Connecticut lawmakers are being asked to expand HUSKY - the state's Medicaid program - to include immigrants, regardless of their status.

Two years ago, legislation was passed to provide HUSKY Medicaid for undocumented children from birth to age eight, and for pre- and postnatal care for pregnancies of undocumented people beginning this year. Last year, kids were added up to age 12.

Now, advocates hope to expand HUSKY to immigrants and kids of all ages. Several groups are meeting with lawmakers today to discuss legislation for this expansion.

Luis Luna, coalition manager for the group "HUSKY 4 Immigrants," noted what he's hoping will come from this conversation.

"What we want to show is the issue, the issue at hand, that we must provide healthcare beyond 18," said Luna. "The other one, too, is we want to show, like, the broad support - not only from folks who are affected by this, but also from legislators, organizations, from healthcare providers."

More than 300 healthcare providers signed a letter in support of HUSKY expansion. In to a survey by the Universal Healthcare Foundation of Connecticut, it's a view shared by 57% of the state's residents.

A 2021 bill to expand HUSKY failed in committee in the General Assembly, because of cost. Opponents said it would also mean the state couldn't get federal funding for those who qualify for the expanded coverage.

A report from the Rand Corporation shows that adding immigrants to HUSKY would cost $83 million, but would provide over 21,000 people in the state with coverage.

Luna said the critical need for healthcare during the pandemic is part of what has fueled support for this expansion.

"In the beginning of the campaign, the first challenge was to change the narrative," said Luna, "that undocumented folks deserve healthcare. We've been continuing to push that narrative beyond 18. We do not want to get stuck in just having children only access HUSKY through this program, because it just brings a whole set of problems if you don't have an inclusive program."

He said one challenge of the campaign is rooted in legislators' views of who does - or doesn't - deserve healthcare.

Just 14% of California's 94,000 undocumented college students receive some form of state financial aid, according to a new report.

Researchers from the California Student Aid Commission found that only half of the people who are eligible for state aid for higher education even apply.

Marlene Garcia, the commission's executive director, said a lot of community college undocumented students apply to get their fees waived for coursework, but don't realize they could get a Cal Grant to help with living expenses.

Paperwork appears to be one of the issues.

"They may be applying for the College Promise, and they think that they've completed the financial aid application," said Garcia. "But then, they find out they have to complete the California Dream Act application. And sometimes, you'll lose students in that process."

Starting this year, state law requires all high school seniors to fill out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid or the California Dream Act application, so school counselors are going to have their hands full.

Garcia said many steps could be taken at the federal level to help undocumented students, including making the Pell Grant available, or reviving the DACA program and extending its provisions to allow students to have the right to work.

"If you're an undocumented student and you don't have work authorization to get a job after you graduate from college," said Garcia, "that's going to raise the question about where the value proposition is for a college degree for you."

Another barrier is the requirement that undocumented students sign an affidavit that they attended at least three years of high school in California. A new bill now in the California Legislature would integrate that affidavit into the California Dream Act application.

Support for this reporting was provided by Lumina Foundation.


get more stories like this via email

Nebraska welcomed more than 10,000 refugees between 2002 and 2016, and some are still hoping to bring family members to the U.S.

Under the Department of Homeland Security's proposed changes to the asylum application process, it could become more difficult.

They are designed to prevent a surge of migrants at the southern border once the federal health emergency ends in May, ending Title 42. They would deny entrance to anyone who lacks the proper documentation and can't meet certain expectations. Those who enter at the southern border would also need proof they applied for, and were denied, asylum in a third country they passed through.

Joe Lord, lead asylum attorney for the Immigrant Legal Center in Omaha, said it is an often untenable expectation.

"A lot of those countries don't have either an asylum system in place at all, or an effective or safe asylum system in place," Lord pointed out. "It's a complication that's not very fair to people actually fleeing danger and trying to get somewhere safe."

Lord believes the changes could lead to more family separations. He noted no consideration is given for the common case of a person coming to the U.S. alone and later petitioning for family members to join them. He added the backlog of immigration court cases in the Nebraska-Iowa region is currently 28,000, and believes the changes would make the wait even longer.

Another aspect of the changes Lord considers unrealistic is the expectation migrants will use a smartphone app to schedule an appointment with a border agent.

"A lot of people that come through the southern border have nothing when they get here, and that includes access to a smartphone," Lord stressed. "That would be a massive impediment to a lot of people applying."

The Department of Homeland Security proposal makes exceptions for people having a medical emergency, facing an imminent threat or the risk of being trafficked.

Lord pointed to the far greater effect the expectations will have on lower-income people entering through the southern border than on those who can afford to apply for a visa and fly to the U.S. He also believes the changes violate U.S. laws and treaties designed to protect people seeking asylum.

"The laws in the United States explicitly guard an asylum-seeker's right to seek protection, regardless of how they arrive here," Lord emphasized.

The proposed changes are open for public comment until March 27. Lord added he fully expects they will be challenged in court.


get more stories like this via email

Unionized farmworkers recently signed a collective-bargaining agreement with the North Carolina Growers Association.

The new agreement protects the rights of more than 9,000 H-2A visa workers on hundreds of farms throughout the state.

Baldemar Velasquez, president of the Farm Labor Organizing Committee, said the two-year agreement gives workers participating in the immigrant visa program unprecedented security. He explained H-2A workers are prone to exploitation by labor contractors who steal wages or force them to live in unsafe housing.

"One of the big items in the collective-bargaining agreement is that the workers have a right to file grievances without retaliation for recruiting violations in Mexico," Velasquez explained.

The agreement also ends the widespread practice of "blacklisting" workers who lodge complaints. North Carolina is one of the largest users of this type of temporary agricultural visa, with between 14,000 and 17,000 H-2A workers annually, according to state data.

Velasquez pointed out the collective-bargaining agreement also secures the right for workers to return to the U.S. again and work after their contacts have ended, based on seniority.

"We've had workers that have been coming back since 2005, when we initiated this collective-bargaining agreement," Velasquez emphasized. "That gives them seniority ability to return and continue to make money for the families in Mexico."

He noted the latest agreement does not extend to all farmers in the state, and added the union continues to work on ways for farms to systemically respond to labor issues.

"There's no structure," Velasquez contended. "Part of our challenge is creating a structure that would allow us to have a systemic response to these things."

According to the Farm Labor Organizing Committee's Impact Report, union organizers processed more than 1,600 farmworker cases last year.