Student advocacy for Senate Bill 2065 to protect undocumented immigrant children's educations in Illinois

 Dear Senator Turner,

I write to you today to share my support for and encouragement of the proposed Senate Bill: SB-2065, which was created to protect and support students in primary and secondary education who are immigrants themselves or are closely affiliated with someone who is an immigrant. Specifically, it is my understanding that this bill would provide important protections for the rights of undocumented immigrants who are students in the state of Illinois. 

The current GOP has been forthright and thorough in declaring their anti-immigrant agenda. In myriad public statements, both the president and the Republican Party have laid out their intentions to pursue immigrants with every tool of legislative and authoritarian intervention possible. Further, their vitriol and affiliated actions do not appear to be intended to target solely undocumented immigrants, as reports continue to surface of even those with government-issued, legal status are being threatened and pursued. Though there are already federal protections for students in these circumstances, recent events have led me to lose faith in the strength and integrity of the federal government.

Undocumented, school-age children in the United States have the same rights to education as United States citizens. This was determined in the United States Supreme Court decision in Plyler V. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), which established that American public schools are prohibited from denying enrollment to undocumented students, engaging in practices that might discourage undocumented students and their families from accessing educational services, requiring disclosure of the immigration status of a parent or child, making inquiries of children or parents that might reveal their immigration status, or requiring social security numbers (or documents that can only be obtained by those with social security numbers) as a prerequisite to school enrollment. It was determined by the court that to support the actions taken by the state of Texas would be a decision to deprive innocent children of a fundamental right to education. The court also determined that the children in question were not to be held accountable for the actions of others that led to their residing in the United States as undocumented immigrants. The court even found that discriminatory and exclusionary tactics proposed by Texas against these children did nothing to solve the problems that the state claimed these children were causing.

Despite this decades-established decision proclaiming the responsibility of the United States to provide and protect the rights of these children to education, the GOP has made their priorities to group all immigrants into a single, one-dimensional scapegoat and exclude them from any and all resources to which they’ve been deemed entitled, and they do not appear to care much whether or not their actions would negatively impact innocent children. Bill 2065 has, sadly, become an important preventive measure to ensure that children in the state of Illinois are not deprived of an education should the GOP decide to reverse decisions such as that of Plyler v. Doe. As we saw with the reversal of Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022, we can no longer rely solely on federal protections for students, as we now know even well-established Supreme Court decisions are vulnerable to being re-visited and undone and with destructive outcomes to those most in need of legislative protections of their rights.

Should the long-standing federal protections established for the betterment of all be overturned, children in Illinois and their families will rely on State protections to bolster their efforts to receive an education and invest in their futures. We must prevent any circumstances or practices within our public schools which might discourage or endanger children seeking education. Such practices as requiring the adult attempting to register a child for public education to provide documentation that could only be acquired by a person residing here with a legal status must be banned and bound by legislation at the state level.

Even as Mr. Trump and his constituents threaten to punish sanctuary states by withholding federal funding, I urge you and your fellow supporters of Bill 2065 to continue a vital mission – one that makes me truly proud to call myself an American despite my grief and shame in the same sentiment – to provide fundamental rights to all who come here seeking what we claim to stand for as a nation. To fear immigrants is to fear the very foundation of our great country’s success and ingenuity. I personally am far more fearful of a future United States that does not enjoy the innovation, security, health and success that result in welcoming those who have deemed America worthy of their investments and support. Please continue your hard work in protecting not just the rights of all who reside in these United States, but also in protecting a bright and thriving future for our country; one that can only come about if we protect and provide for a well-educated populous. 

Sincerely,

[Student Name]

Yes, it is longer than an actual advocacy letter ought to be, but this is an assignment to see how you show of your advocacy letter-writing skills, so it is the right length.

You open with your request, and your concluding paragraph repeats your top message: you want Illinois to pass a law to protect the rights to education for immigrant children in Illinois, no matter their immigration status.  

Your letter presents the problem.  Although a Supreme Court decision (based on the 14th Amendment, I think, but also possibly the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) has already decided that immigrant children (even those who did not enter the United States with permission to reside here) must be provided an education, there are good grounds for fearing that this will be overturned by the MAGA GOP. So, the state needs a law to protect these immigrant children.  

In this case, your State Senator is already a supporter of the bill, so your letter is more of an affirmation, and you are pleading with the Senator to make this a priority and help get this bill passed. That is a good thing to do; many good bills are introduced, but if they are not a priority, they may not get through committee or get a floor vote to become law. Telling someone in the legislature that you like a bill they are co-sponsoring and you think it is important that this particular bill become a law is helpful political practice.

Your letter is respectful, and it has your voice in it.  I think the letter is of such a high quality that staff would pass this on to Senator Turner, and she would respond.  The way we write these letters, when we convey passion, personal feelings, and we are respectful, I think this can move the good legislators. 

Could a fast-track to citizenship for undocumented workers help sustain Social Security?

