Protecting the Human Rights of Undocumented Immigrant Children in SB 2065, a policy brief.

 The conversation surrounding public education and its future is ever present. With the federal executive branch signing an executive order to dismantle the Department of Education, there are many programs and laws within that can now be challenged at the state level. The Department of Education is aiming to shut down almost all operations besides funding for low-income schools, funding for children with disabilities, and Pell grants and federal student loans. As stated by Representative Bobby Scott of Virginia, a large portion of why the Department of Education was created was to “guarantee the enforcement of students' civil rights.” Students were guaranteed the right to a public education regardless of their background. It is worrisome that legislators may push to remove this right to education from the hands of undocumented immigrant children. 

Senate Bill 2065 in Illinois is looking to protect this right for all children, regardless of immigration or documentation status. With SB2065, a student cannot be denied free education, participation in school activities, or benefits from school. These rights can also not be denied to any person(s) associated with the child. This bill also prohibits schools from disclosing any personal information regarding a student or an associated person’s immigration status. A school cannot let an immigration officer onto the school site for any reason unless they have proper identification, a judicial warrant, a statement of purpose, and approval from the superintendent and their legal counsel. These protections are going to allow the most vulnerable students to continue their education. The attack on immigration and education go hand in hand, and this bill would help add protections for this population. 

A simple reason to favor this policy is the Supreme Court Case Plyler v. Doe. This case ruled in 1982 that it would be prohibited to deny a child education based on the immigration status of their family. The court voted this way with their reasoning being the 14th amendment. Concerning this case, the 14th Amendment is used to explain that states cannot deny “to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” A reason to be against this policy is that it could be viewed as overly tailored to the immigrant population, when these rights should be extended to all new students. While the bill was written for this population, many other demographics could also benefit from this type of legislation. 

Opposing this bill could be deemed as morally wrong. It is a belief among many that opposing this would greatly single out the children of immigrants. It is an American principle that all are equal before the law, and the law applies to all. Excluding these children from the right to education is harmful. The move to disregard these children from the education system would be against the very principles our democracy is founded upon.  A common argument opposing bills such as this one is that education is not a right. It is believed instead that the children of these immigrants have not earned the right to enjoy the public benefits of the United States. Their parents being undocumented means that they do not deserve the privileges that society has to offer. It is also a common misconception that paying for these children to be educated is too costly. 

As noted earlier, opposition to this bill may come from the fact that it is too narrowly focused. Adding more demographics or making the bill more general could help it get passed if there were a majority against it. With immigration being such a hot topic at the moment, it could be fairly polarizing, depending on the party. Making it more general could help appeal to the more conservative minded who are not open to working with undocumented immigrants. Opposing this bill could look bad politically. Since the topic of the bill is guaranteed education to children, opposition could come off as simply not being in favor of equal education with hints of racism and xenophobia. This could then lead people in the general public to make assumptions based on the stance chosen and severely oppose any future political action. There are no real downsides to supporting this bill besides losing potential supporters who most likely would not agree with your politics in the first place. 

To conclude, Senate Bill 2065 is a bill in which you should strongly support. With the current political environment, people want to feel as if their politicians are going to protect them and their children. Giving the children of immigrants a fair chance in the education system is only right. I suggest that you strongly support and consider becoming a co-sponsor to get this bill passed immediately. 

For the first policy paper, students may write either an advocacy letter or a policy brief that contains a recommendation.  This is a policy brief with a recommendation to support a bill to reaffirm the educational human rights of all children in Illinois, regardless of their immigration or documentation status. 

The Constitution of Illinois says that education is free and universal.  Although most school districts illegally and unconstitutionally ask parents to pay fees (which can be waived in cases of economic hardship), education is generally nearly free, and nearly universal, at least up to high school graduation. 

I think your brief does well to cite the Plyler v. Doe case.  This, along with the 14th Amendment and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Illinois Constitution all point in the same direction as this bill, that education must be universal, and no children can be excluded from public education or alternatives to public education if certain behavioral problems prevent mainstream public education. 

