January 10, 2002 | Read Time: 6 minutes
Late last summer, nonprofit groups supporting immigrants’ rights were on a roll.
Amnesty for people who are illegally in the United States, once a taboo subject
in political circles, was a common topic of discussion on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers also were taking steps to restore immigrants’ benefits that were cut in 1996 by the Welfare Reform Act. And President Bush’s warm relationship with Mexican President Vicente Fox suggested that the administration might liberalize U.S. immigration policy.
“On September 10, things looked great,” says Raul Yzaguirre, president of the National Council of La Raza, in Washington, a major Hispanic advocacy group that has lobbied Congress for changes in immigration laws.
But the next day, the landscape changed — radically. When terrorists attacked New York and the Pentagon, not only did many foreign-born workers die in the attacks, but the political winds shifted against groups that want the government to loosen the rules on immigration.
Since September 11, nonprofit immigration groups have felt the fallout in many ways, most of all, perhaps, in fund raising. Many individuals, corporations, and foundations have begun shifting contributions from immigration causes to relief efforts related to the attacks, Mr. Yzaguirre says.
The downturn in donations comes at a time when charities serving largely immigrant populations say they need those gifts the most. In California, where as much as 40 percent of the nation’s immigrants live, charitable organizations report a $25-million drop in donations since September 11, according to a poll sponsored by California Cares, a statewide coalition of nonprofit groups. Sixty percent of the 413 organizations polled said they have seen an increase in demand for emergency food, health, and housing services since the attacks.
“Immigrant nonprofits are seriously threatened,” Mr. Yzaguirre says.
Relaxing Immigration Laws
Also hurting donations, he says, is the suddenly unpopular idea of liberalizing U.S. immigration laws. Because many of the terrorists who carried out the attacks were in the United States illegally, government officials have moved in recent weeks to tighten control over U.S. borders, and many donors have pulled back on gifts to nonprofit advocacy groups that focus on immigration rules.
The terrorist attacks have forced many grass-roots activists to rethink their approaches to lobbying lawmakers on immigration issues. Instead of hammering away at welfare rights and amnesty for illegal immigrants living in the United States, many advocates have decided to soften their messages.
“We’ve had to couch our discussions in terms of America being a nation of immigrants and choose our other terms especially carefully,” says Ernest E. Velasquez, executive director of the Catholic Charities Diocese of Fresno, which serves tens of thousands of immigrants annually. Mr. Velasquez regularly lobbies California’s congressional delegation on immigration policy. “This isn’t the time to make a big push on the substantive issues,” he says.
Mark Silverman, staff lawyer at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, in San Francisco, agrees that nonprofit advocates must tread carefully. Most advocates for illegal immigrants have stopped talking about amnesty for now, says Mr. Silverman, whose group provides legal assistance and help in rallying immigrants and others to the cause. “It is important to educate and organize people now, though,” he adds.
Protecting Civil Rights
Indeed, the events of September 11 have caused many activists and those who give them financial support to back up a step, says Daranee Petsod, principal of Grantmakers Concerned with Immigrants and Refugees, in Sebastopol, Calif.
“There is a lot more consideration of strategy now among advocacy groups,” says Ms. Petsod. “We really were on the offensive in the summer and were on the verge of getting legalization measures passed.”
Now, with hundreds of foreign-born people detained by the federal government, groups have shifted gears to stress the protection of basic civil rights and to encourage the investigation of hate crimes against immigrants, she says.
While immigration-policy groups work to maintain their focus and finances, other kinds of nonprofit organizations — those that provide health care, legal aid, and other services to immigrants — also are struggling. One major reason: The September attacks put numerous immigrants employed by the hotel, tourism, and transportation industries out of work.
Celia Grail, development director of the Monseñor Oscar A. Romero Free Clinic, in Los Angeles, says the facility’s patient load has increased by 20 percent since the attacks.
“Most of the patients we see are from the hospitality industry and have no insurance,” says Ms. Grail. “One of the doctors told me all of her patients are unemployed. We’ve just been inundated.”
The clinic, which offers free care to the poor, usually sees immigrant workers who lack health-care benefits, Ms. Grail says. The clinic’s $4.2-million annual budget is paid mostly by Los Angeles County and a few private donors. With endowments dwindling because of the faltering economy and with the immigrant issue becoming even more politically charged than before September 11, clinic administrators worry that foundation and corporate money the facility has become dependent upon may not be available in the future.
Already, Ms. Grail says, the Walt Disney Company Foundation has decided not to renew a $10,000 grant that it gave to the clinic in 2000. “They’re telling us they’re not giving out grants to anybody,” says Ms. Grail. “That’s the first time I’ve ever heard a foundation say that.” Michelle Bergman, a Disney Company Foundation spokeswoman, says the clinic’s grant request was denied because of foundation money troubles. “Unforeseen economic circumstances have forced us to be careful,” she says.
Federal Funds Dry Up
Hae Jung Cho, project director at the Coalition to Abolish Slavery & Trafficking, in Los Angeles, says her group counts on federal Department of Justice money to provide legal and social services to Asian immigrants who have been forced into debt by unscrupulous employers while working in Southern California’s garment industry.
Because the Justice Department has made counterterrorism its top priority, more than half of the coalition’s financial support has been held up, says Ms. Cho. “It’s the downside of being reliant upon government funds,” she says.
To help compensate, she says, the coalition has been asking foundations for more help. Already, though, 40 percent of the group’s $357,000 annual budget comes from grant makers, Ms. Cho says.
Among groups that serve refugees who have fled political repression in their home countries, the story is much the same.
In Chicago, the Interchurch Refugee and Immigration Ministries helps refugees selected for asylum by the U.S. government find places to live and make the transition to American life. The group’s fee — $800 per refugee, which is split between the charity and the immigrant — is paid by the federal government. Since the terrorist attacks, the group has received no people to resettle and hence no money from the government, says May Campbell, the organization’s executive director.
“For obvious reasons, our own fund raising has become paramount,” says Ms. Campbell, who adds that her organization has had some success at raising money from churches and individuals. “We certainly don’t want to lay people off. We’ll need them when the refugee pipeline opens up again.”
