Vol. 5 / No. 1 / Fall 2008  


by Joyce Baldwin

The Reform Movement Rebuilds

Immigrant groups hope that a “four pillars” strategy will help them reform what many view as a broken immigration system in the United States.

An estimated twelve million undocumented immigrants live within the U.S. and about 300,000 people join their ranks annually, making it increasingly urgent to address the issue of immigration in a way that is both legal and compassionate and that provides a path to citizenship, protects workers from exploitation, reunites families and promotes civic participation. Yet fierce and often divisive debate threaded with provocative anti-immigrant rhetoric continues, even though polls show most Americans recognize the need to fix our broken immigration system.

Advocates of comprehensive immigration reform have tried unsuccessfully since 2006 to get an immigration bill passed, first by the 109th and then by the 110th Congress.* Now these advocates are using the sometimes painful lessons learned from their legislative battles to build alliances on a local and a national level and to bring together disparate voices. Seeking to overcome the hurdles involved in merging hundreds of organizations, several leading groups, including those who are cited in this article, have been working to develop a re-energized and re-focused structure that consists of “four pillars,” which center around:

  • a more effective policy approach,
  • more effective work in the media,
  • a stronger grassroots effort better linked to the nationwide effort, and
  • successful efforts to promote citizenship and encourage civic participation.

As immigration reform leaders begin to meet with immigration groups around the country as well as with community, business, labor and faith groups, ideas of the principal stakeholders will be incorporated into the four-pillars structure. The rapidly changing political dynamics in this presidential election year will also impact decision making as members of these groups work together to develop a plan for achieving effective immigration reform.

“Let’s not miss the fact that one of the reasons we lost the last time [in 2007] is that the anti-immigrant forces mobilized their advocates and the pro-reformers did not,” says Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice. “Now we are working to answer questions such as: What is the best policy approach going forward? How do we strengthen and build a communications effort that has more volume and velocity and, most importantly, how do we have a grassroots operation that is nationwide and is effective?” For 17 years Sharry was executive director of the National Immigration Forum. He also served as a leader in the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, which closed in February 2008. America’s Voice (www.americasvoiceonline.org), an organization that grew out of this coalition, opened in March 2008 as a communications effort designed to more directly challenge those who oppose immigration reform.

“This is an exciting time,” says Geri Mannion, who leads the U.S. Democracy Program and the Special Opportunities Fund of Carnegie Corporation of New York. “Despite their problems, issues, conflicts and disappointment about the bill failing, these advocates have come together to rethink the next phase of immigration reform and hopefully are stronger for what they have gone through.” Under President Vartan Gregorian immigrant civic integration has been a consistent program focus of the Corporation, as has an evolving concern with assisting those working on issues relating to the pathway to citizenship. Since 2001, for example, Carnegie Corporation has awarded $35 million in support of immigrant civic integration at the state and national levels.

Many public opinion polls document the fact that most Americans recognize the importance of approaching immigration reform in a manner that would address the various facets of the issue and help our nation move forward in a stronger and more balanced way. For example, a late 2007 Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg National Survey of nearly 1,500 adults found that “most voters, regardless of party, support allowing illegal immigrants who have been living and working in the U.S. for a number of years to start on a path to citizenship by registering, paying a fine, getting fingerprinted, and learning English, among other requirements.” (For an overview of more than 20 recent public opinion polls on the issue of immigration, click here.

Learning From the Past

The seeds of the pro-immigration movement are in a tradition of coalition relationships that began when the immigration reform debate started in the early 1980s. It was then that a few national organizations developed a presence on the issue, and key local coalitions were formed to represent the voices of immigrants. During the debate surrounding the enactment and subsequent implementation of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, immigration organizations became better connected through conferences, in-person meetings and conference calls. In the 1990s the number of organizations involved began to increase. “We started to develop ways of working in crisis circumstances that formed the next phase of the movement and the challenges that people faced together,” explains Cecilia Muñoz, senior vice president for the office of research, advocacy and legislation of the National Council of La Raza (www.nclr.org), the largest Hispanic civil rights and advocacy group in the United States. “September 11 changed everything. It made the hill we need to climb much higher and added a whole new dimension on national security to the debate and increased the government’s ability to persecute particular people using immigration law.

