who are just starting to recover from the economic downturn would suffer.

Originally posted on Urban Institute’s MetroTrends Blog and the Huffington Post.

Advocacy Groups Respond to Senate Immigration Reform Framework

Photo: Gary Cameron/Reuters

A bipartisan group of U.S. senators released a framework for comprehensive immigration reform yesterday. The “gang of eight,” which includes Senators Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), rests the framework on four pillars. Those pillars are a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, incentives for the world’s best and the brightest, strong employment verification systems, and a program for low-skill workers.

The final form of any immigration reform legislation, if passed after negotiations in Congress, is far from certain. A handful of lawmakers remain stridently opposed to legalizing the status of unauthorized immigrants and others prefer a piecemeal approach. President Barack Obama is scheduled to unveil his own vision for comprehensive immigration reform today.

Immigrant advocacy groups have nonetheless released statements on the Senate framework, knowing full well that they need their voices to be heard early in the game.

“Today’s announcement is a giant step forward for immigrant communities, and we welcome it with an open mind and look forward to working with our Senate leaders,” said Mee Moua, president and executive director of the Asian American Justice Center, a member of the Asian American Center for Advancing Justice. “While these are just principles and the devil is in the details, we are encouraged to see that both sides understand the importance of reforming our family-based immigration system, which will strengthen our economy, increase diversity and remove the bureaucratic barriers that force families to live apart for years.”

Fair Immigration Reform Movement (FIRM), a network of community-based immigrant advocacy organizations in 30 states, released a statement saying they “are particularly encouraged” by the framework since “some Senate Republicans have embraced the concept of a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants in the principle announced today.” FIRM members are concerned, however, that “trigger mechanisms that condition movement on a path to permanent residency on yet more enforcement in the proposed outline appear to be more tough than fair.” A FIRM press release goes on to state, “Immense investments in border security have already been made, and net new undocumented migration has dropped to essentially zero so there is no need for a trigger mechanism. We are also disappointed by the exclusion of the Uniting American Families Act to ensure fair treatment of LGBT families from the bill.”

Immigration Equality, a group that works on behalf of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) immigrants, shared this disappointment. They protest the fact that the framework does not include explicit mention of LGBT binational families nor outlines a solution for keeping these families together. They point out that just a few months ago, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus had the protection of LGBT families as a top priority for immigration reform.

Nonprofits that advocate for immigrants will continue to lend their voice and lead in this rebooted effort at overhauling our decrepit and unworkable immigration system. They will do so until their constituents become full members of our society.

Also posted on Nonprofit Quarterly Nonprofit Newswire.

Immigration Think Tanks Squabble Over the Facts

Patrick Poendl / Shutterstock.com

January 8, 2013; Source: Slate

The Migration Policy Institute (MPI) recently released a report on immigration enforcement that not only caught the attention of major media outlets but also elicited protests from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), another research institution focused on immigration. The report’s most important take-away, according to the MPI authors, is the finding that “the U.S. government spends more on its immigration enforcement agencies than on all its other principal criminal federal law enforcement agencies combined.”

In FY 2012, U.S. government spending on Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the latter’s primary technology initiative, and the Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) reached nearly $18 billion. That is, U.S. spending on immigration issues exceeded, by about 24 percent, the total spending for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Secret Service, the U.S. Marshals Service, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).

MPI challenges what it perceives as the obsession that hawks in Congress have with immigration enforcement. The authors argue that “the question is no longer whether the government is willing and able to enforce the nation’s immigration laws. The report argues that the government has more than proven its concern with immigration enforcement, as evidenced by the record-setting four million deportations during President Obama’s first term. Moreover, Pew Research documents that net migration from Mexico has fallen to zero, or possibly even less (i.e., a potential reverse flow to Mexico). Thus, MPI experts reason that the proper question is “how enforcement resources and mandates can be best mobilized to control illegal immigration and ensure the integrity of the nation’s immigration laws and traditions.”

Fox News Latino reports that CIS labeled MPI’s work as “bogus” and an “attempt to help sell the president’s immigration agenda.” CIS accuses MPI of misleading readers with “grossly” inflated numbers. “I couldn’t help but think they were being deliberatively manipulative,” said Jessica Vaughn, director of policy studies at CIS. “Frankly, it took just a few hours to see that they were way off on the budget.”

“A large amount of that spending has nothing to do with immigrants,” Mark Krikorian, CIS executive director, told the New York Times. Doris Meissner, an author of the MPI report and former commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in the Clinton administration defended the integrity of the research. “This particular report offers no policy recommendations,” Meissner told Fox. “We have not suggested any reductions in funding anywhere. This is a report we would have issued regardless of who was president.” She also added, “[I]f you look at CIS’s research, I don’t think you see the same kind of rigor.”

Those who are serious about understanding immigration (and other issues, for that matter) need to be discerning about information released by think tanks. They have to ferret out any underlying agendas. While many research institutions remain nonpartisan and present evidenced-based data to inform policy discourse, there are those that act more like advocacy tanks than think tanks (in fact, the NPQ Newswire recently noted a potential move in this direction by the Heritage Foundation). These institutes sometimes frame issues or pick information to advance their causes and politics rather than laying out full and fair assessments of issues. As for the dispute between MPI and CIS, we suggest that you visit their respective websites and peruse their materials. It’s all rather apparent.