The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; Immigration Reform

[Tease]

[Oath of allegiance in citizenship ceremony.]

ROBERT MacNEIL [voice-over]: Every year, thousands of legal immigrants enter the United States and, like these, eventually become citizens. Thousands more, driven by economic need, still cross the borders illegally. Now there's a serious effort in Washington to get much stricter with both kinds of immigration.

[Titles]

MacNEIL: Good evening. The Reagan administration today endorsed proposed legislation to make sweeping changes in the immigration laws.Attorney General William French Smith said he generally supported a bill that would impose fines on businesses that employed illegal aliens. He also backed the idea of an amnesty for millions of illegals already in the country. But the Attorney General expressed serious reservations about another provision that, for the first time, would place an absolute limit on the number of legal immigrants and their families. The Attorney General was testifying at the end of hearings on the Simpson-Mazzoli Bill, which proposes the biggest changes in the nation's immigration laws in 30 years. The bill is the latest in a series of controversial proposals in recent years to stem what many see as an uncontrolled flood of illegal immigration. The many-sided opposition to all the earlier proposals has raised the question of whether this country can agree on how to regain control of its borders. And that's what we consider tonight. Jim?

JIM LEHRER: Robin, there are four major pieces to the Simpson-Mazzoli Bill. There is the cap on legal immigration; theannual limit would be set at 425,000 immigrants a year. Political refugees would be exempt, but the immediate families of U.S. citizens would not be. Under current law there is no limit on either category. Second, employer sanctions. Fines up to $2,000 and jail terms up to six months for employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens. The maximum penalities are for repeat offenders. Third, a national ID system. The bill would give the President three years to come up with one. In the meantime, everyone applying for a job would have to have two forms of identification -- driver's license, Social Security card, or something similar. And, finally, amnesty. Any illegal alien who can prove continuous residence in the U.S. prior to January 1, 1978, would be granted permanent resident status, eligible to bring their relatives into the country, and for state and federal welfare payments. Those aliens who arrived between January, 1978, and January, 1980, would be allowed to stay on a temporary basis, but with no special privileges. After two years here they could then apply for permanent resident status, too. For more on the bill, its details and its purposes, we have one of the two co-sponsors, Senator Alan Simpson, Republican of Wyoming. Senator, Attorney General Smith questioned your putting immediate families of U.S. citizens under your 425,000 cap. Why did you do that?

Sen. ALAN SIMPSON: Right now that category is unlimited. Last year it was 157,000. So when we're trying to do what we're up to, which is the Immigration Reform and Control Act, we think we have to eventually get to numbers. I hate to do that because every number is a human being. But that's why we stayed at 425,000, which is just about existing legal immigration.

LEHRER: That's where you came up with that figure?

Sen. SIMPSON: That's right. But in that figure, remember that 325,000 of that figure will be directed toward family reunification, our historical, traditional expression of regard. The other 100,000 will be directed toward special or independent categories of special skills, special attributes that they bring to the United States.

LEHRER: Well, now, Attorney General Smith said today that your proposal would diminish that historic role of uniting families under U.S. immigration law. You're saying it would do just the opposite.

Sen. SIMPSON: Well, there's about seven categories that you bring people into the United States under immigration. The second preference is one of family reunification, and it has been historically about 15-18%. This bill will take that second preference up to 65% of that flow within that 325,000. So we think that's quite an advantage.

LEHRER: Now, the 425,000 figure, is there any question in your mind that this country can absorb that number of people every year?

Sen. SIMPSON: We feel that indeed we can, not only socially and morally, but with our wealth.

LEHRER: Do you feel that's the limit, that it couldn't absorb any more?

Sen. SIMPSON: I don't like to get into that kind of stuff. You know, there are 16 million refugees ranging the earth that have already pulled their feet away from their own shores. The population of our southern neighbor and Central American countries will double in the next 20 to 25 years. So I hate to get to numbers, but I do say this with refugees, which are separate from this proposal, that certainly we should take in only those we can care for because it is indeed a federal problem. And certainly with our legal immigration, which is set at, if this bill passes, 425,000, we feel that this country can assimilate those very handily.

LEHRER: But no more than that?

Sen. SIMPSON: Well, we'll be processing -- in other words, let's say family reunification beings to overpower the system, and we find that there is a backlog there. If that's the case and we fill those backlogs, then it's time to go back to the drawing board and meet always our historical perspective of family reunification and immediate family.

LEHRER: Now, in your amnesty proposal. How many illegal aliens do you figure will be affected by that?