After the 110th Congress failed to pass the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, members of the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform spent months reconsidering what they had learned over the years of working together and determining how best to reinvigorate their efforts.“There was a lot of thinking by the various groups individually and collectively assessing what happened when the bill [for comprehensive immigration reform] fell apart in the summer of 2007,” says Karen Narasaki, executive director of the Asian American Justice Center (www.napalc.org). She says they learned what they do well, what they could have done better and what they could not control, and they became more determined than ever after the Senate effort to pass the proposed 2007 bill failed. “The explosion of local and state ordinances, increased raids, increased pressures on immigrant communities and the terror and chaos that all those things created underscored what our beliefs have been all along,” says Narasaki. “The only way that we are going to bring order and compassion into the system is to redouble our efforts to reform the system to better reflect the reality of what our country needs and what is right for communities and families.”

Narasaki says Asian and Latino communities share a great deal in common, including the fact that two-thirds of the Asian community is foreign born and about one-half of the Latino community is foreign born. “So we are familiar with the immigrant experience across ethnic boundaries,” she explains. Although there are fewer undocumented immigrants in the Asian community than in the Latino community, Narasaki says, “Ten percent of the Asian community is undocumented and both communities are very much affected by backlogs of family members waiting for visas to become available. For example, spouses and minor children of legal permanent residents are now facing waits of five to ten years, and siblings of citizens could wait over 20 years. Educating both groups about the difficulties each of them face is important, so that members of both communities understand they have a shared interest and a shared stake. Another important lesson learned in the immigration rights battle is that “restrictionists often try to set ethnic communities against each other,” Narasaki explains. She says there is concern about the potential for a split between the Asian community and the Latino community over potential political tradeoffs between legalization and visas required to address the enormous backlogs in the family categories of particular importance to the Asian American community. There are also potential tradeoffs between high-skilled and low-skilled employment-based visas.

Looking back on the years of work supporting immigration reform, Sharry says, “We’ve made every mistake imaginable. We’ve been at times too big and too democratic; at times we’ve been too small and too insular, and neither works very well.” Initial meetings of what became the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform meetings brought together 150 groups to discuss strategy, and some devolved into tense sessions of finger pointing and accusations of bad faith, turf and resource hoarding and general positioning for power. On the other hand, meetings of small groups of people brought accusations from colleagues that these relatively few leaders, many of whom were based in Washington, D.C., were not being held accountable for their decisions by members of the coalition. In a quest to improve the situation, a decision was made in late 2006 to form a strategy council composed of 43 groups from around the country, with a mandate to coordinate on fast-breaking developments and hold informational conference calls to keep others around the country in the loop. This helped develop a sense of transparency and trust. In addition, the Coalition organized regular conference calls involving 100 to 200 people. Despite all this intense effort the coalition was unable to develop a broad and strong enough movement to prevail.

Expanding Civic Engagement Opportunities

Pro-immigration advocates are now reorganizing and placing more emphasis civic engagement, Says Angela Kelley, director of the Immigration Policy Center of the American Immigration Law Foundation (www.immigrationpolicy.org), “More and more people realize we have an uphill battle and that there has been a devastating impact locally. Many of us feared this would happen, but I don’t think we could have anticipated the ferociousness of the backlash.” In referring to the fact that opponents of the 2007 immigration reform bill shut down the U.S. Senate phone system on June 28, 2007, the day that the immigration reform bill stalled in the Senate, Kelley says that “one office got 1,000 calls.” She said that the balance of power between groups with differing views on immigration reform can shift if there is a strong turnout in November by recently naturalized citizens and Latino voters who are either native born or who were naturalized years ago. “This is an issue of importance to them because even if it doesn’t affect them directly, it affects their family, friends and community.”

The Pew Hispanic Center web site (http://pewhispanic.org) points out that Hispanics, who comprise 15 percent of the U.S. population, could be a “swing vote” in the 2008 national election because many Hispanics live in states that President George W. Bush carried by narrow margins in the 2004 election, and the November 2008 election is again expected to be a close contest in these states. The Pew Report, Hispanics and the 2008 Election: A Swing Vote? states that their survey shows 57 percent of Hispanic registered voters say they are Democrats. Another group of potential “swing voters” are the 1.6 million children of undocumented immigrants who will reach voting age within a few years (to see a report by the Urban Institute, click here).

