The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; 7022; Reagan Immigration Policy

[Tease]

WILLIAM FRENCH SMITH: We have lost control of our borders. We have pursued unrealistic policies. We have failed to enforce our laws effectively. We must more effectively deter illegal immigration to the United States, whether across our expansive borders or by sea. The proposals announced this morning by the President would have that result.

[Titles]

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. The Reagan administration today proposed a wide-ranging series of measures to try to control the flow of illegal immigrants. After months of study and weeks of cabinet discussion, the plan was unveiled by Attorney General William French Smith on Capitol Hill. But even before the final version was made public, leaks of some details had provoked sharp attacks, both from those who think them too lenient and those who think them too restrictive. The administration considered, but dropped, the idea of a national ID card to enable employers to identify legal immigrants. But for the first time it proposes serious penalties for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants, while suggesting a variety of measures to reduce the number of them arriving here. Much of the plan will require approval by Congress. Tonight, how the plan will work, and why some people don`t like it. Jim Lehrer is off; Charlayne Hunter-Gault is in Washington. Charlayne?

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Robin, the official unveiling of the President`s plan has been delayed twice before the presentation this morning, but administration officials said the most important points in the plan are basically the same as those approved by the cabinet two weeks ago. Briefly, those proposals include the following: a two-year trial period for a guest worker program under which 50,000 workers would be admitted annually for stays of from nine to 12 months; fines of up to $5 to $1,000 for employers of four or more people who knowingly hire illegal aliens; a legalization plan that would allow illegal aliens who were present in the United States prior to January 1, 1980 to become permanent residents, but only after a 10-year waiting period, with limited rights; requests for congressional authorization to permit the Coast Guard to intercept unregistered boats heading for the United States and suspected of transporting illegal aliens; a request for $35 million to set up temporary detention centers to hold illegal aliens reaching the United States; and finally, a proposal to increase the permanent immigration quotas for both Mexicans and Canadians from 20,000 to 40,000 a year each. For some further insight into the new policy, we go now to a man who worked very closely with the various federal agencies involved in drafting the policy. He is David Hiller, special assistant to the attorney general. Mr. Hiller, you made your initial report in May; the cabinet delayed until last week; then it was another week before the Attorney General announced the plan. What were the sticking points that held up the plan?

DAVID HILLER: Well, Charlayne, really no sticking points in particular. I think all in all, with the -- with growth in the immigration problem over the last several years, I think people will agree that if we`ve finally come to grips with the problem, the space of four or five months will turn out to have been a very short space of time. And the events of the last week or two evidence only, I think, the strong interest that the cabinet took and that the President took personally in assuring that this was a sensible and workable and fair program.

HUNTER-GAULT: Why did you drop the idea of a national worker identification card?

Mr. HILLER: Well, the -- the question of an ID arises in the context of the President`s proposal to make it unlawful knowingly to hire illegal aliens. To make the -- a program of that sort workable, and to permit compliance with it in a fair way that wouldn`t result in discrimination, it`s necessary to have a mechanism for the employer to assure that the person with whom he`s dealing is legally entitled to work in the United States. A variety of measures have been considered, and were considered by the cabinet for that purpose, including at one time an enhanced Social Security card, all the way up to proposals made by some to have a call-in data bank to permit it. After the full range of those were considered, the cabinet determined that, in light of the extraordinary cost of creating a new and so-called more secure identity card, and in view of the fact that in reality a card such as that might not provide you that much more security than you have with current identifiers, and finally, because of the risks we felt that might pose to the privacy rights of Americans, we determined to propose, as the Attorney General announced this morning, that employers could rely on existing forms of identification. And we believe that`ll be a fair and workable system.

HUNTER-GAULT: Among other things the Attorney General said this morning was that -- and we just heard him say -- that the United States had lost control of its borders. How does this plan plan to restore control?

Mr. HILLER: Well, in a number of ways. It`s intended to be, and is, I think, a comprehensive strategy to curtail illegal immigration, in part by eliminating the opportunity for illegal aliens to come and work outside of the law in the United States. As you know, it`s that so-called pull factor that has for so many years driven people to the United States to take jobs that have been offered, and we would hope that by establishing realistic legal alternatives within regulation to permit people to come to the United States to work lawfully.