Sen. SIMPSON: Well, the figures are that there are three to six million people here illegally. I won't go any further. Some say more; some say less. But I don't know how many will come out when we offer legalization, but the important thing, I think, for the American people to remember is that when they come out into the system for legalization that they are not simply then designated as U.S. citizens. They are designated as permanent resident aliens. Some of them then will go on the track toward naturalization. Within this two-year span there will be people who will be designated as temporary resident aliens, and they can get on the track toward permanent resident alien.

LEHRER: Your ID system. Does that mean literally that everybody who applies for a job in this country would have to prove that they are in fact who they say they are?

Sen. SIMPSON: What we say in that one is that we have a universal employment authorization, and it's my opinion, and many share it, that if we don't have that kind of system, then indeed those who "look foreign" will be discriminated against. That is my feeling. So to make it work we have to have something -- and we've discussed several things; one of them is simply a revised Social Security card. But we have to have something that you don't carry on your person, no jackbooted people come and mash your door down, it is not an internal passport, but at the time of employment -- new-hire employment -- you present it, and it's presented by people who "look foreign" and people who are less than hirsute and bald and look like Al Simpson.

LEHRER: And that is also part of your sanctions against employers, right? So they will have some way of knowing that the person they are hiring is in fact a legal resident?

Sen. SIMPSON: We can't put a burden on the employers of America or we'll never get to first base, so we ask them only to attest that they indeed asked the person in front of them -- white, brown, black or red -- that they asked that person for an employment authorization or an identifier. If they say yes, they're off the hook. If they say no, they can run into employer sanctions. And the only really hammering we do on employers is when they've been guilty of about four offenses, and then we get into criminal penalties.

LEHRER: That's when you send them to jail?

Sen. SIMPSON: It's a civil penalty or a misdemeanor, yes. On the fourth offense.

LEHRER: All right, thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Now for a reaction to the proposed bill, first, from a group that thinks it isn't restrictive enough. Roger Conner is executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a non-profit organization which wants to reduce immigration. Mr. Conner, why do you think the bill is not restrictive enough?

ROGER CONNER: It is going to allow too many people to enter this country through legal immigration, and it's also going to result in a very large number of people remaining in the country through the amnesty proposal.

MacNEIL: I see. Well, let's go through the specific provisions. What objection, if any, do you have to the amnesty proposal as it stands?

Mr. CONNER: The amnesty proposal allows everyone who has been here since January 1, 1980, to stay, and we think this is essentially unfair because of all -- it's unfair to all the people who have waited in line to enter this country legally. It's also going to impose an enormous burden on the --

MacNEIL: Excuse me, did you say from January 1st, 1980? Did you mean, perhaps, up to January 1st, 1980?

Mr. CONNER: Everyone who arrived prior to January 1, 1980, would be allowed to stay.

MacNEIL: Right.

Mr. CONNER: And we think it's just unfair, particularly to those who have waited in line legally. It's also going to pose an enormous burden for the Immigration Service, and it's going to generate further pressures for illegal immigration.

MacNEIL: I see. What would you do about all the illegals who are here? What would you recommend be done?

Mr. CONNER: Well, the most important thing to remember is that as the other provisions of the bill -- employer sanctions, particularly -- go into effect, many of the illegal immigrants without firm ties to this country will return home on their own. And as for others for whom returning would be a hardship, there are provisions in the current law to protect them, to enable those for whom returning would be a hardship to remain in this country.

MacNEIL: I see. So you'd bascially say no amnesty at all, would you?

Mr. CONNER: Well, we also agree that the registry date, that is, for those who have been in this country for a significant period of time, can be allowed to remain by moving forward a provision of the law called the registry date so that those who have been in this country since the mid-1970s might well be able to remain.

MacNEIL: And apply for legal status, you mean, but not be granted legal status automatically?

Mr. CONNER: Correct.

MacNEIL: What are your objections to the ceiling of 425,000 on legal immigrants and relatives?

Mr. CONNER: The basic problem is that the limit does not include all of the immigrants coming. It does not include refugees. If this provision had been in effect for the last three or four years, we would have had exactly the same number of immigrants and refugees entered as we have seen. And I think most Americans agree that the current level of immigrantion is really too high.

MacNEIL: Who would you put in that total that is not there?

Mr. CONNER: Refugees. We believe there should be a total ceiling on all legal immigrants and refugees who are entering the country.

MacNEIL: What observations do you have on the ID system?