Strengthening the civic capacity of immigrant organizations throughout the country is vital to helping prepare these groups, so that they will be able to help immigrants integrate if an immigration reform bill is passed by the U.S. Congress. As part of its work with indigent and low-income immigrants, the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, which was formed in 1988 by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, runs three-day training workshops across the country designed to help attendees establish and run nonprofit immigration legal services programs. With Carnegie Corporation support, the Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC, www.cliniclegal.org), convened a group of partner organizations to write a management manual, “Managing an Immigration Program: Steps for Creating and Increasing Legal Capacity.” It shares the best practices of experienced organizations with a curriculum that covers subjects as diverse as program design, case selection criteria, financial controls and marketing. In 2008, Carnegie Corporation-supported training programs were held in eight sites around the country and were attended by more than 160 people representing more than 70 organizations, including groups in under-served areas as well as those working with migrant farm workers, victims of crimes such as domestic violence and other distinct immigrant populations.

These workshops and other CLINIC programs help community groups across the country become recognized by the Board of Immigration Appeals to practice immigration law. “CLINIC has reached out to religious as well as non-religious organizations like ours,” says Diane Nguyen-Vu, executive director of the Maryland Vietnamese Mutual Association. The group assists immigrants from all countries, but finds that the populations they serve in the Washington, D.C. metro area are primarily Vietnamese, West African and Caribbean. In 2007 and 2008, Nguyen-Vu attended CLINIC workshops on family-based immigration, general immigration law and program management. It is important that as many organizations as possible become qualified to help immigrants because, Nguyen-Vu explains, there are a lot of non-attorneys, called notarios, who prey on immigrants. “The notarios are usually scam artists who charge excessive fees and give false promises of immigration benefits such as citizenship or deportation relief,” says Nguyen-Vu.

In Charlotte, North Carolina, the Latin American Coalition (www.latinamericancoalition.org) is recognized by the Executive Office of Immigration Review of the U.S. Department of Justice to represent clients whose cases are brought before the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (including the Asylum Office and the Administrative Appeals Unit). “As I was preparing our group’s application for recognition and my corresponding application for accreditation, the word got out, and I started getting calls for assistance,” says Adriana Galvez Taylor, who is manager of the immigration program and a Bureau of Immigration Appeals partially accredited representative specifically authorized to represent only those individuals who seek immigration-related legal services at the Latin American Coalition. “The first couple of months after we were granted recognition, it was as though not just the spigot was turned on, but the fire hydrant. I could hardly keep up with the flow of clients. CLINIC is trying to prepare organizations for the day that we finally have the law to legalize and offer more opportunities to immigrants, but we won’t be ready even if CLINIC does the best possible job because the need is so tremendous and the funding is not there yet for human resources and staffing programs. This issue still doesn’t have the cache that some other areas have.”

Building a Grassroots Movement

The size and breadth of the immigration reform movement has increased dramatically over the last several years, complicating efforts to bring cohesion to the large-scale effort. “The challenge of coordinating all that energy and all those organizations is much greater [now] and there is a much greater depth of connection between national and local efforts than we’ve ever seen,” points out Muñoz. She adds that the National Council of La Raza expects to play a leadership role in developing policy work on the immigration reform debate. “We have 300 affiliates around the country that are living with the effects of the immigration debate every day and they are major participants in the field work that we are doing,” says Muñoz.

Although many of the immigration-reform organizations have a nearly two-decade track record of working well together, the struggles of recent years have helped them forge even stronger bonds of trust. “That sense of trust has put us in a better position to honestly critique what went wrong and to cooperatively make plans and implement them for applying the right fixes to the things that had gone wrong,” says Sharry. “I have an enormous amount of confidence in the courage, passion and trustworthiness of many of the groups I work with most closely. That is a good starting point for then saying, ‘Why did immigration reform fail and what do we need to do to advance immigration reform, so that it is more balanced and more humane?’”

