ThinkProgress Logo

Immigration

Justice

Arizona Considers Banning Non-English Government Mailings

The Arizona House is planning to take up an “English only” bill that would ban state agencies from mailing out information in any language other than English. HB 2283, cleared on Tuesday by the House Government Committee, purports to save money by only allowing non-English translations to be posted online.

Though voting materials are exempted, banning non-English mailings would essentially cut off Arizona’s substantial Spanish-speaking population from government services — particularly any Spanish speakers who receive any kind of service from the government, including Medicaid and Social Security. As of 2010, Arizona has the 8th largest population of limited English speakers, who comprise 9.9 percent of all Arizona residents. Rather than promote English language education, Arizona excluded these residents by making English the official state language in 2006.

This new bill’s sponsor, Rep. Steve Smith (R-AZ), has pushed several other radical anti-immigrant measures, most recently a bill requiring hospitals to check and report the immigration status of their patients. While he claims HB 2283 saves money by only printing documents in English, others anticipate costly lawsuits like the ones sparked by the state’s last attempt at English only legislation. In 1988, Arizona passed a constitutional amendment to require all official government business be conducted in English. The Supreme Court struck it down for violating state employees’ First Amendment rights. The 2006 measure passed muster because it only applies to official government business.

But Smith’s bill, by focusing on agencies’ abilities to disseminate information, could block non-English speakers’ access to government services and violate federal law:

“The bill as currently drafted is much broader than Rep. Smith suggests,” said attorney Ellen Katz with the William E. Morris Institute for Justice. “It violates Title 6 of the Civil Rights Act. Even in states that have an English-as-their-official-language policy, you still have to follow federal law.”

Title 6 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal funds. Katz said mailing out documents in English but not in other languages would violate that.

Even a fellow Republican, Rep. Doug Coleman, took issue with Smith’s proposal, noting that if the bill’s true purpose is to save money, all English publications should be restricted to websites as well.

English only laws exist in 16 states. Last year, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) unsuccessfully pushed a federal version of the English only law, the English Language Unity Act.

Economy

Why Immigration Reform Won’t Increase Government Spending

On Tuesday, just days after a bipartisan group of Senators released a set of principles to reform the immigration system with a pathway to citizenship for the nation’s 11 million undocumented residents, House Republicans convened a hearing to consider the benefits of immigration reform. The stacked witness list — of the eight witnesses testifying, four were opposed to comprehensive reform, and only two were clearly in favor — reflected the growing anxiety among conservative lawmakers about the cost of granting legal status to undocumented people, who, Republicans fear, would qualify for state or federal benefits and cost tax payers millions.

The New York Times echoed these concerns on Wednesday with an article warning that “chances are good” that reform will “cost the government money.” The piece, by reporter Eduardo Porter, cited a 2007 Congressional Budget Office report which found that immigrants are “putting a burden on state and local budgets” and warned that once unauthorized immigrants became citizens, they “would be entitled to the same array of government benefits as other Americans”:

The White House and other backers of reform have made much of a 2007 Congressional Budget Office analysis concluding that the failed immigration overhaul would have increased government revenue by $48 billion over a decade while adding only $23 billion to direct spending on entitlements and other programs. But the report also said that including the costs of carrying out the new law would actually increase the budget deficit by $18 billion over the decade and several billion a year after that.

But there is good reason to believe that concerns about increased government spending are overstated and that immigration reform will prove to be a net benefit for the economy.

Currently “spending by state and local governments on services specifically provided to unauthorized immigrants make up a small percentage” of government spending, some of which is offset by taxes paid by the unauthorized population. The majority already “pay federal, state, and local taxes” and that number will increase as the undocumented population embarks on a path towards citizenship and leaves the cash economy.

Research shows that legalizing immigrants boosts their wages, which increases consumption, business revenue, and ultimately the entire economy. Immigration reform would add up to $5.4 billion in new tax revenue over the first three years, and a cumulative $1.5 trillion to the U.S. economy over a decade. Allowing these immigrants to naturalize would add even more economic activity, as naturalized immigrants earn 8 to 11 percent more in wages than permanent residents.

The Congressional Budget Office agrees with that assessment. The office’s score of the Senate’s 2006 comprehensive immigration reform plan calculated a net benefit of $12 billion over 10 years and an updated report placed the revenue gains even higher. An analysis of the 2007 immigration proposal found that legalization would increase revenue over costs by a factor of 2 to 1.

Read more

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up