The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; Immigration Reform

[Tease]

ROBERT MacNEIL [voice-over]: Can the United States control the flood of illegal immigrants and regain control of its borders?

[Titles]

MacNEIL: Good evening. A bill providing the most sweeping overhaul of the nation's immigration laws in two decades was overwhelmingly approved by the Senate yesterday. The vote was 76 to 18. The bill would amnesty millions of illegal aliens now in the country, and attempt to stem the flow of fresh illegals estimated at a million a year. The Reagan administration supports the bill; Attorney General William French Smith said it would conserve the heritage of a nation of immigrants while ensuring adequate legal authority to regain control of our borders. The Senate passed a similar bill last year but it got blocked in the House, and opposition is expected to surface there again. Hispanic leaders think the legislation discriminates against their community. Organized labor also opposes key parts of the bill. Tonight, the proposed immigration reform and the arguments against it. Jim?

JIM LEHRER: Robin, there are three major purposes of the Senate legislation: control more carefully the flow of legal immigrants to this country, discourage the coming of the illegal ones, and make legal the illegals already here. It would set a 425,000 annual cap on legal immigration, which would include those granted political asylum. It would impose fines on any employer of four or more persons who hired an illegal alien. A national identification system would be set up to help the employer separate the legal worker from the illegal. So would a better system of allowing foreign workers to come to the country on a temporary basis, most of whom do farm work. Finally, it would grant legal status -- amnesty -- to many illegal aliens now living in the United States. Those who could prove residence here since 1977 would be granted permanent resident status; since 1980, temporary resident status, then permanent after three years. It's a complicated piece of legislation, and those are only the high spots. The Senate author of the bill is Senator Alan Simpson, Republican of Wyoming. The Senator was to be with us tonight, but he was held up by a vote on the Senate floor. Here, in his explainer's place, is a supporter of the legislation, Roger Conner, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform. Mr. Conner, first of all, why cap immigration at 425,000?

ROGER CONNER: Because that's the current level of legal immigration, but our legal immigration system, until recently -- right now, Jim, is like an entitlement system: it's growing every year. So what this legislation does is put a ceiling on immigration at 425,000 and say if legal immigration's going to grow in the future it'll be by an act of Congress, now just having it continue to grow automatically.

LEHRER: But that would not be a reduction then, in other words, in terms of how many legal immigrants come into this country now?

Mr. CONNER: That's right. They've decided to set the limit at the current level and then the bill also requires that this level be reviewed every three years to see whether it should be raised, lowered or left the same as circumstances change.

LEHRER: Okay. The fines on employers who hire illegal aliens. How stiff would they be?

Mr. CONNER: It'd be a thousand dollars per illegal for the first time they're caught. If they continue to violate this law, the fines per person would go up, and eventually they could even suffer a criminal penalty.

LEHRER: Criminal penalty, meaning going to jail?

Mr. CONNER: That's right.

LEHRER: I see. All right, now, the national identification system. As I understand it the bill doesn't lay out exactly what the system would be; it just says, "Have one," right?

Mr. CONNER: What's envisioned -- this was explained on the floor -- is that employers will call and check the Social Security number that you and I already have in the same way that a merchant checks your American Express or Visa card number today. Happens millions of times every day; the technology is well settled. That's the kind of system that's envisioned.

LEHRER: Not an ID card system?

Mr. CONNER: Well, there may be a new improved Social Security card that the person shows the employer, and then the employer checks the number. But the key to the system will be checking the Social Security number. Whether there will be a new card or whether we will rely for identifying the person on things like drivers license, that's still up in the air, but the key is you've got to check the Social Security number to make sure that it's a valid number and that it belongs to the person who has applied for the job.

LEHRER: And the theory behind this bill is that this could be done simply by, say, a small farmer hiring four or five? You'd have to hire at least four to be really under the sanctions, but he could just simply check these numbers to see if the cards were real and the numbers were real?

Mr. CONNER: That's right. In fact, the smallest restaurant in Washington, D.C. or New York City has figured out how to call an 800 line and check the credit cards, and we don't see any reason why the employers of America can't also learn how to check people's cards when they apply for a job. And, by the way, the bill allows them to check within 24 hours of the person's being hired so that the person who is hiring laborers for just a few days will have time to put that person to work the first day and check his card by the following day.

LEHRER: All right, the amnesty program. How many illegal aliens is it estimated that this would legalize?