The four-pillars structure aims to develop nationwide support to build a broad network that will bring together community, business, labor and faith stakeholders in a unified grassroots movement. The National Immigration Forum and the Center for Community Change are taking the lead in this initial stage of the campaign, organizing regional meetings in all the major geographic areas of the U.S. “We need to talk with progressives, liberals and moderates to help facilitate an understanding of people across a spectrum to explain why immigration is a fundamental challenge and to get their feedback on how to organize an integrated electoral, field, communications and policy strategy,” says Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum (www.immigrationforum.org) and former director of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Coalition. “It’s not just a few organizations in D.C. whose members sit in cubicles and say ‘This is what we should do.’ We need to bring new allies, including business leaders, into the network and decide how all the pieces fit together so we are prepared when we do have that call to action. We have to get outside our comfort zone and understand the national political map of getting to a minimum of 279 votes—that is one president, 60 senators and 218 representatives. We have to be disciplined about this: Do we want to win or don’t we?”

The relatively small regional meetings were first held in early September 2008 and are continuing throughout the fall. The Center for Community Change (www.communitychange.org) works with 350 immigrant rights groups through the Fair Immigration Reform Movement, which helps build the power and influence of community organizations. “These meetings offer a unique opportunity to once again build a big tent for immigration reform,” says Marissa Graciosa, who is immigration campaign coordinator for the Center for Community Change. “Because of local law enforcement increasing their crackdowns on families and workers there is a sense in communities that people feel they can’t tolerate this anymore. The regional meetings are a reminder that input from local people about how policy should be shaped and how we all can work together on it is important.” She reports that in each host city they are working with one of the immigrant rights groups helping to identify who should be at the table, including new allies, making sure that African Americans and new labor allies are included.

These are only three of the many recent headline-garnering stories that highlight the need for immigration reform in the U.S.:

  • New Haven, the Connecticut town nicknamed Elm City, in 2007 began issuing municipal ID cards to immigrants, including those who are undocumented. Within months more than 5,500 people had sought the card, which can be used to open bank accounts, take out library cards and participate in other ways in the community. As a result, The New York Times reports that “The streets are safer and crime has dropped because immigrants are now putting their savings in banks instead of carrying them in their pockets, reducing robberies.” The editorial also said these immigrants had been targets of robberies because they carried a great deal of cash in their pockets, prompting the nickname “walking ATMs” (“Courage in Elm City,” May 22, 2008).
  • Postville, Iowa, was the scene in March 2008 of an immigration raid on Agriprocessors, a meatpacking plant in the small town of fewer than 2,300 people that is known as “Hometown to the World.” At the time, it was the largest immigration raid of its kind in the history of the U.S. As the Washington Post reported (“Immigration Raid Jars a Small Town,” May 19, 2008), 389 immigrants, most of whom were from Guatemala or Mexico, were arrested, with many of them held at a cattle exhibit hall. Of those arrested, 262 pleaded guilty and received prison sentences or were put on probation. The effect of the raid is expected to be disastrous to Postville’s economy. “The problem is, who is going to do the work?” asked a journalism professor who was interviewed for the Washington Post article. This is a no-win situation.” Other critics point to the fact that no charges were filed against any Agriprocessors officials despite a long record of exploitation of its workers. “To allow a flagrant abuser of workers to continue to operate without penalty, while we prosecute and deport its former employees, is criminal,” says Sharry, adding that workers should be able to report exploitation without fear of deportation.” (For a fuller description of this issue see press releases and news clips on the web site of America’s Voice, www.americasvoiceonline.org.)
  • Concern about where businesses will find workers is a theme that echoes across the country in large metropolitan areas as well as small towns. As CBS Evening News reported on April 9, 2008, farmers are moving to Mexico across borders of states such as Arizona and California because they simply cannot find enough labor to grow and harvest crops. According to the report, “Farmers Crossing the Border,” the equivalent of more than 46,000 farming acres have already been shifted to Mexico.

“Dynamics in local communities are different,” says Rich Stolz, immigration policy coordinator of the Center. “The politics in Seattle, Washington, or San Francisco, California, are very different from the politics in Nashville, Tennessee, or Birmingham, Alabama, so part of our challenge is to find a consensus among organizations representing communities from many different places on both policy and strategy and then coordinate with our local partners to translate this consensus to national partner organizations and policymakers.” He says the organization works to influence policy by identifying and building durable relationships with the local organizations, businesses, legal services, immigrant organizations and social service providers, while strengthening the relationships among these groups and turning these relationships into effective national coalitions. “One role of the Center is to ensure that the concerns of folks in a particular community are part of what is taken into consideration when tough decisions have to be made in D.C.,” Stolz says.

