False Amnesty

THE UNITED STATES and Mexico signed the Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo in 1843, making the South western states of California. Arizona Colorado. New Mexico and Texas part of the U. S. At that time Mexican citizens were given the option of becoming American citizens or resettling to once central, now northern, Mexico.

It is paradoxical that Mexican nationals may once again be given a similar option option-but under far different circumstances and for very different reasons. If it passes the House, the four-year-old. Simpson Mazzoli immigration reform bill would give permanent resident status to illegal immigrants who came to this country before 1977.

Today's offer of amnesty reflects America's justifiable concern with controlling its 2,000 mile border with Mexico. Estimates put the number of illegal immigrants between four and six million, with about 60 percent of them coming from Mexico alone. Furthermore political upheaval, population growth projections, and economic squalor promise a continuing influx.

Everyone agrees that something must be done about immigration, but even traditional political allies (like labor and minority groups) do not agree on the most effective and just method. The Senate recently passed the Simpson-Mazzoli bill-so named for its sponsors, Sen. Alan K. Simpson (R-Wyo.) and Rep Roman Mazzoli (DEY)-with only one opposing vote. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and the full House will probably consider the measure in the coming weeks.

Simpson-Mazzoli would be ineffective because it is unlikely immigrants would comply with its measures. It also is offensive in its discriminatory nature. Rep. Edward Roybal (D-Calif.) has presented an alternative which merits genuine consideration, because it takes into account the civil rights of illegal immigrants, focuses on labor laws and considers immigration issues in an international context.

Roybal has been accused of political filibustering by his opponents, but actually he understands how immigrants and employers would respond to new legislation.

Simpson-Mazzoli attempts to please a variety of special interest groups. Its four major provisions consist of the stiff sanctions against employers wo hire undocumented workers, a temporary guest worker program and a general increase in funding and staff for this country's immigration agencies--the Border Patrol and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). An amnesty plan--which would give residency to illegal immigrants under certain conditions--is perhaps the most naive assumption the bill makes.

In order to enforce employer sanctions, the bill established a national worker identification card for all legal American workers. Such an I.D. system would lead to discrimination against anyone who looked foreign, particularly Chicanos, Puerto-Ricans, and other Hispanics. When Sen. Simpson addressed a group at the Kennedy School of Government in early March he claimed that employers must ask for identification of all prospective employees, without regard to national origin. The bill discriminates on both a class and racial basis. Sponsors virtually concede the bill's discriminatory nature by suggesting an employer review by the General Accounting Office (GAO) and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Ironically the Senate version already allows for several exemptions to small employers with the so-called "kindness amendment." An employer not previously convicted of hiring illegal immigrants would have an option of voluntary compliance. Businesses which employ casual or undocumented labor would also be exempt.

The bill's sponsors cater to agri-business interests by establishing a guest worker program which would allow 50,000 Mexicans to enter the U.S. annually for temporary work, insuring continued exploitation of cheap immigrant labor.

Besides casting serious doubts on this country's integrity and willingness to use illegal immigrants without granting them basic civil rights, the bill ignores precedent. A similar project, the Bracero program which ended in 1965 actually spurred immigration because "the guests" brought along their families and overstayed their welcome. Here again, the Simpson-Mazzoli package, in trying to satisfy every interest group, neglected to consider what the real world response from employers and workers may be.

They do so once again with their ambitious amnesty program. This provision, already passed by the Senate, grants permanent resident status to illegal immigrants who have been in the U.S. since 1977 or earlier. It grants those who have been here since 1980 temporary resident status. Some liberal-minded supporters of the bill speak glowingly of the amnesty plank, saying that it will end the negative social and economic sub-culture in which illegals are forced to exist. But in reality, it would have little effect Legalized immigrants would be ineligible for federal programs such as food stamps. Medicaid, and Aid to Dependent Children, allowing the spiral of poverty among undocumented workers to continue.