HUNTER-GAULT: Like the guest worker program?

Mr. HILLER: As in the case of the guest worker program. And by prohibiting any others who would come to work illegally, that we can deal effectively with the underlying conditions that drive illegal immigration.

HUNTER-GAULT: How many illegals are coming into this country each year?

Mr. HILLER: Oh, you know, the estimates range considerably; I think it`s fair to say, and we`ve estimated in part on the basis of estimates provided by the census bureau, that there may be in the range of three and a half to six million, although the estimates have been given as high as 12.

HUNTER-GAULT: And to what extent to you expect this plan to reduce that flow?

Mr. HILLER: Well, the flow may be- -- there may be as many illegal entries as a million to a million and a half each year -- not all across the borders, some with fraudulent documents. And it`s very difficult to predict, but we would expect that the President`s entire package would significantly curtail, perhaps by as much as half or more, the numbers of illegal aliens coming to the United States each year.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right. We`ll come back. Robin?

MacNEIL: Despite the amnesty provisions, the expanded quotas for Mexican immigrants, the new policy runs into criticism from Hispanic American groups. To articulate some of their concerns, we have Amaldo Torres, executive director for the League of United Latin American Citizens. Mr. Torres, first of all, are there parts of the program that you and your colleagues think good? Think that will work?

ARNALDO TORRES: We think that some aspects of the enforcement program will work to some extent. We`re not necessarily in total agreement with the way the proposal intends to deploy the increased border patrol and the INS field staff, because we don`t feel that the focus should be solely on the Mexican border, but along the Canadian border, seaports and airports. The other aspects of the plan that we are very optimistic about are -- are the increases, as you`ve indicated, of the quotas from Mexico, the raising of the numerical ceiling by 100,000. We are very, very glad to know that the administration has not supported an ID system -- very, very happy about that. But outside of that, we do have some serious concerns with the employer sanctions program, the temporary worker program, and to some extent, the legalization program -- upon clarification today.

MacNEIL: Well, let`s take those in order. First, the employer sanctions program.

Mr. TORRES: Well, simply, the employer sanctions program is one that we`ve never felt has any viable --

MacNEIL: That`s -- just to repeat; because it`s such a complicated plan. That`s the one in which employers could be fined up to $1,000 for knowingly employing as many as four illegals, correct?

Mr. TORRES: Yes. We think that with -- regardless of how you structure or design an employer sanctions program, that the real world repercussions of that will be simply to allow those employers who at the present time discriminate against Hispanics to merely give them another means of discriminating against Hispanics for the simple reason that, if an employer has to go through certain paperwork -- regardless of the kind of system that you institute, if he has to go through some paperwork -- the program is not being instituted to stop everyone who`s undocumented; it has been developed -- the employer sanctions program has been developed -- primarily -- the public perception is simply that there`s too many foreign-looking, Spanish-speaking/looking people.

MacNEIL: So you mean employers are going to be inclined to say, "I`m just not going to mix with those at all; they`re just going to be trouble."

Mr. TORRES: That`s right. It would be a lot easier. And also you`ve got the unscrupulous employer who will simply say, "I`m just going to use this as another means of discriminating." And the proposal doesn`t have any means whatsoever to address that issue. We have a number of laws on the books now. We have the EEOC, we have the OFCCP that are supposedly working on anti-discrimination efforts, but we still see a pervasive amount of discrimination.

MacNEIL: What are the other two parts?

Mr. TORRES: The temporary workers program would not really alleviate any of the pressures. In our opinion it would increase pressures simply because you`ve got 50,000 on top of the undocumented flow that you`ve got coming in now. The 50,000 in addition to that, as other experiences would have it with guest worker programs, would merely have the opportunity to establish ties in the United States and probably bring in their spouses, children, relatives, etc. on an illegal basis. The major concern that we`ve got right now with that program is simply, we do not have a labor shortage in this country. We may have some problems with certain industries of not being able to get employers -- or employees; we simply suggest that the American unemployed labor force in the United States should have the first crack at these jobs that are supposedly going unfilled, and we don`t really need the inclusion of 50,000 foreign workers who are probably going to be exploited anyway, and it will be a program that will be of primary benefit to the employer, anyway.