It is expected that the regional meetings will produce a group of broadly supported principles of immigration reform and will help strengthen and deepen relationships among all the stakeholders. These guiding principles will then be presented at a national meeting of the National Immigration Forum scheduled for mid-December 2008.

Reflecting on the 40th anniversary of the Center for Community Change, which was founded in 1968 as a living memorial to Robert F Kennedy, executive director Deepak Bhargava said that at this pivotal time in our history, the Center’s role is to act as a bridge “between the lived experience at the grassroots level and public policy in Washington, connecting grassroots groups to each other to achieve more power and unity, between low-income people and allies, and to the organizations and politicians they need to help them realize the change that will benefit all of us.” Looking to the future, Bhargava said that although there has been a lot of change throughout the Center’s history, “one thing [that] has never altered is our conviction that it is only through the leadership of those most affected by injustice that change is possible—that change comes from the bottom up, and that organizing is the critical ingredient.”


Developing a multilevel, cohesive approach is key to success of the immigration reform movement. “One of the main lessons we learned is that you have to approach this issue from multiple disciplines and perspectives,” says Donald Kerwin, executive director of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network. “You can’t have a situation where people who are lobbying aren’t working with community service providers and media people. It has to be a unified approach in terms of policy proposals and in terms of implementation of the policies and the planned implementation needs to inform the policy proposals.”

Kerwin adds, “Building capacity on a community level to implement immigration reform legislation is an immediate need, as immigrants struggle, even prior to passage of immigration reform legislation, to find low-cost, quality services that will allow them to get the benefits available to them under U.S. law.”

Framing the Issue

A communications pillar is central to securing immigration reform, a fact undergirded by a May 2008 report from Media Matters (www.mediamatters.org), an organization often referred to as “liberal leaning,” but founded by noted conservative journalist David Brock. The report describes a study of three cable news programs aired during 2007. The report, Fear and Loathing in Prime Time: Immigration Myths and Cable News, determined that programs hosted by Lou Dobbs, Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck overflow “not just with vitriol, but also with a series of myths that feed viewers’ resentment and fears, seemingly geared toward creating anti-immigrant hysteria.” It documents the frequency with which these programs discuss the topic of immigration and how they perpetuate myths associated with undocumented immigrants. (For the full report, click here.) The report shows that hosts of these shows frequently allege there is a link between illegal immigration and crime, that undocumented immigrants do not pay taxes and that they use a disproportionate share of social services. (On the other hand, there is much evidence that the opposite is true. As reported in a 2005 study by the Urban Institute, “Undocumented immigrants pay the same real estate taxes—whether they own homes or taxes are passed through to rents—and the same sales and other consumption taxes as everyone else. The majority of state and local costs of schooling and other services are funded by these taxes. Additionally, the U.S. Social Security Administration has estimated that three quarters of undocumented immigrants pay payroll taxes, and that they contribute $6-to-$7 billion in Social Security funds that they will be unable to claim.”) These cable network shows also appeal to viewers’ fears and provoke their anger by saying there are plans to construct a NAFTA Superhighway from Mexico to Canada and possible plans to merge the U.S., Mexico and Canada in a “North American Union.”

In addition to educating the public and officials about these allegations, immigration reform organizations are developing strategies to stay focused on their message and not allow anti-immigrant groups to distract them from their goals. “Rather than clearly laying out the reason why immigration reform is necessary, we [previously] found ourselves in a box created by the language and goals of the opposition,” says Noorani. “Moving forward, we need to create and to expand that box. A way to do that is to speak with a stronger, savvier voice and to be bold in stating what we believe is best for
our country.”

Newly formed America’s Voice is a key part of the communication efforts of immigration reform. Sharry says immigration reform organizations need to be more aggressive about defining the positions of reform opponents as well as educating people about the concept that a solution to the problem of illegal immigration is possible through a combination of law enforcement, legalization of undocumented immigrants and provision for more visas for people who will immigrate in future. “The official position of most Republicans and certainly all the restrictionist organizations is what they call ‘attrition through enforcement,’ which is a very polite way of [these groups] saying, ‘we are going to make life so impossible for 12 million undocumented immigrants and their family members who are legal that they will leave the country,’” says Sharry. “That has been defined in the media as ‘enforcement only’ or ‘enforcement first.’ Frankly we think that should be defined as it is, which is mass expulsion hidden by polite language.”


