Immigration Divides Nation, Unites Social Workers
By Darnell Morris-Compton
Social Work Today
Vol. 6 No. 5 P. 38

Solidarity among social workers on immigration issues strongly supports undocumented clients.

Congressional debates on immigration provoked nonprofit agencies, social activists, and the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) to galvanize their cause of promoting policy that treats the nearly 12 million undocumented residents in the United States with dignity and compassion. Although current bills in Congress may undermine social workers’ efforts to create pathways to citizenship, reunite families, and even work with undocumented residents, social workers are influencing policy to promote comprehensive reform that addresses concerns raised by immigrants, frontline case workers, and advocates.

The House of Representatives supported H.R. 4437—the Border Protection Anti-Terrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005—calling for border enforcement, a guest worker program, nonimmigrant status for undocumented workers, strict limits for family reunification, barriers to naturalization and permanent resident status, and criminalization of those providing services to undocumented immigrants, including social workers. Instead of approving the bill, the U.S. Senate proposed the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (S. 2611) which calls for increased southern border security, a pathway to citizenship with some restrictions, a “blue card” guest worker program, an increase in the number of work visas, and access for immigrants with a U.S. work history to collect Social Security benefits. Many advocates say the two bills are stalled until a compromise is reached. Lawmakers held public hearings across the country this summer to discuss immigration further.

President George W. Bush has urged Congress to pass laws that make the porous southern border a priority. In a televised address to the nation from the Oval Office in May, Bush said he favors the National Guard patrols and improved technology to keep undocumented residents out of America. Bush also supports a temporary guest worker program, legal pathway to citizenship, and making English the official language.

Implications of these debates have seeped into the minds of residents, non-profit agencies, grass roots organizations, and university discourse. On April 10, the nation witnessed the “National Day of Action for Immigration Justice” with a multicity march against H.R. 4437. Case managers around the country help illegal residents find housing, assist nurses, support school teachers, and collaborate with police officers. Agencies and immigrants themselves have rallied against the House bill. Advocates have lobbied lawmakers. Professors have explored this topic through academic discourse. Diverse in their approach, social workers are unified in their cause.

Working With a Broken System
The system is broken. That’s what social workers are saying in Hazleton, PA, according to Regan Cooper, MSW, executive director of the Pennsylvania Immigration and Citizenship Coalition since 2002. “You’ll be trying to work with a family, and you might have a mixed status situation,” she says. “You might try to get food stamps for a child, but they are very reluctant to file any form with the government. There are major issues with mixed status families getting benefits that they are eligible for. That’s a huge frustration.”

Undocumented residents have even more reason to fear signing any document in Hazleton. The city passed its Illegal Immigration Relief Act Ordinance in mid-July that fines landlords $1,000 for housing undocumented residents. Business licenses for those who employ illegal immigrants will be revoked in this approximately 23,000-member town located 80 miles northwest of Philadelphia. There will even be people hired to check documentation status, she says. “Let me tell you, it is not easy to figure out sometimes,” Cooper says. “You could have a signature from a judge or a passport. You’re not necessarily going to have a green card.” This ordinance came after a recent crime involving undocumented residents, she says, but this pressure has been building for a while with city officials citing overburdened institutions such as hospitals and schools.

“You have a community that’s already reluctant to come forward, already underserved, adding a language barrier, adding a sense that people can’t even get services, and it makes it very, very difficult to do good social work,” says Cooper. “They are victims, yet they are very afraid to interact with law enforcement.”

Cooper indicates that several agencies, including the American Civil Liberties Union, are looking into this ordinance and its legal basis. “They drafted it very carefully,” she says. “The spirit of it contradicts federal law, but the technicality might pass. A lot of that will depend on the political climate.”

Even among the documented residential community in Austin, TX, a hint of fear looms, according to Laurie Cook Heffron, LMSW, with Green Leaf Refugee Services. “On the surface, it really doesn’t affect refugees at all because they have documents, but under the surface, it does,” she says. “There’s a general fear because they don’t understand the general discussion. I don’t understand the general discussion. I guess the second part is the awareness that there’s a great potential to overlap and unintentionally harm refugees.”

Documented or not, policies such as these instill a fear of service use, which doesn’t deter crime, says Cooper. “There’s a real vulnerability to sexual harassment on the job, being underpaid, or not being paid overtime,” she says. “There’s vulnerability to all sorts of attacks to the community.” That includes crime. Undocumented residents become easy prey when criminals know their victims fear reporting crimes to law enforcement. Not only does this law not solve their problems, the Hazleton community does not have the capacity to solve a problem of this magnitude, says Cooper. “State legislators all across the country are trying to deal with a failure of immigration policy. A lot of this comes down to the federal government. What is Congress going to do? The federal government has said immigration is [its] area, but [it] is not dealing with immigration responsibly. [It’s] made a number of symbolic acts but [it] is not really dealing with the problem.”

