Real Chance for Immigration Reform : New Rodino Bill, With Latest Simpson Measure, Finally Offers Hope By

Having reported for almost 15 years on illegal immigration to the United States, as well as on the many futile efforts to reform the outdated immigration system that is partly responsible for it, I saw a historic circle closing this week when Rep. Peter W. Rodino Jr. (D-N.J.) returned to the fray.

The powerful chairman of the House Judiciary Committee introduced a comprehensive immigration measure on Thursday. That brought back memories of 1972-75, when Rodino pushed for immigration reform, and failed, three times. That’s as often as Sen. Alan K. Simpson (R-Wyo.), the current leader of reform efforts in Congress, has failed since 1982.

Paired with the latest legislation written by Simpson, chairman of the Senate’s immigration subcommittee, the new Rodino measure seems to create the best chance yet for Congress to finally enact immigration reform. Between them, Rodino and Simpson have more than enough clout to overcome the combined efforts of the various interest groups that have opposed reform legislation in the past--Latino activists, Western farmers, civil libertarians and some religious and human-rights organizations.

The two men bring differing views to the issue, of course. Simpson is a Western conservative whose solutions to the problems posed by illegal immigration are restrictionist. Rodino is an Eastern liberal who, while he wants to end illegal immigration, is also concerned that any reforms be humane and not preempt the many generous provisions of our current immigration laws.

Simpson’s latest legislation, like Rodino’s previous effort, aims to slow illegal immigration by penalizing employers who hire undocumented aliens. Unlike Rodino’s earlier measure, and unlike previous versions of his own, Simpson’s 1985 proposal would not balance this restrictionist approach with a simultaneous amnesty for aliens who are already here illegally. It would make legalization of their status conditional, to be phased in after a government commission determined whether employer sanctions were effective.

Rodino’s bill is far more generous. It would provide amnesty for persons who entered the country illegally before 1982. In addition to Simpson’s civil penalties, Rodino calls for criminal penalties against employers who engage in a “pattern” of hiring undocumented workers. It also would provide for a special counsel in the Justice Department to investigate cases of alleged discrimination by employers who play it safe by refusing to hire anyone who looks or sounds “foreign,” including Latino and Asian citizens and resident aliens.

The differences between the two measures create an opportunity for those who would accept immigration reforms that are not totally restrictionist, particularly Latinos. Rather than opposing the new Rodino bill, they should work to influence passage in the House of a version that would leaven Simpson’s proposal, which is likely to emerge from the Senate unchanged.

There are at least three reasons why working with Rodino is a sounder strategy than opposing him, as many Latinos did in the early ‘70s:

--Advocates of restrictive immigration reforms, like organized labor and environmentalists, would no longer be able to blame Latinos for their failure. While Latinos have been the most visible opponents of past legislation by Rodino and Simpson, they were never the most powerful. That honor belongs to farmers in the Western states who have argued that their crops would go unpicked without a steady flow of illegal migrant workers from Mexico. Simpson has finally figured this out, recently telling the New York Times that the Western growers “are the toughest guys to deal with” concerning immigration issues. “Their greed knows no bounds,” Simpson was quoted as saying. “I don’t know what the hell to do with them.”

--With no Latino straw man as the villain in immigration reform, the xenophobic trend in this country against Latinos and other immigrants may begin to subside. Government officials and other citizens can then look at recent immigration more calmly and begin to understand that it is not a dire threat to the racial, linguistic or social makeup of the United States, but merely the latest shift in the long history of foreign migration to this country--movements that have not undermined America but have created new kinds of Americans.

--Immigration reform won’t make any real difference, anyway. The migration of people here, while it has slowed occasionally, has never stopped, and it will not stop as long as American employers need low-wage labor that people in other countries are eager to provide. Also, demographic researchers predict a continuing decline in the native-born U.S. population; if our economy is to keep growing, we will need “new” people--and their children--in the work force.

If the demographers are right, and I suspect that they are, we may see a time when the current restrictionist consensus on immigration will turn around. In the future, perhaps the near future, the debate will not be over whether we should close our borders but how widely we should open them.