Mr. CONNER: The problem is nobody knows, and that's one of the hazards of this section of the bill, which we are not enthusiastic about --

LEHRER: Your organization is not that keen on it?

Mr. CONNER: FAIR is not supportive of this section.

LEHRER: FAIR is the acronym for your organization.

Mr. CONNER: For Federation for American Immigration Reform.

LEHRER: Right.

Mr. CONNER: And the problem is it may be two million; it may be 10 million. Nobody really knows how many people this is going to apply to. And what the other difficulty with it is is that people who are now outside the country may come in and attempt to get fraudulent documents in order to qualify for the amnesty. So how many people will it apply to? I don't know, and I don't think anybody knows.

LEHRER: Well, then I guess that nobody would know how many it would not apply to, right? I mean, in other words, if even a percentage of the illegal aliens that are in this country today, that there's no way to know --

Mr. CONNER: The 1980 date, I'm sure, is going to apply to perhaps 75 or 80 percent of the illegal immigrants who are currently in the country. So we're talking about literally several million people who would be covered by this amnesty.

LEHRER: Thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: One place the Senate bill will certainly run into trouble is with members of the Hispanic caucus in the House of Representatives. Democratic Congressman Bill Richardson of New Mexico is chairman of the caucus's task force on legislation. Congressman, why do Hispanic leaders object to this bill?

Rep. BILL RICHARDSON: For several reasons. First of all, it's a negative bill. It's bureaucratic. It sets deadlines. But mostly, the portion on employer sanctions is discriminatory against Hispanics. The 14 million Hispanics in this country will be the main victims of this bill.

MacNEIL: Why?

Rep. RICHARDSON: Why? First of all because the burden of proof will be on the Hispanic, the person that is not fair-haired and does not look like Robert Redford and speaks the King's English will be victimized by producing documentation, by having to show a number of documents, by simply being a victim of this bill. I think the main reason that we object to it, the main reason, is that the burden of proof is on us to show that we're not foreign. So what you're going to have is a situation where 16% of the Hispanics in this country are now employed. This is a bill that's going to be directed at us. It violates our civil rights. And mostly it's going to hurt our jobs.

MacNEIL: But if the people have legal status, either landed immigrant status, or are American citizens, won't they be very quickly able to prove thay by showing the document and --

Rep. RICHARDSON: Well, the problem is this. The burden of proof will be on us. Now, if you're an employer and you take a look at me and you say, "There's Bill Richardson. Well, I hear he's Hispanic; he looks Hispanic, so we're going to make him produce documents." The burden of proof is then on me to do this. You probably will see another applicant that does not look brown, that does not have the perception of being Hispanic, or a fair-haired person, and you're not going to hire me. So what you're doing, in essence, is you're violating my civil rights. This identity card system -- I'm going to have to carry it around or somebody is going to tag me on the street. And I think it just is a massive violation that doesn't make any sense.

MacNEIL: But have they not rejected the idea of a national identity card. Would it not be, as you've just heard from Mr. Conner, a use of the Social Security card or something?

Rep. RICHARDSON: Well, I mean, it's just -- it's a semantical difference. We're talking about -- we're talking of producing an identity card and I think the perception here is that it's going to affect Hispanics because all you have to do is whenever somebody thinks of immigration reform, we are talking not just about Hispanics; we're talking about Asian-Americans -- Indochinese, but the main public perception is that we're talking about wetbacks, that we're talking about Mexican-Americans coming across the border, I think, at the start of your program. So we're the main victims of this kind of legislation. Furthermore, employer sanctions won't work. Senator Simpson's own study of the GAO, the General Accounting Office, showed that employer sanctions were tried in 20 countries, and countries most similar to us -- Germany, Canada, France. They didn't work because of legal problems. The courts didn't enforce them, because also the fines were too low. It just is an experiment that creates more bureaucracy. As a small businessman, what you're doing is, anybody that has a small business now becomes an INS bureaucrat. The INS businessman is now somebody that is one and the same. You're creating another bureaucracy.

MacNEIL: What do you feel about the amnesty provisions?

Rep. RICHARDSON: I think in the House bill the amnesty provision effective January 1st, 1982, seems more compassionate, more correct. Let's start a new one --

MacNEIL: That would immediately amnesty a great many more?

Rep. RICHARDSON: That's right.