Advancing Advocacy
The NASW has more than 152,000 members, many of them assisting undocumented residents. It is imperative that social workers speak up, says Elvira Craig de Silva, DSW, ACSW, president of NASW. “We are the greatest providers of mental health services,” she says. “We should be influencing this policy.

“One of the things I will always say about social workers is that we have to be at the decision-making table,” adds Craig de Silva, referring to H.R. 4437. “This bill can restrict the help that we provide people. This bill would even make social workers felons if we are helping people that are undocumented. That was part of the rally in which we participated.”

Lawrence Moore, III, lobbyist and senior government relations associate for NASW, says elected officials will either run away from this discussion or grapple with it during this election year. Several lobbyists and advocates question whether the debate itself is simply a red herring. Whether it is a smoke screen or a legitimate debate, Moore is taking no chances. Meeting with legislators and members from a coalition of other agencies wedded to this issue, he’s determined to influence the bill.

“The Senate’s version still has provisions that are unacceptable,” says Moore, citing barriers to legal citizenship that include fines exceeding $4,000 and a naturalization test for English. “It precludes people of diversity.”

Moore’s talking points include comprehensive immigration reforms that protect basic civil rights and civil liberties; due process with rights to appeal; enforcement to prevent human trafficking and abuse; access to public education; reunification of family; pathways to legal citizenship and work; elimination of anti-immigrant discrimination; and immunity from deportation for substantiated reports of severe employment abuses against immigrants. While Moore talks with lawmakers, NASW staffers Ikeita Cantú Hinojosa, JD, MSW, and Dina Zarella communicate with NASW members and prepare for grass roots organizing. Cantú Hinojosa calls this the next civil rights movement.

“As social workers, I just think it’s really important that we are natural advocates,” she says. “The same skills that can be applied to our clients can be actuated toward our legislators. This is a real opportunity for us to take a visible active stance on a very hot button issue. Many social workers have clients who are immigrants or are immigrants themselves.”

To help gain leverage, NASW has a political action committee (PAC) for candidate elections. “It’s very unique as PACs go,” Cantú Hinjosa says of PACE (Political Action for Candidate Election). “It’s funded by social workers. We’re able, through the PAC, to support pro-social work candidates. Once we get them elected, we have an agenda. Given the fact that this is 2006 and an election year, issues such as immigration will be something that we will be watching.”

Zarella, senior field organizer, keeps the 56 chapters informed and involved. She says 394 e-mails have been sent to members of Congress from NASW members since the House bill was introduced. Craig de Silva wants to keep the immigration debate on the forefront of the NASW’s agenda. “I need to be supportive of our position and push for a comprehensive deal that ensures reforms and protects the rights of the people,” she says, adding that the approach should be compassionate, dignified, and adhere to social work values.

Academic Insights
“At every state from the founding of the colonies to present, there have been laws passed claiming that there are too many foreigners coming in. So at this point, in 2006, there’s a perception that we are being overrun with Hispanic people,” says Fernando Chang-Muy, the Thomas A. O’Boyle Lecturer in Law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. Chang-Muy also teaches social welfare and the law at the Graduate School of Social Policy and Practice. Chang-Muy lectures to his graduate students about the framework of immigration law, including its inclusiveness and exclusiveness, and then operationalizes the theories and models by going to jail. “I take students to jail, and they interview asylum seekers who are at risk of persecution,” he says. He works with this vulnerable caseload pro bono, giving his students real casework. “They’ll know the theory, the practice; they know what an asylum seeker looks like.”

Humberto Reynoso-Vallejo, MSW, MA, PhD, is the coordinator of the racism sequence and assistant professor of human behavior and social welfare policy at Boston University’s School of Social Work. He claims not to be an expert on the immigration debate but says it is important to examine how the debate is shaped by the social construction of race. “An undocumented resident from England is not the same as an undocumented resident from Guatemala or India or Bangladesh,” says Reynoso. “So what you see behind this is a white supremacist ideology in which whites are kind of deciding who is in and who is out.”

Reynoso’s background on worker exploitation gives him an understanding of the guest worker programs, another element of the debate he likens to indentured servitude. “It’s colonized labor. It’s legalizing the exploitation of vulnerable populations that are moving across borders. This is an arrangement that lobbyists and politicians and corporations are enjoying. Instead of hiring people under the table, they can use the guest worker program legally,” says Reynoso.

Is it an economic issue? Is it an anti-immigrant sentiment? In what way can social workers provide appropriate services to undocumented immigrants? These are all questions asked by Julian Chun-Chung Chow, PhD, associate professor at the University of California, Berkeley’s School of Social Welfare. “What’s the political agenda? What happens to the overall well-being of the individual? What are the social costs of not receiving this population?” One thing is certain, Chow says: “We need to address the children and the family.”