Social Security 

For my second reaction paper, I decided to give more thought to Social Security and ways to replenish the trust fund we are currently pulling funds from. As it is, the social security payroll (FICA) tax is not currently drawing in enough money to cover the payments being made every month to those receiving old-age, survivors’, and disability benefits. Of the items discussed in class to increase funding, we considered a small tax increase immediately, a larger tax increase later, or removing the cap on taxes collected on incomes over $118,500 (SSA.gov, 2016). There was also mention of the increase in revenue possible if current undocumented immigrants were allowed a stream-lined process to citizenship, making their incomes taxable. 

After reading a few articles from various sources, I found many economists and politicians agree that allowing undocumented workers to become legal citizens will only further strengthen our economy and Social Security. An article from The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (n.d.), states the Congressional Budget Office believes allowing the 11 billion undocumented workers currently in the United States to become legalized citizens could increase economic growth by 1.3%. The article also cites Social Security trustees as claiming legalizing 100,000 workers would improve the Social Security Trust Fund deficit and quotes Edward Alden, from the Council on Foreign Relations, as saying undocumented workers are currently holding low-wage jobs and giving them a legal status will increase their confidence to look for higher earning employment, thereby contributing more in taxes (NCPSSM.org, n.d). 

But there are people who believe the benefits of higher tax revenues on these workers will be short lived due to the increased number of people who are eligible for benefits later. With this in mind, I searched for a good source on the ages of undocumented workers and found a report from the Department of Homeland Security (2013) showing in the year 2012, 61% of these workers are between the ages of 25-44. This is a high percentage of workers who would have at least 20 years to contribute towards Social Security before receiving benefits if they were legalized. 
I find this information interesting and useful as an additional source to replenish the Social Security Trust Fund. While there are those that support a stream-lined immigration process for both economic and humanistic reasons, there is definite opposition to the idea based on national security concerns. It is an area, I believe, which needs more consideration and scrutinizing to find if it is a valid source of revenue. 

Good essay.  I will point out a couple minor details that do not have bearing on your conclusions. 

 First, I have read that the estimate of 11 million undocumented non-citizen residents in the United States dates back to before the Great Recession (from an estimate made in 2005 or 2006), and that the population may now be much smaller, although the latest Pew Research Center report I could find (from November 3, 2016) suggests 11.1 million is the most accurate current figure. A Census Bureau study discussed in the Atlantic in January of this year reported 10.9 million undocumented residents in 2014. So, my point is that your estimate of 11 million is probably quite accurate, and the higher number that existed here before the Great Recession was about 12-13 million.

Secondly, among the objections to legalizing persons who are here without proper permission and documentation there are many plausible reasons.  Some I'm sympathetic to, and others I reject, although I have not made up my mind and remain neutral on some of these immigration policy disputes.  On one extreme are people who worry that the character of the United States will be changed if too many “non-European” immigrants are allowed in.  Of course, the Hispanics of Latin America (including Mexico) are a mix of indigenous native Americans and Europeans, so not only is this sort of objection stupid (for suggesting that culture exists in blood, or that national character is inherited with genes), it is also ill-informed (since most immigrants are coming from persons with Native-American and European genetic stock, making it ridiculous to call them alien or non-European, since they are neither). On the extreme that I am sympathetic to are the arguments that our population in the USA is too large, given our carbon footprint, and bringing more immigrants here to help us continue to maintain a growing population will harm the planet, and therefore we ought to diminish immigration (but not necessarily eliminate it—I personally would cut it by 40% or so), and we could start by having undocumented American residents return to their nations of origin and apply to return here, giving them favorable consideration if a certain number of American citizens support their immigration applications with testimonials about how these persons have contributed to American society while living here as undocumented residents, but denying them readmission as immigrants if they could not establish that they had contributed to community life and integrated into American society.  Another argument is that even if legalization made sense economically, there are issues of justice here, since many foreign persons would love to come to America, and they are following the rules and applying for permission through the official channels.  Giving amnesty or creating policies to help undocumented residents become citizens quickly allows some people to get away with essentially jumping to the front of the line without waiting their turn.  That makes sense to me, but of course there is a counter-argument based on humanitarian grounds that many of these persons have lived her a long time and established themselves in their communities.  I personally know several undocumented American residents (mostly from Mexico and China) who stand as significant persons in their communities, having lived here for more than a decade (or for a few decades in one case) and naturally I would want these friends to be well-treated by any new immigration policy.

All in all, the idea that allowing a mass immigration of young working-aged immigrants to join our society as Americans and then collect from them sufficient payroll taxes to keep Social Security and Medicare going without increasing FICA taxes does have its appeals.  In fact, I can remember in 1993 making exactly this same argument to Martha Ozawa in a policy course... suggesting that America could always increase payroll taxes by allowing more young immigrants to come here so we did not end up with an inverted population pyramid of many elderly citizens and few working-aged citizens to support them.  Dr. Ozawa thought it was a very intriguing idea, but suggested it was unlikely because Americans would be too anti-immigrant.  And, here we are about 23 years later, and you are making the same point I suggested, and my thought is sympathetic, but I retain some of the same skepticism that Dr. Ozawa showed me.