Immigration: a Step Back

Sen. Alan K. Simpson (R-Wyo.) has taken many positive steps in pushing Congress to reform the nation’s immigration laws. His latest proposal is a major step backward, however, because it weakens the concept of amnesty for illegal immigrants, thereby exacerbating the plight of thousands of otherwise law-abiding people.

Like the immigration bills that he has pushed in the last two sessions of Congress, Simpson’s latest proposal aims to stem the flow of illegal immigrants into this country by penalizing employers who hire them. Last year’s version balanced these sanctions with a simultaneous “amnesty” for illegal immigrants--a program that would allow persons living in the country illegally to begin legalizing their status.

Under the new version of Simpson’s bill, amnesty would be delayed, and would also be conditional. Before illegal immigrants could legalize themselves, a presidential commission would have to determine that the bill’s employer sanctions were having a substantial effect in slowing illegal entry into the United States and that the employment of illegal immigrants had also been substantially reduced. Only then could persons who have resided continuously in the United States since Jan. 1, 1980, apply for legalization. Even then applicants for amnesty would be granted only temporary resident status for three years, after which they would either have to make progress toward becoming citizens or leave the country.

Such a cold and legalistic provision is unworthy of Simpson, who claims to be sensitive to the plight of illegal immigrants in this country. Although the many factions in the debate over immigration reform disagree as to whether illegal immigrants bring problems or benefits to this country, everyone agrees that they should be protected from exploitation--be it by unscrupulous employers, slum landlords or plain street criminals. The reason illegal aliens are so easily exploited is because they live in a legal limbo. Rather than eliminating that limbo, Simpson’s new bill would only prolong the immigrant’s uncertain status. Any humane immigration-reform measure must include provisions that lift the onus of illegality from immigrants as soon as it becomes law, not at some unspecified future date and under vague conditions.

Simpson’s bill has at least one other major flaw: The amount of federal financial aid that it would give to local and state governments to assist newly legalized immigrants is unrealistically low. The maximum amount of money that Simpson would give to all the states combined is $600 million per year for three years. That amount could probably be spent in Southern California alone to support the many immigrants here who could apply for welfare or legal assistance, go to public hospitals and clinics for health care and enroll their children in local schools once they were legalized.

Simpson changed in his latest bill so dramatically in the hopes of giving it a better chance to be enacted--unlike his last three proposals, which met with narrow defeat at the last minute. But the previous versions of his immigration bill represented a thoughtful and carefully balanced compromise. By now slanting his efforts toward unthinking and unfeeling restrictionism, Simpson has actually increased the likelihood that he will fail again.