I think you also have done well to point out that attacks on public education are “hand in hand” with attacks on immigrants. Xenophobia has significant overlap with the tendency to complain about public education and argue for abolishing public education and replacing it with private schools and a system of vouchers that would give households money to pay for education at any of the private schools. 

In most Illinois senate and house districts it would look bad to oppose this bill.  However, we do have several extremely MAGA districts in rural downstate Illinois where I would expect opposition to this bill. 

Should Gun policies be stricter?

On September 4th of 2024, in the Apalachee High School, Colt Gray, a 14 year old, killed two students, two teachers, and injured seven others. Gray received the gun as Christmas present from his father. His father, Colin Gray, 54, was charged with four counts of involuntary manslaughter, two counts of second- degree murder and eight counts of cruelty to children. Colt Gray has been charged with four counts of felony murder and is expected to be tried as an adult (Rosales et al.) The Apalachee school shooting was the 218th time a gun was fired or brandished so far in 2024. In the last 10 years, nearly 51% of school shootings occurred while classes were in session, and the rest after school hours. As of September 3rd, 20204, 18 of the 46 people killed in school shooting were under 18 (Gualyieri et al.).

The Second amendment allows people to have the right to bear arms, with a third of Americans say they own a gun. 72% of gun owners claim to own a gun for personal safety, however, while most gun owners enjoy having a gun at home, only 31% of nonowners living in a household with a gun say they enjoy having a gun at home. Despite this, 61% of Americans say it is too easy to obtain a gun, and 58% of Americans favor stricter gun regulations (Schaeffer).

In the United States after John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King, Jr. were assassinated, Congress passed the Gun Control Act of 1968, GCA. The GCA is meant to keep firearms from those who should not own guns. One of these is requiring Federal Licenses for transferring firearms. The CGA prohibited certain people from owning firearms, such as felons or children under 18. The Gun Control Act allowed states to enforce their own laws by prohibiting transport of gun laws (Gun Violence Reduction).

While this is in the entire United States, what about in Illinois? Illinois has one of the strongest gun safety laws and low levels of gun ownership in the United States. This is especially the case following the Highland Park shooting on the 4th of July (in 2022). Lawmakers prohibited assault weapons, however, despite the laws, Illinois still has an unethical rate of gun violence. Since Illinois is surrounded by states with weaker gun laws, most guns recovered in Illinois are purchased out-of-state. While Illinois has 50 key policies, and regulates gun industry and safety, there are something that could be added (Everytown Research & Policy). What do we need in Illinois? We need a state rule mandating that all guns include microstamping technology, as this would would aid police in identifying the shooters.

Works Cited

Everytown Research & Policy. “Gun Laws in Illinois.” Everytown Research & Policy, January, 2024, everytownresearch.org/rankings/state/illinois/.

Gualtieri, A., Sawate, J., Gold, R., Johnston, T., & Manthey, G.. “Apalachee High School Shooting Is the Latest in U.S. Here’s How Many Happened in 2024, so Far.” CBS News, CBS Interactive, 4 Sept. 2024, www.cbsnews.com/news/how-many-school-shootings-2024-apalachee-winder-georgia/.

“GUN VIOLENCE REDUCTION: NATIONAL INTEGRATED FIREARMS VIOLENCE REDUCTION STRATEGY.” United States Department of Justice Archive - Appendix C, www.justice.gov/archive/opd/AppendixC.htm. Accessed 25 Sept. 2024.

Isabel Rosales et al. “The Father of the Georgia School Shooting Suspect Has Been Arrested and Charged, Authorities Say.” CNN, Cable News Network, 6 Sept. 2024, www.cnn.com/2024/09/05/us/winder-georgia-shooting-apalachee-high-school/index.html

Schaeffer, Katherine. “Key Facts about Americans and Guns.” Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 24 July 2024, www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/24/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/.