It is unlikely illegal immigrants would even come forward to change their status, and if they were to do so they would be overwhelmed with a bureaucratic barrage of inquiries, demands for proof, and new definitions. For instance, only those who could prove they have "resided continuously" in this country for five years would be classified as permanent residents. This excludes individuals who spend more than 30 days outside the country--a likely situation for an undocumented worker with a family back home in Mexico. The bill's amnesty provision serves merely as a rotten carrot--one which probably won't be eaten.

Like the Simpson-Mazzoli package, the Roybal alternative has an amnesty section, but with some key differences. This bill grants permanent resident status to those illegal immigrants residing in the U.S. since January 1, 1982. It reduces the administrative toll because it has one uniform policy instead of Simpson's two-tiered proposal. Furthermore, it eliminates the "residing continuously" qualification, allowing for up to 45 day absences annually and a waiver for absences due to "undue hardship of the alien, his spouse, parent, or child."

Rep. Roybal's measure would result in significant civil rights extensions to immigrants by allowing those who have been here for more than five years to be eligible for federal aid. In contrast to Sen. Simpson and Rep. Mazzoli, Rep. Roybal recognizes that 73 percent of illegal immigrants pay federal taxes and that 77 percent pay social security taxes (though a neglible percentage receive social security benefits). This bill, supported by most Hispanic organizations, also includes a special section protecting illegal immigrants from deportation while they await decisions on their resident status, making it more likely that some of them will come forward.

In general, Roybal's bill includes more civil rights related provisions, reflecting a concern for his constituency, which includes a large population of Chicanos and Asians who are more than familiar with INS.

His bill prohibits the participation of state and local officials in raids and immigrant checks and calls for special training for INS officials as to the civil and human rights of illegal immigrants. Additional innovations in immigration control include the creation of a committee to study immigration, considering both worker and employer incentives for remaining outside the law and identifying possible ways to eliminate those incentives.

But the most of the bill focuses on the enforcement of current labor law's rather than the implementation of employer sanctions. This gets to the root of the problem by eliminating the incentive for employers to hire undocumented workers, rather than threatening them with fines after they have hired them.

Employers exploit illegal aliens who don't demand their rights because they fear deportation. Employers, therefore, get away with violations of laws ranging from the minimum wage to OSHA regulations in the workplace. A 1979 GAO study showed that overtime violations by business resulted in $11.2 million in underpayments. Savings of this magnitude make hiring illegal aliens worth the risk. Roybal's critics argue that, although such violations exist, they are impossible to prosecute. They point to a similar DOL attempt in 1977 which failed to lead to major reforms.

But this proposal differs from the previous attempt in three key aspects.

The old program relied on worker complaints to spur investigations. Also the DOL had no mechanism for verifying worker accusations because employers did not face penalties for not keeping accurate records. The newly proposed bill imposes a $10,000 fine for failure to keep good-records, making the detection of violations more likely. This proposal would more than double the enforcement staff, working up to a $30 million increase in the budgets of the DOL and National Labor Relations Board d(NLRB) specifically for cases involving the exploitation of undocumented workers.

Rep. Roybal's bill will not solve America's immigration problem. It would, however, set immigration reform in a new direction, without the serious threats to civil rights of Hispanic Americans and Mexicans the Simpson-Mazzoli proposal represent Rep. Roybal's bill may be less ambitious than Simpson-Mazzoli, but it is more feasible. Unlike Simpson-Mazzoli it does not count on employers and undocumented workers to come forward of their own accord. Rather than view this bill as an obstructionist ploy by a Hispanic congressman--as one senator referred to it--Congress and the President must address the issues it raises in legislation. Immigration reform should constitute more than a political football; its complexity makes quick congressional action impossible.

Americans will not get immediate gratification on this issue. In fact, the dilemma will surely grow as the populations of Latin and Central America double while their economies shrink. Congress, the President, labor, Hispanic groups--all the involved parties--must begin to see immigration in the context of larger international dynamics. And closer to home, each of us must realize that we eat cheap fruits and vegetables largely on the backs of underpaid, undocumented workers.