“We are having a debate about what kind of country we want to be,” Sharry continues. “Do we want to drive these people out of the country or figure out a way that they can get on the right side of the law and become citizens of the U.S.? That is fundamentally the debate, and until that is clear to the American people, it is going to be hard to marginalize a very loud, but not very large, faction of American voters. It is a big challenge.” Sharry says that the mission of America’s Voice is “to support leaders of both parties who are in favor of reform and to make both the moral case and the political case to mainstream media and ethnic media that immigration is an issue whose time has come.”

Another piece of the communications effort is the Wave of Hope campaign, a project of the National Council of La Raza, that works to identify and respond to the presence of hate groups and extremists in the immigration debate. One aspect of the campaign is a web site (www.WeCanStoptheHate.org) which seeks to “take the hate out of the immigration debate.” Its organizers hope to accomplish this by focusing on identifying the hate groups and extremists in the immigration debate and the code words they use in discussing undocumented immigrants as well as how the media gives these
groups access.

A recent Corporation grant of nearly $50,000 to Fairfield University’s Center for Faith and Public Life supports the Center’s effort to explore migration as part of the faith experiences, primarily in Christianity, Judaism and Islam, but not excluding other religions. “The challenge is to figure out ways to enrich the national debate through religious communities in order to change some of the dynamics in what has been a very polarized discussion,” says Reverend Richard Ryscavage, a Jesuit priest who is the director of the Center for Faith and Public Life. “We need to balance the demands of security with the understanding that you are dealing with human beings, not just statistics or economic symbols. Religions are particularly good at doing this, if they are helped along or led by some of their traditions.”

There are many dynamics that complicate the challenge including, Ryscavage says, that faith communities are split, with some arguing in favor of immigration and some not. He notes that it is also very difficult to get closure on a general theory of immigration and what constitutes good or bad immigration. This is in part because many areas of migration have not yet been researched so there exists no general explanatory theory of migration. “The question of why people migrate remains a puzzle,” Ryscavage says. “It is an enormously complex issue; only a few issues are more difficult to unravel. You cannot fully capture it through the lens of political science, economics, sociology or history alone; the only way to get a full picture is through an interdisciplinary approach that includes all these aspects as well as religion. If you don’t approach it from all the different facets, you are not building a true picture of what successful immigration is all about. It is a challenge because universities are so turf bound that it is difficult to get that kind of thing going.”


As immigration reform groups continue to grapple with the questions of how they, together with local activists and faith groups, can more effectively promote immigration reform, many questions remain. Yet armed with their history of working together and with redefined strategy, they have not lost their momentum. “We have the right architecture in place; now what we have to do is build a house,” says Sharry. The need to build that house, to help undocumented immigrants on the path to citizenship and to help immigrants who are citizens become integrated in their communities and participating citizens in our democracy has never been more pressing. As with so many efforts that the Corporation supports, education and communication are central to the mission.

“The contribution that immigrants make to the strength of American democracy and the richness of its national life is immeasurable,” says Geri Mannion. “But their ability to fully integrate into our society is being challenged by an immigration system that is clearly broken. In collaboration with donor partners such as the Ford and Horace Hagedorn foundations, Atlantic Philanthropies and the Open Society Institute, the Corporation’s goal is to work with its grantees and support their collaborative efforts to integrate immigrants so that all of America can continue to benefit from the skills, ideas and dreams of its newest citizens.”

*In 2007 Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) introduced the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (S. 1348) that failed a cloture motion on June 7, 2007; in 2006 Senator Arlen Spector (R-PA) introduced the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (S. 2611). Both this bill and a somewhat different bill introduced in the House of Representatives (H.R. 4437) did not become law.

Joyce Baldwin has written on a wide range of topics for many national publications and is author of two biographies for young adult readers.

Editor’s Note: Carnegie Corporation of New York does not fund lobbying activities. The groups, organizations and institutions it supports, however, can and do lobby within the IRS restrictions on nonprofits.

Vol. 5 / No. 1 / Fall 2008