Fewer immigrants applying for childcare
 |
| Story time at the CDC. |
Fewer immigrant families are enrolling their children in the Child Development Center (CDC) operated by the Annandale Christian Community for Action (ACCA) as a result of the climate of fear created by the Trump Administration’s anti-immigrant policies.
In addition to the high-profile ICE raids and stepped-up deportation actions, the Administration’s attempt to discourage immigrants from applying for public benefits – through proposed changes in the “public charge” rule – is having a chilling effect on people who need assistance.
As a result, the Annandale-based CDC hosted an information session for parents about the public charge rule Dec. 4, advising them the rule has been blocked by the courts and urging them to seek the assistance their children are eligible for.
The CDC has seen a big drop in enrollment this year, says CDC Executive Director Maria-Isabel Ballivian. The CDC usually has a waiting list, but now, even though it has expanded its classroom space, there are 20 openings.
“People are afraid,” she says. Immigrants worry that if they enroll their children in publicly subsidized early childhood education, that could jeopardize their applications to upgrade their immigration status or even lead to deportation.
As a result, immigrant families who are here legally and are entitled to benefits, like Medicaid and free school lunches, for their children born in the U.S., are not applying.
Ballivian knows of a couple of instances where fathers of children in the CDC have been deported, leaving their wives and families here with one less breadwinner.
It’s the children who are losing out, she says. Children who are not getting the services they are eligible for “will not have the same start in life” as their peers, “due to the political climate.”
ACCA itself is seeing far fewer requests for its services. Immigrants who need emergency funds to pay rent or utility bills – even if they are here legally – are worried that if they give out their names and address, they could end up on a deportation list.
Mary Lee Di Spirito, who helps coordinate ACCA’s furniture program for families in need, says ACCA used to deliver furniture every week; now the program only operates twice a month. “It’s not because there’s no need,” she says.
People who need assistance don’t realize that neither ACCA nor the Fairfax County’ office of Coordinated Services Planning don’t share personal contact information with law enforcement.
“This has been going on for some time,” Di Spirito says. Nonprofit groups like ACCA and the CDC have been reaching out to the community, urging people to access the services they need.
The CDC meeting for parents, aimed at clearing up the confusion around the “public charge” issue, is one such effort.
That rule has been part of the nation’s immigration law for decades, Rebecca Ullrich, senior policy analyst at the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), told the parents.
It is designed to identify people attempting to enter the U.S. or change their status to become lawful permanent residents who are likely to become dependent on government benefits as their primary source of support.
That rule is an attempt to weed out people who would rely on cash benefits like TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) or SSI (Supplemental Security Income) or would need long-term medical care in an institution.
In determining whether someone meets the “public charge test,” federal officials are required to consider the totality of these factors: the person’s age, health, income, family size, education and skills, and affidavit from someone who supports their application.
Public charge doesn’t apply to people seeking asylum or citizenship, to naturalized citizens, or to Dreamers seeking to renew their DACA status, Ullrich says. Public charge also doesn’t apply to people who already have green cards unless a person leaves the country for more than six months and then returns. [By the way, undocumented immigrants aren’t eligible for TANF or SSI. Only green card holders who’ve been in the U.S. for five years can apply for TANF.]
In October 2018, the Trump Administration proposed rule changes that would have dramatically expanded the definition of public charge by adding more public programs, such as housing assistance, and adding more factors to consider, such as English language skills.
Before that rule could take effect, however, the rules were blocked by federal judges in five separate cases.
“The changes to public charge were designed to be scary and confusing,” CLASP states. And although the rules never went into effect, they are causing a great deal of fear among immigrant communities.
While the Administration has appealed the injunction, “the new rules might never go into effect. We are optimistic,” Ullrich says. “Even if they do, any changes to public charge will not be retroactive. So families should continue to use all programs for which they are eligible.”
This is a bit of good news. Why should we want immigrants who need public assistance? That is ridiculous.
I hope you don't ever eat in restaurants, use public restrooms, get your lawn mowed or landscaped, get your home repaired, enter a newly constructed building, use a house cleaner, and on and on and on. These are human beings and they are here because we need them.
This plantation mentality has to end. I have yet to see any data that supports the notion that the scut work being performed by illegals wouldn't get done if they weren't around. The only difference is that legal workers wouldn't have to watch their wages being pushed down. – Sparky
This article seems to be focused on immigrants here LEGALLY you unconscionable knob.
This article is equally applicable to illegal parents with anchor babies. The implication is that nefarious feds could track down illegals through their kids. But, don't don't let that prevent you from engaging in more childish name calling. – Sparky
Sure. It’s also applicable to parents here legally, which is what the article is actually about.
And I am somewhere in the middle of these two spectrums. By allowing and abiding illegal immigrants we exploit them. If we limited or prevented illegal immigration we would be forced to pay real wages to them and that would drive up costs. There are means and avenues to allow for legal immigration. We could increase the numbers of workers allowed in. Now mind you, we don't because that would drive up costs and so we would rather have this subset population. This also causes problems for this population because felons, drug dealers, and gang members would not be allowed to immigrate. It would also deter the human trafficking that goes with this group. Legalizing them all is not the answer for this very reason. But I am always horrified when someone rationalized having illegals in this country to do their yardwork and clean their bathrooms. It is a mindset of indentured servants and slavery. The right thing would be to create a legal path, get rid of the bad elements, and it would cost us more in services – but save money on the societal drain this population creates (medical, school, infrastructure) by not paying into the system.
I think some folks need to take the time to understand that not all immigrants are illegal immigrants. They see the word immigrants and instantly think illegal. Many people are here legally working on visas, and seeking citizenship or another form of resident alien status. These people here legally may not use the services they need, and are legally entitled to, because they fear a change in the immigration policy that could hurt their chances of citizenship. All this is mentioned in the article above, but I'm sure there are people who just read the title and post nonsense responses without bothering to actually use their brain.