MacNEIL: And virtually everybody here illegally at present?

Rep. RICHARDSON: But let's look at these -- people refer to those as illegal. Well, they're working. They're productive members of society. Most statistics show that they're not on welfare rolls. They're paying Social Security and taxes. So what you're saying is, let's start new; let's start fresh. Let's start with January 1st, 1982. The Senate bill has two tiers, as Mr. Conner mentioned: creating more bureaucracy, more deadlines, more inhumanity, more subclasses. I think if we start fresh and address the problem -- and I've got some ideas on how we can resolve it.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you. We'll come back. Now a labor view of the bill. Muzaffar Chisti is director of the immigration project for Local 2335 of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union here in New York. The project provides immigration advice and legal help to the local's 28,000 members, who are mostly Chinese and Hispanic. Mr. Chisti, what are your problems with the bill?

MUZAFFAR CHISTI: Well, I think I should start by saying that we don't oppose the bill. We have supported the intent of Senator Simpson and Congressman Mazzoli when they decided to take upon themselves the task of revising one of the most intricate legislations that we have on the books. It's also, as you mentioned yourself in the interview, the most comprehensive reform of the bill in about three decades. So the major thrust of the bill we support. We only have problems with certain specifics of the bill, and we can get to them in detail. We think (a) that the legalization provisions of the bill are not broad enough, they're not quick enough, and they're not believable enough. And all those sort of will come in the way of making it an effective policy. We might end up having a paper policy under which a very small number of people who are the targets of the legalization program will be willing to come forward and legalize themselves.

MacNEIL: Why? Why would they not all avail themselves of it?

Mr. CHISTI: Well, let's see what the Senate bill says. The Senate bill says that if you have come to the United States before January 1st, 1977 and can prove that -- the burden of proof lies entirely on the alien -- and can prove that you have entered here before January 1st, 1977, then you become a permanent resident of the United States. If you come here between January 1st, 1977 and January 1st, 1980, then you don't become a permanent resident; you become a temporary resident. And at the discretion of the attorney general, you could become a permanent resident after three years. And anyone who has come here after January 1st, 1980 would be subject to deportation.Now, we in the labor movement have always thought of the legalization mechanism not as a moral response but as a practical response to the presence of an underclass. We have, in the midst of our working class people around the country, by any estimate, about 3.5 to 3.6 million people who have good reason to feel outside the main structure of the U.S. economy and U.S. polity and so on.

MacNEIL: Because although they're working, they currently have illegal status --

Mr. CHISTI: Status, and they could -- they're vulnerable; they could be detected and deported at almost no notice. So therefore they are scared of joining unions, they're scared of talking about their complaints, of not being paid --

MacNEIL: But won't the amnesty make a long step towards relieving them of that anxiety? Certainly those who were here before 1977.

Mr. CHISTI: It would certainly alleviate the problem of those people who have been here before 1977. We do believe that a large number of people will be disenfranchised under the Senate version that was passed yesterday.

MacNEIL: So you would agree with the Congressman, you should amnesty everybody up to a recent date?

Mr. CHISTI: Yes, and I would like to say that it's only -- the reason for that is that it's the most practical way to do it, that in one quick sweep we want to try to get those people who are right now a part of an underclass onto the main front, and then begin to give them rights and educate them about their rights, bring them into the unions so that they can defend their rights better.If we have two tiers of residency, some people who are temporary and some are permanent, we would not be able to achieve the task as quickly as possible.

MacNEIL: What other problems do you have with the bill?

Mr. CHISTI: We have problems on the preference systems and on the quotas. As Mr. Conner mentioned in the introduction and I should mention that I'm sorry Senator Simpson isn't here. He himself is a very charming defender of his own bill. But the preference system for the first time imposes an annual quota on the immediate relatives of the U.S. citizens. Right now, immediate relatives of the U.S. citizens -- they're primarily citizens. And unmarried sons and daughters -- and spouses of citizens and unmarried sons and daughters of citizens come outside the quota limitation. Now they would be brought within the quota limitation. Secondly, the --

MacNEIL: Which would have the effect of reducing the numbers?

Mr. CHISTI: Of total numbers, yes. And the married brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens who are now eligible to come to U.S. as permanent residents would be excluded.

MacNEIL: Which would, again, reduce the total number.

