Debate Goes Back to Early ‘70s : Revision Became Idea That Would Not Die

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-N.Y.) likened it to Rasputin, the manipulative Russian court adviser who survived numerous assassination tries. “Immigration refuses to die,” he said. “It comes up again and again and again.”

To Rep. Daniel E. Lungren (R-Long Beach) it was “a corpse going to the morgue and on the way to the morgue a toe began to twitch and we started CPR again.”

Since Congress first started talking about overhauling the nation’s immigration laws in the early 1970s, the notion has been debated, amended, studied, filibustered, negotiated and defeated time after time--only to demonstrate amazing powers of recuperation.

Wrote It Off Again

Only late last month, after wrangling for more than 15 months over the latest revision measure, congressional leaders once again wrote it off when the House rejected a complex package of compromises.

But, with only days remaining before adjournment, negotiators surprisingly reached a new agreement that broke the impasse and produced landmark legislation that backers hope will check the flood of illegal aliens pouring across the nation’s borders.

In part, the turnaround was the result of the persistence of a small group of legislators who spent months reconciling once diametrically opposed viewpoints into a shaky consensus and did not want to see their efforts wasted.

But even more significant was the growing perception by interests on both sides that the public clamor for curbing illegal immigration was growing and the deal they might be able to swing next time for their cause might not be as favorable.

In particular, civil libertarians and others who opposed the idea of punishing employers who hire illegal aliens were afraid the next Congress might impose such sanctions without offering amnesty to many immigrants who had lived in this country for a long time.

Growers Settle for Less

Similarly, growers seeking the right to import foreign “guest workers” to pick their crops--a provision opposed by Latino groups--sensed growing congressional impatience with their demands and settled for less. They got an accelerated residency program for farm workers that should allow them to keep much of their alien work force, and the possibility of importing some workers in the future if labor shortages become severe.

In the end, many adversaries moved into an uneasy alliance behind the revision bill on the shared conclusion that some resolution of the issue in this session of Congress was better than facing the uncertainty of the future.

“This may well be the last chance for immigration reform before the problems at our borders preclude a compassionate solution,” said Rep. Hamilton Fish Jr., (R-N.Y.), the ranking GOP member on the House Judiciary Committee.

“It’s not a perfect bill,” said Rep. Romano L. Mazzoli (D-Ky.), “but it’s the least imperfect bill on the horizon.”

The long legislative odyssey began in 1971 when Rep. Peter W. Rodino Jr. (D-N.J.), now chairman of the Judiciary Committee but then head of the panel’s immigration subcommittee, convened the first of what proved to be several rounds of hearings probing the economic magnet that draws aliens to this country--jobs.

1.8 Million Expected

At the time, Rodino recalled, federal agents were catching about 200,000 illegal immigrants a year. This year, the Immigration and Naturalization Service predicts it will apprehend a record 1.8 million.

Both in 1972 and 1973, the House passed Rodino-sponsored bills that encompassed one of the major elements of the just-passed revision package--fines and jail sentences designed to scare employers out of hiring illegal aliens.

But the Senate buried both bills in the face of opposition from business groups that complained about the penalties and Latino organizations that feared employers would become reluctant to hire any worker who appeared to be foreign-born.

A few years later, then-President Jimmy Carter gave the revision move a push, urging new legislation that would provide amnesty in the form of legal status to some illegal aliens. But lawmakers shied away from a concept then considered radical and took no action. Congress, however, did create a 16-member national commission that conducted an exhaustive study of the illegal immigration question and, in 1981, made sweeping recommendations that formed the basis of the immigration bills to follow.

The same unlikely coalition that blocked passage of earlier revision efforts combined to shoot down a 1982 Senate-passed bill when it hit the House. Latino and civil liberties groups liked the new amnesty provisions, but not enough to assuage their opposition to the employer sanctions. Labor groups also joined the anti-sanctions drive (some illegal aliens belong to unions), while business and farm organizations insisted that many enterprises were so dependent on alien labor that they would be financially crippled by sanctions.

Reimbursement Sought

By 1984, with the tide of illegal immigration swelling, the opposition clout had weakened and both chambers passed immigration bills. But attempts to reconcile the two versions broke down in the waning hours of the 98th Congress when House and Senate negotiators found themselves unable to devise a plan to satisfy yet another strong special interest. This was composed of state and local government officials who wanted federal reimbursement for additional welfare and education costs that would be caused by granting legal status to illegal aliens.

In this session, key legislators pushing for some action simply wore down the opposition. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO dropped resistance to sanctions and withdrew as active participants in lobbying efforts that had felled past bills. Farm interests also agreed to back legislation as long as it included special provisions for field hands to ensure that they had enough workers.

Even more significantly, unified Latino opposition in Congress began to crack. The entire House Hispanic caucus voted against the 1984 immigration bill, but five of the 11 caucus members voted for the bill when it passed the House this week.

Amnesty More Liberal

Last month’s House rejection of the plan was overcome in part when the accelerated amnesty for farm workers was made more liberal. The final compromise allowed them to become temporary residents if they had worked as little as 90 days in the fields in a 12-month period ending last May. Other aliens would be eligible for legal residency if they had lived in the United States since Jan. 1, 1982.

The plan also offered city and state governments at least $4 billion through 1994 to defray increased legalization-related costs.

While still expressing reservations about employer sanctions and other provisions, Rep. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.), a former chairman of the Hispanic caucus, said he had been persuaded that the bill, on balance, did more good for Latinos than harm.

“The time has come to bite the bullet on immigration reform,” Richardson explained. “(It) will permit 5 million, 8 million people to come out of servitude, out of the shadows, and this may be the last chance we have to do it.”

Supporters said that increasing fears of violence, drug smuggling and even terrorism linked to the nation’s porous 2,000-mile-long border with Mexico also increased pressure on Congress to at last act decisively.