Pew Research estimates there are at least 600k illegals in the Capital area. That's who we're talking about. We're also talking about local governments welcoming them with open arms, shielding them from ICE and paying their legal bills. The U.S. has for a century had a policy of requiring immigrants to support themselves. That was especially the case after WW 2 when the U.S. still possessed an industrial economy that could employ unskilled workers. However, that's no longer the case. Nowadays we're witnessing the beginnings of a new permanent underclass of unskilled migrants who invited themselves here and live at the lower end of the service economy. If left to the Democrats here and in Congress, these migrants will receive amnesty and, with it, access to the full U.S. welfare safety net. If you see any benefit in that for this country, I'd like to know about it because I certainly don't. – Sparky
Boy sparky, you're really making 314pm's point, arent ya?
Adam: I don't subscribe to the notion that "legal" is the appropriate way to describe someone whose status is attributable to having a pending asylum claim that's highly likely to fail. They are temporary residents pending the outcome of their legal proceedings. There are over 12,000 pending immigration cases in Fairfax County, but I doubt if any of these petitioners has the slightest intention of leaving once their legal remedies run out. Especially considering that the local Democrats have enabled their sense of entitlement with $200k in taxpayer funds. So, under these circumstances, it make sense to me that an eventual illegal would be wise not to become too conspicuous by enrolling a kid in a social services program.
– Sparky
The article is focusing on people here legally. You're looking for every excuse to make this about people who are here illegally. Whatever works for the narrative you want I suppose.
We should not forget that we are talking about US born children. Citizens just like you and I who should be entitled to have the same opportunities than other children whose parents are not immigrants have. I thought that was the "American Dream" having chances to earn a better life. How are these children going to accomplish such endeavor if from the beginning they fall behind?
Anon 11:23 – Let's take your comment further, then. Why should anyone get public assistance – immigrants or non-immigrants (if there is such a thing). The GI bill is public assistance – social security is public assistance – Medicaid is public assistance. I love public assistance! And before you counter with "well, 'we' pay into these benefits", etc., immigrants (human beings) pay into the system too (both authorized and unauthorized by the way) in a myriad of ways like taxes and, incredibly, military service. I'm not naive and know there are problems, but these blanket statements that show a serious lack of empathy are disturbing.
This is just a case of people not actually reading the article. The focus is on LEGAL f-ing immigrants here afraid of losing status or ability to apply for citizenship. not. illegals.
Bob,
It makes no sense to then turn around and complain about low scoring and over crowded schools in the area. Guess what? The article does not mention that immigrants are fleeing or disappearing… they are still here. I have a secret for you. Their kids are not going anywhere. Help them succeed or settle with paying high taxes with crappy schools in a mediocre town.
There are also proposals to get rid of anchor babies and extending citizenship that way. Many countries do this for the reason we are having issues here. This might be a reasonable solution. Right now children are used as pawns sometimes by extended family that barely even know or care for the child.
And let's address the real issue: Legal or illegal, the immigrants are here because our economy supports them and in fact, needs them to function to our standard of living.
It is well documented that our dear leader has hired undocumented workers? Why? Because he can.
Like Anon 11:19 said, they are not going anywhere. We should focus on education. It is the right thing to do and the smart thing to do.
Daren
I disagree that our economy needs them. Except for farming there has been no strong correlation that these jobs need to be filled. Immigrants have pushed out the younger workers from the market. We say it is because younger workers do not want those jobs. But that is not true, they just can't get them. If you leave urban areas you see teenagers working because there parents are not the entitled helicopter/snowplow parents that pay for everything (cars, gas, spending money, etc). This area has been eye opening on how lazy and ill equipped the teenage and college students have become because of parental indulgence. Even when a parent in this area would like their kid to work at 15, they cannot get a minimum way job.
Anon 7:39 . . . Have you been to a construction site? Don't think that there are enough "entitled" teenagers available to get our buildings built.
There is no doubt our economy runs on a dependable source of labor for the class of work that recent immigrants fulfill.
The point you make has nothing to do with the topic at hand: education programs for the children of recent immigrants.
This blog post lacks any first hand accounts from immigrants (legal or illegal) claiming to be afraid to enroll their children in the ACCA program. Unemployment is at historic lows — especially for minorities. These families may now have other options for childcare.
So CDC has a big drop in enrollment, while expanding its classroom space, resulting in more openings. Who'da thunkit?
Just say no, Fairfax is going to go broke with all these handouts. I as a taxpayer who has lived here for many years in Mason has seen terrible decline and thus I am looking to move where the balance of immigrants and US citizens of origin are more balanced. When I moved here from DC, I loved this area. The tables have turned; DC learned the hard way and had to crash, get taken over by a City Comptroller so that it could begin its return back to economic growth, and it has big time.
Fairfax, this path that the BoS has chosen is not sustainable and it is on a crash course for becoming a third rate investment municipality.
This is simply irresponsible government not looking out for its taxpayers.
Yep, Fairfax is about to go broke:
U.S. Census bureau info:
Rank County State Median Household Income
1 Loudoun County Virginia
$134,464
2 Howard County Maryland
$120,941
3 Fairfax County Virginia
$115,717
4 Hunterdon County New Jersey
$113,684
5 Santa Clara County California
$111,069
6 Arlington County Virginia
$110,388
7 Douglas County Colorado
$109,292
8 San Mateo County California
$108,627
9 Morris County New Jersey
$106,985
10 Williamson County Tennessee
$106,054
11 Nassau County New York
$105,870
12 Somerset County New Jersey
$104,478