Mr. CHISTI: Reduce the number of people. And the unmarried sons and daughters of permanent residents, who now come under the second preference, would be completely eliminated. So on those terms it's kind of an anti-family bill, and goes, I think, against the spirit of the 1965 amendment law, which had family reunification as a cornerstone of our policy.

MacNEIL: Briefly, what do you think about the employer sanctions?

Mr. CHISTI: We in the labor movement support employer sanctions. I think if for no reason we believe that it at least eliminates the current imbalance in the legal structure. Right now it's illegal for an undocumented worker to work, but it's completely legal for an employer to hire an illegal alien. We think that if there are sanctions on employers, at least that imbalance would be eliminated. But the problems we have with employer sanctions that -- I should emphasize we do support it in principle -- is what the AFL-CIO told one of the congressional committees this morning, that there is no assurance against discrimination, or there are no corrective measures for discrimination against foreign-looking people. And there was an amendment yesterday offered by Hart -- the Hart-Levin amendment -- which would at least address the discrimination issues, and I think that was disregarded.

MacNEIL: Thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: Mr. Conner, First, this question that both the Congressman and Mr. Chisti have raised is, why not grant amnesty as of January 1st, 1982, and cut the thing clean and get on with it?

Mr. CONNER: Well, I think we've got a backup, if I can, Jim, and say why this legislation has been presented and what our current situation is. The United States, our immigration laws are a joke. We are in a situation where there are 4 1/2 billion people in the world. There are going to be six billion people in 20 short years. The pressures for immigration to this country are growing enormously.This is not the same country that it was in 1900 when we needed workers to people an empty continent. Today we've got 10 million Americans, 11 million Americans unemployed, and the unemployment among blacks, Hispanics, minorities, women and the unskilled -- the very groups that compete most directly with immigrants for employment -- the unemployment rates there are just at record levels -- 20, 30, 40 percent. So the reason this legislation is needed, sort of background for this whole discussion, is that immigration to the United States is totally out of control. Our immigration laws are being flouted on every hand. They don't work. So that's the starting point. Now, with that background --

LEHRER: You're talking about the people who are not here yet. The question had to do with the people who are already here.

Mr. CONNER: Okay, but you got to have that background to see that if you start by granting amnesty to large numbers of people, what you will do is signal all of those who have been thinking about coming to this country illegally, who are just getting old enough to make the trip, to pile in, because this, the amnesty, given once, the arguments that you've heard for it here on the show, the arguments will apply in 1985 and 1990 just as they do today. So the hope that the amnesty will be given again will draw more people into the underclass that we're all against. So the amnesty -- the amnesty should only be considered after employer sanctions are in place, after the Border Patrol is built up, after you have control of illegal immigration.

LEHRER: What do you say to that, Congressman?

Rep. RICHARDSON: Well, again, I disagree because we're approaching the problem negatively. Let me make very clear that the Hispanic caucus and many of us in Hispanic organizations, we recognize we need immigration reform. We want to change the status quo, which is awful. But I think you have to attack this problem in a positive way. First of all, I would propose beefing up the Border Patrol. Now, by that I mean getting proper training.

LEHRER: Isn't that negative?

Rep. RICHARDSON: No, that's not negative. I think with proper training, with more people -- statistics have shown that there are four choke points -- the Brownsville area, the Laredo area, the Chula Vista-San Diego area -- San Diego, for instance, 38% of the flow comes in. If we target some of that INS increased staff, if we target that kind of enforcement, that would help. Secondly, if we just simply enforce existing worker laws in this country -- minimum wage, job safety, health. If we enforce the law it will eliminate the need for cheap labor. But, thirdly, and the most important, which I think is attacking the problem at its source. It's a foreign policy problem, too, because it deals with our relations with Mexico. Let's face it. The Mexicans have not wanted to deal with this problem because it's easy for them to let undocumented workers come to our country. It's not their problem; it's become ours. I think for the first time Secretary Shultz, in his recent trip to Mexico, the Mexicans realized that they have to start dealing with this problem and they want to talk. Let's work with the Mexicans to create joint border projects, jointly financed work projects that prevent the flow from increasing. It's not going to curb the problem, but I think the first recogniztion we have to make is that it's also foreign policy, and if it's going to take linking things like our international loans to Mexico, which we are extremely positive on and link that to their making an effort on immigration reform, that's a source that we have not explored. And that's not something that comes out in a bill. It's a tract approach that we have not pursued.