MacNEIL: Briefly, you had one third point that you`re opposed to.

Mr. TORRES: The legalization program -- upon clarification.

MacNEIL: That`s the amnesty?

Mr. TORRES: That`s right. The amnesty program. Upon clarification today from Mr. Hiller. we were very glad to know that the program does not indicate that the person would have to be here an additional 10 years on top of those `x`-number of years they`ve been here before January 1st. 1980. We`re very happy to hear that. It gives us more room and more positive ground to work from. We nonetheless do have concerns with the approaches of not being allowed to bring in your spouse and minor children. We do have concerns with the kinds of protections and the potential for exploitation by employers in view of the fact that they`re going to have to work. Now. let me make one last point.

MacNEIL: Can you. briefly?

Mr. TORRES: The major concern that we`ve got with this package is simply this: it does not address the problem in a comprehensive manner. The issue of undocumented flows to this country is simply one based on economic inequities -- economic disparities in the sending countries. We do not have enough proposals or recommendations within this package that focus specific attention on the economic problems of a Mexico, of Haiti, of Jamaica, of Dominican Republic, of El Salvador, of countries in Southeast Asia, and potentially of Africa, that`s going to be -- probably -- sending a lot of refugees here as a result of political and economic problems. So that is where the package and the whole thing really falls apart. It`s not going to really present any permanent solutions to an issue that`s growing all the time.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you. Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: A Roper poll last year found the vast majority of Americans favoring limits on the number of immigrants allowed into this country. That sentiment has found its way into the Congress where a bill to put a cap on the immigration quotas has been introduced by Senator Walter Huddleston. Democrat of Kentucky. Senator, does this plan render your bill obsolete now?

Sen. WALTER HUDDLESTON: Well. I certainly don`t think it does. I think my bill is deserving of consideration and will be considered alongside this bill. And perhaps there`ll be a melding of the two. I prefer my bill, certainly, over the proposals that were submitted today.

HUNTER-GAULT: Why is that?

Sen. HUDDLESTON: Well, I`ve addressed two very difficult problems that the administration walked up to and looked at and turned around and walked away. And one of them is the cap, a ceiling. I think everybody that I`ve talked to -- even those who think the United States should be more generous than we have been in the past. even, in accepting new citizens ? - - believe that there is a limit. Somewhere we ought to set a limit. I`ve addressed that problem and put a limit of 350,000. Last year we brought into the country 800,000 legal new citizens. No telling how many came in illegally; we don`t know. But I think that`s too many. I think we have a country that has a limit to its resources; it`s very expensive, particularly in the refugee field, to bring in these large numbers. We`re cutting back on other domestic programs; we`re spending over $2 1/2 billion of American taxpayer money for refugee assistance. We have a high rate of unemployment in this country. There just has to be taken into account, somewhere along the line, the interests of the American people. We can still be the most generous nation in the world -- and I never anticipate that we would not be -- in accepting new citizens. But we have to have, in my judgment, some kind of limit.

HUNTER-GAULT: How do you see this bill making that problem worse?

Sen. HUDDLESTON: I think this bill, without any ceilings, and the numbers they do put into the bill, are increased. But we know from recent history that actual ceilings -- or numbers written in -- have little effect. We have a limit now of 50.000 refugees per year. That`s what the statute says. We`re bringing in several hundred thousand a year So with the loopholes that are in the bill, the new money that`s being requested, I`d say this bill is being much more open-ended than the one we have at the present time.

HUNTER-GAULT: Are there other aspects of the plan that you think won`t work?

Sen. HUDDLESTON: Well. yes. We`ve talked about the worker program. I have very serious concerns about it -- some of the same ones that Mr. Torres has already indicated. But I think one element in any plan would have to be that a showing would have to be made that an effort had been made to employ American citizens first before we brought in. And then I think we can look back to the old bracero program that we had years ago, that --

HUNTER-GAULT: That was similar to the guest worker program.