Mr. CONNER: We think that the ID system and the employer sanctions are the core of this bill. They are critical, needed measures. We congratulate the Senator and his co-sponsor, Congressman Mazzoli in the House, for putting the measure forward, and we believe that it's urgent that it be adopted in this session of the Congress.

MacNEIL: Do you think the sanctions on employers are strict enough?

Mr. CONNER: The sanctions -- we believe most employers are going to comply with the sanction on a voluntary basis. Their compliance is going to be based on that rather than on the severity of the fines.

MacNEIL: In general terms, Mr. Conner, if this bill were passed as it stands now, what would the effect be on the flow of immigrants into this country, do you think?

Mr. CONNER: The flow of illegal immigrants into this country would be reduced. The flow of legal immigrants and refugees would continue essentially unchanged, and a very large number of illegal immigrants now in this country would ultimately all remain here to stay and apply for the admission of their relatives.

MacNEIL: And why, in a phrase, is that so terrible, in your view?

Mr. CONNER: We've got 9, 10 percent unemployment in this country and severe economic problems. And the people who are facing competition for jobs, housing and social services are the most disadvantaged people in our society. That's unfair, and we think it needs to be reversed.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: To the opposite view, now, from someone who thinks the bill is too restrictive. He is Arnoldo Torres, executive director of the League of United Latin American citizens, LULAC, as it's known, the nation's oldest and largest Hispanic organization. Restrictive in what way, Mr. Torres?

ARNOLDO TORRES: Well, unfortunately, the comments that Roger lays out are somewhat inaccurate with regards to it being a little too liberal. Obviously the restriction comes in regards to the family reunification issue. The bill does cut down on the actual numbers of people that actually can come into the country for the purpose of reunifying themselves with their family. At the same time it's restrictive in the sense that the employer sanctions and the ID system would be an extremely enforcement-oriented approach to a problem that really originates in the sending countries. So all the strong enforcement in this country is really not going to stop people from coming to the borders unless you actually, in effect, put out some kind of a very, very elaborate type of patroling along the borders. So in that regard it is a very enforcement-oriented and restrictive program with regards to the numbers and the type of emphasis that it puts on non-family unification, as the Attorney General pointed out today.

LEHRER: Well, let's talk about the numbers. Is your objection to the 425,000 figure, or to any figure?

Mr. TORRES: No, I think that there has to be some figure, and I think, as the Senator indicated today, that it's an extremely difficult thing to actually identify one. Regardless of what you do it's going to be an arbitrary figure. But the problem is simply that the 425,000 -- it's the mix that the 425,000 has in it. There are provisions for 100,000 to be an independent category, and the has absolutely, virtually very little to do with family reunification. Our problem is --

LEHRER: I'm not sure I understand what you mean there.

Mr. TORRES: A hundred thousand of the 425,000 would be for people who have special skills, people who want to come in to work under a temporary type of worker program. So they are not emphasizing the family reunification. It also excludes the parents of minor U.S. citizens -- children who are born in the United States -- so they can't be reunited with their family members. It also excludes fifth preference -- brothers and sisters. So there are problems in that regard, but I think insofar as numbers, academically we've indicated that a million is a figure that could encompass all -- illegal as well as legal -- because at this time we're never going to stop the flow of undocumented -- we can never stop the flow. We must understand that and recognize that as a reality. But what we can do is try to be more realistic and more pragmatic in trying to control that flow. So we've said, academically, a million would be something that we think would be reasonable.

LEHRER: And you think the country could absorb a million immigrants a year?

Mr. TORRES: It's absorbing more than that now. And contrary to the issue of unemployment, we've had historical unemployment problems at different parts in the development of this country. Every time it happens we blame the immigrants, the new immigrants that are flowing to the shores of the country. The problems of discrimination are things that are totally omitted from the discussion of why unemployment is so rampant among the minorities. So the minorities are not being done a favor when you come in and say that we must be more restrictive in our immigration policy.

LEHRER: What do you think about the amnesty part of the Simpson bill?