In addition to the laws and implications, social workers must look at the context of the immigration debate, says Gary Bailey, MSW, assistant professor and coordinator of the racism and oppression sequence at Simmons College School of Social Work. “We have to be careful that the policies passed are not discriminating or disrupting families or have those effects as byproducts.”

What You Can Do
Getting involved can be as simple as sending a prewritten e-mail or letter. You can log on to the NASW’s Web site at www.socialworkers.org/advocacy/grassroots/congressweb.asp. From there, you can either download and print the letter supporting comprehensive immigration reform or send the document in an e-mail, says Allison Nadelhaft, NASW senior communication associate. Cantú Hinojosa also suggests donating to PACE, which you can find at www.socialworkers.org/pace/default.asp.

Volunteering for an agency that supports undocumented residents can help you learn more about the issues faced by undocumented residents and their case managers. Bailey, who is also vice president of the North American Chapter of the International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW), encourages social workers to consider international social work as a way to make a difference. Since many immigrants flee their country because of instability and lack of opportunity, it is vital for social workers abroad to create social welfare policy and structures in other countries. “There’s a huge need for people who come with a policy background,” he says. “A lot of work is being done in Eastern Europe. There’s a lot to be done there, but there’s a lot to be done at home. They can join the IFSW, they can stay abreast, they can vote; they can elect people that represent their values, in terms of trying to create a world that they are a part of.”

— Darnell Morris-Compton is a graduate student at the University of Maryland, Baltimore’s School of Social Work. An Indiana native, he has been a journalist, a Peace Corps volunteer, and has worked and volunteered in several social service agencies.

Acts of Immigration
This abbreviated history of immigration laws in America offers context to past and present policies:

• 1868: 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, section 1 states that everyone born or naturalized in the United States and territories subject to U.S. control are citizens.

• 1875: The U.S. Supreme Court made immigration law a federal responsibility.

• 1882: The United States passed the Chinese Exclusion Act.

• 1882: The Immigration Act taxed each immigrant and prevented “convicts (except those convicted of political offenses), lunatics, idiots, and persons likely to become a public charge” from becoming citizens.

• 1885 and 1887: Alien Contract Labor Laws prevented specific laborers from immigrating to the United States.

• 1891: The Immigration Act barred polygamists, those convicted of “moral turpitude” crimes, and those suffering from “loathsome or contagious diseases.”

• 1906: The Basic Naturalization Act created rules for naturalization.

• 1907: The Chinese Exclusion Act expanded to include Japan and other Asian countries.

• 1921 and 1924: The Immigration Acts assigned each nationality a quota based on its representation from previous U.S. census figures. This passage also started the U.S. Border Patrol, which began enforcing deportation.

• 1924: Congress enacted a national origins quota system favoring western Europe.

• 1938: Although not a law, President Franklin D. Roosevelt initiated the Evian Conference in France with other countries to discuss Jewish refugees fleeing internment from Nazi Germany. Most participating countries decided not to accept refugees fleeing Germany, including the United States (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum).

• 1945: The War Brides Act granted spouses and families of returning American soldiers admittance.

• 1948: The Displaced Persons Act allowed refugees who were displaced because of war to come to America.

• 1950: The Internal Security Act prevented any foreigner who is a communist or someone who would jeopardize the safety and welfare of the United States from coming into the country.

• 1952: The Immigration and Nationality Act imported seasonal labor from Mexico.

• 1954: Thousands of illegal aliens were forced to deport to Mexico; titled Operation Wetback.

• 1965: Immigration and Nationality Services Act amendments created new priorities for admitting immigrants. Permanent residents and skilled workers who were needed received first choice, instead of admittance based on race and national origin.

• 1975: During Vietnam War, the United States resettled refugees from Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Cuba, and Jewish refugees from the Soviet Union.

• 1986: The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 placed employer sanctions for hiring undocumented residents, while offering a pathway for paperwork for millions of immigrants.

• 1990: The Immigration Act increased the total number of immigrants to 675,000 per year with a flexible cap.

• 1996: The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act denied mean-tested social welfare benefits to undocumented residents.

• 1996: The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act redefined deportation measures that disconnected families and societies. Domestic violence, child abuse, and child neglect became deportable offenses.

• 2001: The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, known as the Patriot Act, included several provisions related to immigration, including electronic surveillance (Matthews, 2002).

— DMC

Resources
Matthews, L. (2002). Coping in the aftermath of the World Trade Center Tragedy: An immigrant perspective. Journal of Immigrant and Refugee Services, 1, 101-108.

Smith, M. L. (1998). Overview of INS History. Retrieved July 26, 2006, from http://uscis.gov/graphics/aboutus/history/articles/oview.htm

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Holocaust Encyclopedia, Washington, DC. Retrieved July 26, 2006, from http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en