Sen. HUDDLESTON: Very similar. And the first year it went into effect, the border patrol stopped 11,000 illegals attempting to enter the country. After it`d been in effect for awhile, and we had 300,000-plus on the workers program, the border patrol stopped a million illegals coming into this country. There`s a strong indication -- and I believe it will be borne out, and Mr. Torres alluded to it -- this kind of program has a tendency to increase those who want to come -- and will come illegally if they can`t come legally.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right. We`ll come back. Robin?

MacNEIL: Now for the perspective of someone who has had to deal with the thorny political and racial issues inherent in immigration policy. He`s Benjamin Civiletti. Attorney General in the Carter administration. Mr. Civiletti, who is a member of the Select Commission on Immigration, is now co-chair of the Citizens` Committee for Immigration Reform. Mr. Civiletti, first of all, what`s your general reaction to the plan?

BENJAMIN CIVILETTI: My general reaction is favorable. I think it`s an excellent start. It contains a number of elements that were a part of the recommendations of the Select Commission. I think the Attorney General and the President are both to be congratulated for coming to grips with this tough issue, or set of issues, and coming to a point where they made proposals with regard to them that are comprehensive. I have reservations, as everyone else will, about particular elements of the overall plan, but I think it`s a tremendous start, and I hope that the -- and I know that the Congress will be responsive.

MacNEIL: What are your reservations?

Mr. CIVILETTI: Well, the amnesty, for example, is a great principle, but in practice tying the amnesty to long periods of time, tying it to severe qualifications, destroys the effect of an amnesty. Canada has had poor success with it. The general thinking seems to be, with regard to amnesty, if you`re going to have an amnesty program, make it simple, make it quick, and then perhaps it will be partially successful.

MacNEIL: I don`t think we spelled out, Mr. Civiletti -- excuse me interrupting you -- exactly what some of the restrictions are. Not only would people not be able to bring in relatives during their qualifying period, they could not qualify for welfare, for instance, and other federal benefits. Only medical benefits in those states which permitted them. Is that -- am I generally right about that?

Mr. CIVILETTI: That`s right. There are restrictions on benefits and, as importantly, the time period in which there is an entitlement program, in my view is much too long. Ten years is much too long a period to expect people to come in and be deprived of rights that they would otherwise have or enjoy, even if under a gray cloud, while they were outside a registration or amnesty program.

MacNEIL: Wouldn`t that in effect create a kind of third class of resident in this country? Not a legal resident and not a citizen, but a --

Mr. CIVILETTI: It will do two things. It may create this third class who are -- who are in between illegality totally and legality -- which is an unfortunate thing to do, and -- but, secondly. I think it will -- the confusion, the complication in the plan will defeat people coming in who are, after all, living outside the law, concerned about it, and fearful of authority. And I think they simply won`t come in.

MacNEIL: What other reservations do you have? What about the guest worker idea?

Mr. CIVILETTI: I have severe concerns about the guest worker. I can -- I can understand the rationale, and I`m glad that the plan has proposed it to be for an experimental of two years, a period of two years. I`m also pleased that a -- that a counterweight to the guest worker program, much more serious and vigorous enforcement of the fair labor standards laws, to prevent abuse of guest workers, and manipulation of them -- is a part, an integral part of the plan. But I think history has shown that guest workers tend to build up over time, and tend to assimilate eventually into the host country. And I don`t know that we ought to be increasing a fairly modest guest worker program which has been, in the last several years, at least, about 30,000, and I`m certainly opposed to a substantial increase after this two-year experimental period.

MacNEIL: Let`s take another point we haven`t discussed yet very much, and that is something you and the Carter administration considered during the big influx from Cuba and Haiti, and that is stopping foreign ships at sea and interdicting them, turning them back or whatever. Is that a practicable idea for this country to enforce?