Mr. TORRES: Well, I think that the conceptual -- the structure that has been laid out in the Senator's bill is an extreme positive move as compared to what the administration was proposing. It's a very good structure of having the first cutoff and then the second period of being able to have the temporary status. Our only concern in that regard is that it should be enacted as close to the date of enactment of the legislation. In other words, the cutoff date should be as close to the date when the bill is passed in order to get as many people in, one. Two, the temporary status that you put people in between that two-year period, '78 and '80 -- the problem here, simply, is that people who have paid taxes, people who have been here for four years and are working hard, and, you know, maybe earning $4.20 an hour or whatever, are not going to be able to have any other benefits. They're paying taxes. They're -- hopefully they're abiding by the law, and they have to if they're going to stay in the country legally on the temporary status, so there's going to be a need to be more flexible in that regard. And if they're paying taxes, if they're productive members of society, they should have somewhat more flexibility if in fact they need that. And under the Senator's bill you can only have emergency services provided to them. So there is some inflexibility in that regard.

LEHRER: Finally, and briefly, you've already mentioned the ID requirement and sanctions against employers. So you think those are discriminatory?

Mr. TORRES: There is no doubt in our mind. We do not differ with the Senator's concern and genuineness in trying to make sure that discrimination is controlled as much as possible, but in the practical implementation on this type of a setup, this type of concept and program, there is no doubt that our community -- the Hispanic community and other foreign-looking communities -- are going to be hurt the most, simply because the public perception of the problem is one that it's a Hispanic problem. And someone who is not Hispanic looking or Asian looking, if there is another way that people from Vietnam or Southeast Asia -- not everyone else is going to be asked for the ID system, regardless of what the law is stating, because it's a very tremendously huge program that's virtually unenforceable.

LEHRER: In other words, if you and I apply for the same job you believe they're going to ask you for your card, not me?

Mr. TORRES: They may ask you for the card, and they may ask me for the card, but when it comes to actually hiring, they're probably going to hire you because they're not going to want to take any chances with me, and that's the issue. And that is the one thing -- human nature -- the thing that the Senator and the proponents of employer sanctions and ID fail to take into consideration -- the history of discrimination.

LEHRER: Thank you.Robin?

MacNEIL: Let's start with that,Senator. How do you avoid discrimination against identifiable immigrant groups?

Sen. SIMPSON: Well, what Arnold says is so true, but yet it's shaded a bit incorrectly. Sure they're not going to take a chance if we're going to have some indiscriminate messing around like we do now. There are people in this country who want to put a law on the books which says simply that it's illegal to hire an illegal entry, an undocumented worker. If that thing goes on the books and we don't have employer sanctions, and we don't have an identifier, I'll tell you who is really going to be discriminated against in the United States of America, and that's the Hispanics. They have the most to fear and the most to lose in that situation because then you inject fear into it. "I won't hire that fellow because he looks foreign."

MacNEIL: What do you say, Mr. Torres? This way an Hispanic, for instance, could prove that he's entitled to the job.

Sen. SIMPSON: Many of our Mexican-Americans and Hispanic-Americans are offended by their present treatment in the marketplace. I want to avoid that. There's a good way to do it. Have a universal indentifier that's presented by everyone, whether it's the Social Security revised card or what. And that's the only way to avoid discrimination.

MacNEIL: Mr. Torres?

Mr. TORRES: Well, we come back to the simple point that the proponents, the Senator has unfortunately been able only to take the argument to the conceptual stage, and not beyond that. There has not been any study that we've been able to look at that indicates that an employer-sanctions ID system is going to be effective in dealing in the hiring of undocumented aliens, as well as even stopping the flow of undocumented aliens. The issue of discrimination, even though there's strong attempt on the Senator's part to make sure that there's not going to be discrimination, is just not going to --

MacNEIL: Well, how would you, on behalf of Hispanic peoples, how would you -- are you in favor of making it illegal to hire undocumented workers?

Mr. TORRES: I think that conceptually, yes, I think it would be a good attempt to try and do that. But the way that we've approached it, simply, is that in most cases, and every case that we've looked at, and every report that we've been able to look at from states and local government, when there is the hiring of an undocumented alien, there is a violation of a labor law, whether it be one or whether it be three or whether it be five. Now, to us the best thing to do is to target the enforcement of existing labor laws, increase the severity of the fines where there are violations of existing labor laws, and therefore you have employer sanctions. You take the whole issue of pigmentation of skin out of the issue.

MacNEIL: Mr. Conner, why wouldn't that work, in your view?

Mr. CONNER: Well, it seems to me that what Arnold is not facing is that the real discrimination is already occurring, and it is discrimination against American citizens by employers who prefer to hire illegals. And perhaps that's the reason why the only poll ever taken among Hispanic-Americans found the overwhelming majority in favor of employer sanctions. The nation that we should enforce our labor laws -- of course we should, but that's never going to have anything to do with stopping the hiring of illegal immigrants.

