|
GOVERNOR Carcieri’s recent statements on talk radio criticizing the use of interpreters for those seeking state benefits wasn’t an exhaustive analysis, but begins a reasonable dialogue about aligning policy in “Lil’ Rhody” with current law and sentiment. If he did commit any faux pas, it was in failing to propose eliminating the benefits themselves. The interpreters are only the tip of the iceberg.
Of course, the usual suspects (ACLU, Poverty Institute, etc. — 22 all told) took no time at all to fire back at the governor for “encourag[ing] further discrimination and poisoning of the public debate on the legitimate issues surrounding the presence of immigrants in Rhode Island.”
This knee-jerk criticism of the governor suggests that these critics are unwilling to answer the legitimate question of why the state would provide interpreters for those who came to this country “to work” yet are now seeking benefits from the taxpayer. Instead, they try to confuse the public by equating the provision of interpreters for those being tried in the criminal justice system with those seeking a welfare check — as if these two widely different circumstances say the same thing about American attitudes toward foreigners.
But the topic at hand is interpreters for those seeking benefits — benefits that should be “safe, legal and rare.” This transliterating of President Clinton’s famous comment on abortion is not a proposal of Ocean State Policy or the Heritage Foundation; it is a bipartisan decree — enforced by the welfare-reform legislation signed by Clinton in 1996 and reinforced in 2006.
Those who immigrate, legally or illegally, should be responding to economic incentives, not statist support mechanisms. Ocean State Policy Research Institute (OSPRI) believes in broad-based immigration opportunities for those who come to America to work, buttressed by enforceable (and enforced) assimilation and sponsorship through family, community or employer that ensures they will not become wards of the state. Similarly, we need to continue removing misguided, if well-meant, initiatives that persist in promoting idleness among our native labor pool despite welfare reform.
While there remain very real issues of ancillary costs, such as educating immigrant children, we think these are economically and culturally addressable if the preconditions of self-reliance and evidence of assimilative intent are met. One could argue that America was more competent integrating immigration prior to the introduction of tax-funded assimilation support than it is today.
This doesn’t put OSPRI on the vanguard of some mean-spirited policy campaign as implied by the gang of 22; it is the law of the land. Immigration law clearly states that “any alien who is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.” The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 coordinates social-benefits policy with this principle: “[A]liens within the Nation’s borders [are] not [to] depend on public resources to meet their needs, but rather rely on their own capabilities and the resources of their families, their sponsors, and private organizations.”
These laws aren’t the realization of an isolationist or xenophobic America but have their legacy in the economic insights of Milton Friedman, who famously opined, “It’s just obvious that you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state.” Current law ought to unite those who champion personal responsibility with those concerned about opportunities for immigrants.
When immigrants come to America, law requires an affidavit of support executed as a legal contract by a sponsor who agrees to provide assimilation assistance, financial support, and even financial liability if fraud against the state is committed. Federal law — in light of this sponsorship approach — bars legal immigrants from benefits during their first five years in the country. Rhode Island law equivocates, appearing to grant eligibility to legal aliens but failing to provide state funding for the purpose.
Thus, perhaps we do need interpreters to explain to aliens that they are not eligible for federal assistance and that the state has never funded their benefits. Rhode Island General Law § 40-5.1-8 (iv), leading to Sec. 402 (b) (2), then to Sec 431 (b) (1), does provide a doorway to benefits that circumvents the federal requirement of a five-year assimilation period, but the only way these benefits could be legally distributed is if the benefits are devoid of federal reimbursement. Luckily, none of our welfare programs meet that criterion.
The central principle of welfare reform was to use time-limited assistance as a motivation for recipients to gain skills and stabilize family responsibilities so as to enter the work force. But our statutory and cultural expectations are that immigrants come to this country ready to work, with integration facilitated by their sponsors. Thus a plan for work skills and family stability are a prerequisite to their admission. It is logically inconsistent with the reformed approach to think that immigrants should arrive and get five years of government benefits, or more, to get on their feet.
Clearly, the governor understands that providing interpreters weakens the institution of sponsorship and deters linguistic assimilation, even as benefit programs undermine economic assimilation. As long as Rhode Island law remains ambiguous on the subject and there can even be a basis for resident-alien benefit applications, to suggest that these immigrants and their voluntary support community cannot navigate a welfare application is more an example of bureaucratic complexity than of institutional bigotry.
But do you really believe applying for benefits is that complex? Somehow, this complexity falls just short of inquiring into whether the recipient drives a Porsche SUV (“Police halt cocaine scheme,” news, July 12). Why? Because the Rhode Island Department of Human Services code of rules prescribes a “declaration method” of social-service application that requires no verification of information other than from the applicant.
But we digress.
What does it mean to assimilate into our culture, and who should finance that process? The answer to the first question provides the answer to the second. It is the culture of this country to encourage self-reliance and trust not in government assistance but in oneself and one’s fellow man. Assimilation is not simply a linguistic concept but a willingness to embrace both the economic and social culture of America.
Respect for the many cultures that contributed to the melting pot should be the legacy of immigration, not some kind of front-loaded expectation. The idea of conforming American society to immigrants, rather than vice versa, is a perverse incentive that puts the cart of multiculturalism before the horse of assimilation.
Advancing principles that help to ensure that immigration is limited to those who will seize American opportunity and not American largess is nothing to be ashamed of, for the governor or anyone else.
William Felkner is the president of Ocean State Policy Research Institute ( www.oceanstatepolicy.org).
|