Your goal is to persuade your reader to support law that would mandate microstamping technology incorporated into guns sold in Illinois. One thing I'd recommend is to include the request for specific actions from your audience right at the start of your letter, and then again at the end.

The general model of persuasive advocacy is to present a statement of the problem, and you do this by describing the Apalachee High School shooting and mentioning the assassinations of political figures in the 1960s and further mentioning the Highland Park shooting at the 4th of July parade in 2022.  You accurately point out that the Second Amendment prevents bans, and you might have mentioned court interventions that forced Illinois to allow concealed carry laws. Your point is that despite rights to have guns, there is a well-established history of gun control laws. 

So, I think your letter could have been arranged around this framework:

We ought to have a state law to mandate microstamping technology in guns sold in Illinois. Then, you would describe for your audience what microstamping is, and why you think it's a good thing to do with guns.

Then, you would describe some of the horrible things done with guns, and I like how you use descriptions of specific horrors.  Those anecdotes are powerful.

You might try to state the problem as a series of points: how to ensure that responsible gun owners can enjoy their Second Amendment rights while at the same time preventing unstable death-cult-oriented persons from getting access to guns? How to make it easy to trace guns?  Can we use technology to prevent unauthorized use of guns or unauthorized transfer of gun possessions? Can we hold people accountable if they provide guns to unstable and violent children or adults, but continue to allow responsible gun dealers and manufacturers to provide responsible gun owners with their products?  Perhaps go into some discussion of how people have tried to deal with these problems through legislation.

Then, return to microstamping.  Explain how a law to mandate microstamping of guns in Illinois would contribute to solving some of the problems you've outlined in the previous section.  Then, consider the cases you give in the paragraph where you give examples of mass shooting, and describe how microstamping would have made a difference. 

Conclude with a repeat with your first point, requesting your reader to take steps to pass rules to mandate microstamping.  You might either suggest that the politician introduce such a law and advocate for its passage, or support such a law that has been introduced already.

A student's paper on Human Services budget cuts

Here is another letter to the governor from a student who is concerned about cuts to the Department of Human Services.

I am writing you in regards to your budget cuts to the human services areas. It is not right that other areas are not being as harshly impacted as the human services area. We need to keep the human services portion funded to help the thousands of people in need. Currently, our nation is not in economic standing and I understand that; however, cutting the budget in these areas is only going to cause more strain to the already struggling families. They need the extra assistance to help with their depression, anxiety, and other disorders that are becoming prevalent during the difficult time.

Without child care assistance or after school programs being funded, working parents will not have good choices for their children. These programs allow them to have somewhere safe to go that can also be educational. Unfortunately, many of these children could possibly end up on the streets getting into drugs and other criminal acts without these places to go. Also, the cut would create a huge jump in the unemployment rate in our state. Human services cover a large percentage of our job market in Illinois. The larger budget cut will cause many to lose their jobs and even force a lot of the agencies to shut down. Where are the people to go that need help?

People that have addictions to drugs and alcohol or the mentally ill are going to seek treatment in the places that are convenient, comfortable, and close to home. What are they going to do if there is no agency there for them to go to? What happens when suicide rates increase? It seems like we are just forgetting about these people. They need to feel secure somewhere so that they can stop turning to the drugs and alcohol. Along with them, what about the people who are coping with domestic violence? They are not going to travel long distances to seek treatment. Are we suggesting they continue to be abused?

With these budget cuts, we would only be harming Illinois’ economic status more than it already is. The loss of jobs would cause unemployment rates to skyrocket. Those that need the treatment will not have anywhere to go anymore causing them to continue to worsen.

I would like to ask you, why are human services being hit the hardest? A cut of $500 million has already been made to this section, so why do we need to continue taking from it? I just hope that you can reconsider these cuts and look at other areas to cut from. We really need to help those in need and try to improve our economic status rather than making it worse.