MacNEIL: Senator Simpson, how is the debate we're hearing across your chest there liable to shape up in the Congress on this particular sensitive issue of the ID system and the employer sanctions?

Sen. SIMPSON: People out there in the land are anxious to do something. We think that this is a way to do it which is not going to be offensive. The whole issue, the whole emphasis of what we're trying to do is have a law which is fair and firm and humane and not racist.Because every time we revised the immigration laws in the United States during our past history, it has always had tinges of racism. So the people out there, they don't know the difference between an asylee, a refugee, an immigrant, a voluntary departure, a permanent resident alien, a temporary resident alien. They haven't got that locked in. So they are in a mood of restive hostility in some ways, and they're saying, "Get off your duffs and do something." We hope this is it.

LEHRER: Senator, what about a point that Mr. Conner raised a moment ago, which is that your amnesty proposal is not fair to those who did it right, who came in legally and waited their turn -- waited in line, to use this expression?

Sen. SIMPSON: I got something else that ain't fair, and that is how about the people that came here illegally and are working and have assimilated into the community and live essentially in a fearful type of subculture. Those are people who are afraid to go to the cops, afraid to go to a hospital unless for a birth -- and then of course they do want to get to a hospital. And afraid to go to their employer who says, "One peep out of you and you go to the INS." I want to remove that fearful subculture in our nation, and it's very real.It's there. Remove that, and the only way you do that is to legalize those as permanent resident aliens or temporary resident aliens.

LEHRER: What's wrong with that, Mr. Conner"

Mr. CONNER: A legitimate concern, of course. But what we're looking for is striking a balance between that concern and the patent unfairness of the amnesty proposals. And this one, we think, just doesn't strike such a balance.

LEHRER: In other words, the fact that there are three to six million people living out there in fear with all the problems that the Senator laid out and that Mr. Torres laid out is not that big a priority? The other one is a bigger one?

Mr. CONNER: Well, if you don't get illegal immigration under control first, prior to giving any sort of amnesty, then all you're going to do is to encourage more illegal immigration, more people living in the subculture, more people living in fear. You will have actually created more of a problem than you had to start with.

LEHRER: Senator, finally, and we want to go to the two of you on this, too, you heard what Mr. Torres said a moment ago when he said that if anybody thinks they're going to stop the flow of illegal aliens into this country, forget it. They're kidding themselves. Do you agree with him?

Sen. SIMPSON: No, I don't. I think this is our opportunity to control the illegal flow, and you do it in one way.

LEHRER: Do you think your bill will stop the illegal flow?

Sen. SIMPSON: Well, let's say it didn't. Let's say it would give it away. If we were to do only one thing, and that is to send a signal throughout the world which is something like. "Hey, who would have believed it? In the United States of America you can't work unless you have some kind of work authorization." There are only two remaining developed countries on earth that have no control over their borders, and ironically, it's Mexico and the United States. And Mexico is having the same problems on their southern border as we're having on ours.

LEHRER: Mr. Torres?

Mr. TORRES: With regards to whether his bill would stop the flow?

LEHRER: Yes.

Mr. TORRES: Well, let's be very, very realistic.The issue of Nicaragua, we saw over 100,000 Nicaraguans come to the shores of this country and enter into the country legally or illegally in some form or another. Absolutely under no circumstances is an employer sanctions -- is the restrictions on the numbers going to stop the political instabilities in certain countries, nor is this approach going to address the problem of the economic instabilities in those countries. So you must have, if you're going to be serious, if you're going to be comprehensive, you must bring in all of these other factors that play a tremendous role in the issue of refugees, in the issue of undocumented workers. And that is where the bill falls, unfortunately, extremely short.

LEHRER: Mr. Conner?

Mr. CONNER: There are no solutions, and Arnold is right when he says that this will not totally solve the problem. There are no solutions because this isn't a geometry problem. There are only alternatives, and the alternative presented by Senator Simpson is a step toward gaining greater control over the flow of illegals and reducing their numbers, and it will do that.

LEHRER: Senator, Mr. Torres is opposed to it; Mr. Conner and his people are opposed to it; the Chamber of Commerce is opposed to your bill. Are you going to make it anyhow?

Mr. CONNER: Well, we're in favor of the bill passing, with strengthening amendments.

Sen. SIMPSON: Going to get my old bald head right down in the trench and just keep right on going.

LEHRER: Okay. Robin?

MacNEIL: Senator Simpson, Mr. Torres, Mr. Conner, thank you all for joining us. 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.