No Need for New Law, Congressional Hearing Told : Evidence of Alien Hiring Bias Is Denied

A top Justice Department official and the chairman of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission said at a congressional hearing Wednesday that there is no evidence of discrimination against aliens in hiring and that legislation to counter such bias is unnecessary.

Assistant Atty. Gen. William Bradford Reynolds and Clarence M. Pendleton Jr., testifying before a joint hearing of the House and Senate Judiciary subcommittees on immigration, said that civil rights laws are sufficient to protect Latinos and other groups from job bias on the basis of race.

“We have no evidence that (job discrimination against aliens) is a problem,” Pendleton said. Later in the hearing, Reynolds urged Congress to compile more “empirical data” to determine “if this is a real problem or a phony problem.”

The comments drew sharp criticism from several subcommittee members, who contended that such bias is widespread. It “goes beyond common sense” to suggest that aliens do not suffer job discrimination, Rep. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said.

One conservative member of the House subcommittee, California Rep. Daniel E. Lungren (R-Long Beach), acknowledged that “there is (job) discrimination in this country, based on a fear of foreigners.” He did not criticize Reynolds and Pendleton directly.

Sweeping Proposals

During the session, the House subcommittee reviewed sweeping immigration proposals by Sen. Alan K. Simpson (R-Wyo.) and Rep. Peter W. Rodino Jr. (D-N.J.) and discussed a key amendment that would provide civil rights protections against job discrimination for aliens.

Both Simpson’s bill, which has passed the Senate, and Rodino’s proposal would penalize employers who hire undocumented workers and offer legal amnesty to millions of illegal aliens already in the country.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) has proposed an amendment that would allow aliens to sue employers for job bias and create a new unit of the Justice Department to oversee such complaints.

Co-sponsors of the amendment predicted that many employers, fearing penalties, might refuse to hire any aliens, even if job seekers “come forward in good faith” and receive amnesty.

“Without these (protections), this immigration law is unfair to millions of people,” Rep. Robert Garcia (D-N.Y.) said. “The anti-discrimination provisions are absolutely necessary.”

Civil Rights Laws Cited

Several witnesses, however, questioned the existence of discrimination. They said that such complaints would be adequately covered by civil rights laws banning discrimination based on race, sex and national origin.

Pat Choate, a policy expert representing the National Assn. of Manufacturers, said that Frank’s amendment would penalize an employer who chose to hire only U.S. citizens. “What is wrong with an American citizen giving American citizens a priority in employment over foreign citizens?” he asked, citing U.S. unemployment statistics.

When asked by Schumer if it is fair to discriminate against aliens who are in the process of becoming citizens and who pay taxes, Choate said that bias may be “the cost of transition.” If aliens cannot find work, he added, “they may have to leave.”

Reynolds sympathized with this viewpoint, saying: “Philosophically, there is something to be said. . . . There is nothing wrong with an employer holding that view.” He said that discrimination based on national origin is illegal and that existing laws cover such complaints.

In his testimony, Pendleton said that the Civil Rights Commission has not turned up any complaints of discrimination based on a person’s alien status. Agreeing with him was James Troy, an official with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, who said he is not aware of any federal studies that have ever documented such a problem.

Reynolds added that creating a new unit of government without having proof that the discrimination exists is “like shooting in the dark” and could create a situation in which an employer’s decisions are “weighted in favor of non-citizens.”

Richard H. Keatinge, a Los Angeles attorney representing the American Bar Assn., said, however, that current civil rights laws do not adequately protect aliens, especially those who are in the country legally but have not yet become citizens.

“If authorized immigrants must be available to serve in our armed forces,” he said, “then our national policy should be that those same persons may not be denied other employment because of their status.”