And here is some of my reaction, as I thought about this letter, and several others like it I've received from the students in this class.

I tend to favor empirical evidence, but such evidence is not always the best way to change a person’s mind about something. That said, you do reflect on the $500 billion cut coming out of Human Services.  By my estimates based on data I found at the State Comptroller’s website, I guess Human Services gets about $4.3 billion, or about 14% of the General Revenue Fund. If we need to make cuts in spending of about $5 billion, and a proportionate degree of those cuts need to come from General Revenue, then a fair cut might be $700 million from Human Services (that would be 14% of $5 billion).  I don’t know if we really need to cut $5 billion, but if we do, the $500 billion may not be enough. Bigger slices of the state budget pie include Healthcare and Family Services ($8.5 billion and 28% of General Revenue) and the State Board of Education ($6.5 billion and 21% of General Revenue.  Higher education ($3.4 billion, 11% of General Revenue) is also something that might get steeper cuts so that cuts to human services might remain below $700 million.

Here is a question for you.  If the state cuts $5 billion from the budget, including $700 million from Human Services, does the state just lose that money?  Where does it go?  One possibility is that the cuts in spending allow us to have lower taxes.  The money stays in the hands of private citizens in Illinois, instead of going to service providers and clients.

The question to ask then is, if we let people of Illinois keep $5 billion and we don’t take it away from them in taxes, will that do more good for the state’s economy than would be done if we took the money from them in taxes and spent it in things like human services, higher education, healthcare, family services, and education?  I personally think if we kept that $5 billion in private hands and didn’t cycle it through taxes and state spending we would see some slight economic improvement compared to the taxing and spending. There would be more demand for goods and services (all that money in the hands of individuals who would spend more, rather than spend on state priorities).  

But I ask myself, would this increased economic growth really make life better, and would it be widespread, or concentrated in the wealthiest households, and if only the wealthiest people in Illinois keep those dollars that would have gone to public priorities, will they actually invest that money in Illinois or spend it in Illinois, or will it flow out of the state?  Upon reflecting on these questions, I get a hunch that the quality of life and the morality of our society would erode, and I think in the long-term, we’ll be better off if we pull $5 billion out of the citizens through taxes and fees and put it into investments in education and health services, or support the most unfortunate with human services. 

Also, I don’t think money and wealth is the end toward which we should be steering.  We should be directing our social institutions such as our state government toward maximizing our happiness and increasing fairness or justice in our society. Whether we keep money in private hands or cycle it through government spending is a means toward this end, and so is economic growth. 

I mention this because your letter is very much about the harm of cutting the spending on human services. And yet, we also need to consider the “harm” of maintaining spending on human services.  Considering the alternatives will allow us to address them.  Yes, we will all suffer if we continue to pay full price for state services without collecting money to pay for these services, because to make up the deficits, we must eventually either cut services or raise taxes.  Facing this reality helps us consider which we value more, higher taxes with services maintained at their current level, or current tax levels with severe service cuts, or even lower tax levels with even more drastic cuts in services. 

Many people still think most state spending is wasted, or lost in corruption. Such people demand lower taxes and cuts to state spending.  I know intelligent people who work for the state who have told me they honestly believe 20% to 40% of state spending is wasted money, lost in corruption or stupid programs that fail to achieve anything of value. I marvel at this.  Is it really plausible that $7 billion of the General Revenue fund is lost to corruption, waste, mismanagement, and that sort of thing?  If we could target our cuts, is it plausible that we could find $1 billion in cost savings in the $4.3 billion spent in human services that would only target waste, fraud, and abuse, and this targeted cut would leave truly needed and valuable services untouched? 

Taking our university as an example, with an approximately $50 million budget, I doubt we lose more than $1 million to gross incompetence and corruption and waste in any given year (about 2%). I can think of some drastic cuts I could make and some streamlining I could do, that would, I think, give us better education quality and lower costs, but even in my fantasies of doing this I would not cut more than $1 million (2%) from our budget.  I'm intimately familiar with the university's budget, and there just isn't enough waste, fraud, abuse, stupidity, or extravagance in the campus to give us the possibility of trimming more than about 2% to 4% from the budget before we start to diminish the quality of education our students receive. 