LEHRER: Well, what about the specific point that Mr. Conner just made about granting amnesty the way you would grant it, as of January 1st, 1982, that that sends a signal and it's going to increase the deluge, no matter how many border patrolmen you put at the borders?

Rep. RICHARDSON: Well, I think, again, I would answer that with a claim that if you have some kind of joint effort with Mexico, if you have some kind of plan at the border, then that won't happen. I think we're talking about --

LEHRER: No matter what the amnesty situation?

Rep. RICHARDSON: Yeah. We're talking about people's attitudes. What I'm saying is, prior to January 1st, 1982, let's start anew. Let's get the bill going; let's try to get a situation where -- look at this problem in a positive way. All we've done is create barriers and bureaucracy and employer sanctions and negative things, and we haven't looked at what the positive side might bring.

LEHRER: All right, thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Yes, Mr. Conner, you've been tracking this for a long time. A year ago a similar bill got through the Senate. It got stopped in the House. Is that going to happen again this year?

Mr. CONNER: Congressman Jim Wright, the majority leader, has promised to use all of his persuasive powers to make sure this bill is brought to the House floor. I think that we will see a vote on immigration reform in the House, and we'll probably see it this summer.

NacNEIL: Have opponents -- Congressman, have opponents of the bill, like you, got enough support in the House to either kill it or very radically alter it?

Rep. RICHARDSON: We'll make every effort to alter it, and if necessary to kill it. And our support has been increasing. But I admit in the last year there has been the need for immigration reform, and it's up to us that are herding this bill to come up with alternatives. And those alternatives can't be addressed just by legislation. They can be addressed by foreign policy initiatives that we can all work with, like better relations and more dialogue and more of a forthcoming posture by Mexico.

MacNEIL: Do you agree with Mr Conner that the Democratic leadership in the House, which did not support it last year and effectively sidertracked it, is going to work to get a bill this year?

Rep. RICHARDSON: Yes, I do think so. And I'm one of -- I'm a believer that let's debate in on the floor. Let's not clog it up in committee. Let's have the full House, the full Congress of the United States act on this.

MacNEIL: What's your reading, Mr. Chisti, of whether they're likely to come out with legislation this year?

Mr. CHISTI: I think there's a greater chance that the bill will go through this year than it was last year. The House leadership wasn't prepared for the bill last year in the lame duck session, and basically the last-minute efforts made by advocacy groups are very effectual in killing the bill. The congressional leadership has had more time to study the bill and has listened to more actors, probably the chances have increased. But I think the chances would immensely increas if certain elements in the bill would be improved, and then a lot of other advocates would get on the bill and get Democratic leadership to support it.

MacNEIL: There have been changes of support, haven't there? I mean, last year labor was for the bill and now the AFL-CIO is opposing various parts of it.

Mr. CHISTI: No, I think it's not correct to characterize that the AFL is opposing the bill. AFL had problems with parts of the bill last year, and AFL has problems with parts of the bill this year. And in -- it does still support the intent of the bill and the ultimate goals. If the problems that AFL has talked about in congresssional testimonies can be corrected, it will support it.

MacNEIL: What happens, Mr. Conner, if again this year the Congress does not deal with it or fails to deal with it? What is the situation then, in your view?

Mr. CONNER: First of all, illegal immigration can only grow because the pressures that are driving illegal immigration are growing. Second of all, I think it's a -- there's a very real chance that if we continue almost immigration anarchy, what you're going to see is a backlash against all immigration. This bill has a very generous level of legal immigration in it. In fact, under this bill we'll take in more legal immigrants than the rest of the world combined.

MacNEIL: Mr. Chisti disputes you on that.He just said that some of the restrictions, as you heard him say a moment ago, actually reduces the total number of people coming in.

Mr. CONNER: No, it caps the legal immigration at the current level, and what it does is assure that it will not grow unless Congress raises the level. But the -- the point is that what this -- the reason this bill is needed is if we don't control illegal immigration, there is going to be a backlash and beyond that you're going to see tremendous economic competition between the incoming wave of immigrants and Americans who are trying to work their way up the jobs ladder.

MacNEIL: Well, we have to leave it there. Thank you for joining us, Mr. Conner and Congressman Richardson, and Mr. Chisti. Good night, Jim.

LEHRER: Good night, Robin.

MacNEIL: That's all for tonight. We will be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.