Mr. CIVILETTI: I don`t think so. First of all, it`s a very severe act at sea, and particularly with the type of vessels that we were confronted with with the Haitians and with the Cubans. Dangerous to human life; secondly, of questionable legal authority, certainly now. although we thought we could argue in good faith that we had the authority. With new legislation, questionable beyond certain limits of our country -- beyond certain jurisdictional limits. And thirdly, what do you do with the people once you interdict the vessel? If it`s from a hostile, or a country who`s unwilling to cooperate with you with regard to preventing unlawful out migration from that country, do you bring them back to prisons or jails in the United States, or detention centers? You can`t return them to their countries without cooperation. If you had the cooperation you can let the vessels land safely. We were advised, during the Mariel exodus, by the Coast Guard, that under those conditions and with those vessels, and the overcrowding that you`ve seen in the photographs, that it would simply be very dangerous to human life to try to interdict and evacuate or tow vessels of the kind that were -- that were involved in Mariel, with the kinds of loads that they were carrying. Now maybe, in this instance they`re talking about interdiction of a different nature or kind or stopping, or something of that kind, and trying to convince to turn around. But if it`s really a question of force, then I think it`s a very dangerous and not very practical policy.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you. Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Hiller, first back to Mr. Torres` point that this plan is just another means of giving employers to discriminate against Hispanics.

Mr. HILLER: Well, I completely disagree. The purpose and design of this program is to assure that the law can be enforced without discrimination against people. That`s the purpose of permitting the employer to rely on the identification. Once he`s done that, once he`s examined one or more pieces of identification that evidence a right to work in the United States, that would entirely satisfy his obligations under the statute. It would provide no ground what so ever for him to discriminate against persons who might appear to him to be foreign. And we have, as Arnold pointed out, other laws on the books that would be vigorously enforced to assure that the -- an employer sanctions statute were not used as a pretext for discrimination against some Americans.

HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Torres?

Mr. TORRES: Well, unfortunately, we have the laws that Mr. Hiller speaks about, but the reality is that they`ve not been enforced. There is no discussion -- or no component of this employer sanctions proposal that indicates that that aspect of the whole program will be enforced or will be watched over. The other reality is simply that this is a fine proposal, I guess, if you want to deal with it on a conceptual basis. But when you take it out there and you apply it to the field, it`s a totally different animal, one that takes on the real world characteristics and one that simply says to that employer who just is a blatant racist or a bigot against Hispanics, "I don`t want to have to deal with this issue, and I`m not going to have to hire any of these people because I don`t want anybody on my back."

Mr. HILLER: Charlayne, if I could revisit this one thing. All I can do is underscore the administration`s commitment to the fair enforcement of the law, and I can guarantee that that would be the firm policy of the administration.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, what about the point that both Senator Huddleston and Mr. Torres made, that the guest worker program is really going to displace American workers, that your procedure should be Americans first, that there isn`t a shortage, and that this is going to undermine work that should be available to Americans.

Mr. HILLER: The purpose of the guest worker program, like the purpose of the entire package that the President announced today, is to set realistic limits on legal immigration while we`re curtailing significantly illegal immigration. Substantial numbers of people, as we said earlier, come to the United States illegally to work each year. They`re brought here to fill jobs in some states and some occupations that would otherwise go unfilled. And it`s the purpose and the design of the program to target the admissions of workers into those states and occupations where there aren`t American workers to fill those jobs. And the program would itself require states to certify to the government each year the numbers of workers who could be admitted from Mexico who would not displace or otherwise adversely affect American workers.

HUNTER-GAULT: We`re running out of time and I just wanted to get you to respond briefly to a point -- to all of the points that have been made with the problems that you`ve had up to this point, and with the problems that Senator Huddleston indicates you might have in the Congress. Do you expect -- can you expect to put into place now an effective bill that will really address this problem?

Mr. HILLER: Well, we`re very hopeful about that possibility. The extraordinary cooperation we`ve had to date from Chairman Simpson and Chairman Mazzoli of the immigration subcommittees, and their diligent and vigorous groundwork already in this area makes me very hopeful that the administration and the Congress will be able to pass some such comprehensive measure.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right; we have to leave it there. I`m sorry. Robin?

MacNEIL: Thank you, Mr. Hiller, Mr. Torres, Senator Huddleston and Mr. Civiletti for joining us this evening. Good night, Charlayne.

HUNTER-GAULT: Good night, Robin.

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