Your letter anticipates this argument that we could somehow cut spending in human services by hundreds of millions simply by going after non-essential services and waste. You do this by focusing on the sort of misery we will actually get by cutting the $500-$700 billion proposed in the austere state budget for FY 2012. You argue against such cuts.  In essence, you are arguing for higher taxes, because you suggest that we get good value from public spending on human services (and education, and health services, and so forth), and we’re better off paying for these things, rather than cutting them, even if that means we need to raise more money from the voting, taxpaying public.

A student's letter to the governor on DHS cuts

I thought this was a reasonable letter to the governor by one of my students.  

Dear governor Quinn,

                  I am writing to you today in regards of your proposed budget cuts to the Department of Human Services.  This includes the substance abuse and treatment facilities.  This cut would send almost 80% of individuals that are in substance abuse programs now out on the street.  Also it would eliminate many jobs and then as an effect, hurt many hard working families.  Then you stated how you intend to give a 10% increase to the department of corrections in return.  This to me makes little or no sense at all.  There is actual proof that the recidivism rate is lower for individuals who go to treatment than those who go to the prison system.  Yes, there is treatment in prisons but very little bed space, and lack of counselors makes it difficult to really make it effective.  Also the price to house an inmate yearlong in prison is almost 27,000 dollars!  It cost between 5,000 and 10,000 to send someone to treatment.  Addiction is a disease and you have to treat the individual, not punish him.  In Sangamon County where I am from we just started a drug court system, and cutting the Department of Human Services—specifically the drug and alcohol programs—would really hurt the drug court.  These drug courts help individuals start a new life with intense probation, mandatory drug testing, and specific guidelines like getting a job or taking classes to improve the person’s education.  This is also proven to work better than prison, if you look at the recidivism rates from the Department of Justice.  One other issue of cutting this part of the budget is that this means the state would stop funding non-Medicaid addiction treatment and prevention.  This announcement by your office has already started many treatment programs to stop taking in clients from the courts or the streets.  This then has left many clients stuck or out of a place to seek help.  To me this is just wrong.

                  I am mainly asking you to support HB-106, which is a resolution signed by nearly two dozen representatives, that opposes the funding cuts to non-Medicaid addiction treatment and prevention.  Stop the cuts to this part of the budget and look at the consequences if you go through with these cuts.  Almost 5,000 people will lose their jobs, over 50,000 clients will be asked to leave the facilities in which they are currently in, and over 229,000 youth will lose prevention services.  Also 80% of clients are not eligible for Medicaid funding for their treatment, causing many people that are seeking help with their addiction to not receive it.  This proposed budget cut to these services may be life or death for many individuals and is just not right to do or ethical. Please stop and really take a look at what this will do.

                  I understand that with the current Democratic leadership in the House and stiff Republican opposition it would be difficult for you to raise revenue through, for example, broadening the sales tax. Thus, you do need to make cuts. The Department of Human Services gets about 14% of the General Revenue Fund, and it would be fair if the cuts to that department were close to 14%, not the 50% or more cuts you have proposed to substance abuse treatment and prevention. For ethical, practical, and long-term financial reasons it makes more sense to maintain substance abuse and prevention funding and make cuts elsewhere, almost anywhere else. 

A letter about SSI and work incentives

Dear Senator Durbin:

I am writing as a constituent of Illinois. My name is ______ ________ and I am 22-years old. Growing up in New Lenox, IL I have been the fortunate recipient of luxuries such as an outstanding school district, well maintained roads, and a remarkable park district. Never, would I have thought to criticize the government, locally or federally. Yet, as circumstances would have it, my world was turned upside down in the summer of 2003. Having suffered a spinal cord injury after a diving accident, I was rendered a quadriplegic. The newfound limitations of paralysis and incurred medical expenses eventually put me in contact with the U.S. government’s Social Security department. After years of interacting with this agency I have come to conclude that the disabled population continues to be provided little incentive to integrate into the employment sector.

