What might the latest Kennedy-McCain amnesty bill cost the United States? Some hints may be found in a 2005 U.S. Department of Labor report, “Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey 2001-2002.”
At the time this survey was taken, 53 percent of America’s farm workers “lacked authorization to work in the United States.” In plain English, they were illegal aliens.
These “crop workers” also readily admitted they lacked English skills. The majority (81 percent) reported that Spanish was their native language. Forty-four percent reported that they could not speak English “at all,” while 53 percent said that they could not read English “at all.”
Illegal aliens were well aware that they were not eligible for unemployment-insurance (UI) benefits: “Work authorized respondents were much more likely than those not authorized to report that they would receive UI benefits should they lose their job (76 percent vs. 4 percent, respectively).”
Because of their linguistic difficulties, once these illegal-alien farm workers receive amnesty, unemployment insurance rates will soar skyward, thanks to the Department of Labor’s 2003 Executive Order 13166 regulations.
You might suspect that once the federal government gets involved, a clerk making his best guess as to the language the person is speaking and asking a coworker to interpret would be unacceptable. You would be correct.
On page 32296 of its E.O. 13166 “policy guidance,” the Department of Labor actually recommends the hiring of two or more interpreters for every unemployment-insurance applicant who claims difficulties with the English language:
Where such proceedings are lengthy, the interpreter will likely need breaks and team interpreting may be appropriate to ensure accuracy and to prevent errors caused by mental fatigue of interpreters.
Actually, having two interpreters in the room may require a third merely to referee. Judge Wayne Purdom told the National Law Journal in 2003 that once the interpreters are in place in an Atlanta courtroom, the language debates have only begun:
Sometimes one interpreter is very critical of another’s translation — right in the middle of the courtroom — and they will interrupt and contradict each other and say the other person’s translation is bad.
In the real world, rather than complying with all this linguistic rigmarole, unemployment caseworkers are likely to decide it is easier and cheaper to just give everyone a check who claims not to speak English.
The unemployment-insurance-cost issue is just the tip of the economic impact of a guest-worker/amnesty program upon the already hard pressed American taxpayer.
You see, E.O. 13166 applies to every federal government-benefit program and requires outreach in multiple languages.
The Department of Labor’s E.O. 13166 regulations consider the following a model outreach approach:
Eight radio stations that reach the highest numbers of Hispanics are used to make public service announcements … Inserts are placed in major Hispanic newspapers and magazines, and flyers … are distributed through community centers, faith-based organizations, and Hispanic businesses. Articles are printed in newspapers and magazines in Spanish and English on how to file [Unemployment Insurance] claims by phone …
Right now illegal aliens seldom apply for many government benefits for which they might otherwise qualify. In the face of such endless outreach efforts in their native language, does anyone really believe amnesty recipients will continue to resist the welfare state?
Even when it comes to applying for amnesty, a modicum of English may well be made unnecessary in our linguistically agnostic nation. One immigration-reform proposal making the Senate rounds would require the federal government to proclaim the right to apply for amnesty in at least “five languages.” (For the sake of comparison, the United Nations has six.)
Senators running for president should consider that “come and get your amnesty” television and radio ads in, say, Spanish, Chinese, and Arabic, could easily be on the air during the 2008 primary season. Some folks might even hear them as they drive to the polls. Are you quite sure this is a good idea?
– Jim Boulet, Jr. is executive director of English First.