As I am sure you know, the Supplemental Security Income Program (SSI) makes cash assistance payments to the aged, blind and disabled people who have limited income and resources. Tax revenues generate the funds, for which this program operates. The current maximum asset level, to continue eligibility for SSI, is set at the sum of $2,000. Given that I was a young, permanently disabled student attending high school, I quickly qualified to begin receiving benefits. Despite having an active case with the Department of Human Services (DHS), sub agency Department of Rehabilitation Services (DRS), and now Social Security, I was never given an overview of the program’s specifications.

For one to fully encompass the expenses of a disabled individual one must consider medical expenses (including specialized equipment, medication, and services), cost of accessible transportation, the money necessary to employ a personal assistant, and costs associated with accessible housing. With the male medium income around mid-40k and the female medium income estimated to be around mid- 30k in this country, the incentive to work begins to diminish when considering the monetary gains versus loses.

Hidden amongst the regulations of SSI are work incentive programs and individual exceptions. In particular, the Student Earned Income Exclusion allows recipients under age 22, who regularly attend school, to earn up to $1,640 in additional income per month. Yearly maximum exclusion is restricted on amounts exceeding $6,600. Some additional qualifications do apply. Another exception includes having a documented Plan to Achieve Self-Support (PASS). The PASS allows recipients to set aside other incomes besides SSI for a specified period of time so that the individual may pursue a work goal. Under the PASS program, money that has been set aside does not qualify towards the determining of SSI payment amount.

At first glance it appears that the 2009 Federal Benefit Rate set at $674 should be more than adequate for individuals working towards employment, especially, given that the may supplement this income by applying for previously mentioned exclusions. However, these exclusions do little to assist individuals if their existence goes unbeknown to SSI recipients.

This is where the opportunity for change exists. Every recipient of SSI is assigned a caseworker. Often, these same recipients have additional client-agency relationships established at other government run locations (such as my example with DHS and DRS). It would be pertinent if these networks collaborated on client casework. At minimum, there should be regulations within the Social Security Administration that mandate employees fully brief SSI recipients on all the options available to them. I will go so far as to suggest specific emphasis on programs such as the Student Earned Income Exclusion and PASS. In promoting and fostering employment pursuit and training to disabled individuals, the US government demonstrates its support of individuals with disabilities as valuable citizens. Furthermore, it disrupts the cycle of dependence and spiraling US debt.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

A Dozen Organizing Websites

Here are some websites related to community organizing and policy analysis. Looking at these web sites and seeing what these groups do will help you have a better understanding of advocacy and community organizing.

1. For labor organizing, you can see what the AFL-CIO is saying and promoting.
2. On issues of racial justice the Applied Research Center can help through research, advocacy, and journalism.
3. The Center for Community Change tries to support leaders in grassroots community organizations in low-income or minority communities.
4. If you're interested in economic growth and methods of organizing centered on helping the manufacturing sector of a local economy you might find help from the Center for Labor and Community Research.
5. If you want to know who is donating what amounts of money to which political campaigns, you can find out by looking up public information about campaign contributions made available at the Open Secrets website from the Center for Responsive Politics.
   
6. Citizens for Tax Justice is an organization that says it is dedicated to fair taxation.
7. Families USA is a voice for health care consumers.
   
8. The Midwest Academy offers training for community organizers.
9. Boardsource is a group that tries to help non-profit corporations improve their advisory boards.
10. The National Organizers Alliance is a sort of professional organization for community organizers.
11. If you're interested in housing issues, you should be familiar with the National Housing Institute.
12. If you're concerned about wealth and income inequalities, you should be paying attention to UFE (United for a Fair Economy).