Questions Arise, Confusion Is Rampant : Immigration Law Totally Alien to Many

“What if we can’t prove we’ve been here since 1982?” asked Josefina, a young woman with dark, Indian features, who said she left her native Guatemala six years ago because of “the killings.”

She explained that she and her mother have worked as domestics and her two brothers have labored in garment factories since they arrived in Los Angeles, but they have always been paid in cash. The family’s rent and utility receipts are in one brother’s name.

“And what about all those requirements?” asked Guadalupe, a fellow student at a Los Angeles adult school. Born in Mexico, she lives with her sister, works full time as a restaurant hostess and is studying for a high school diploma. “We’re in school, learning English and American history, but how about the thousands who have lived here for years and haven’t learned?”

Pondering an uncertain future and possibly moving to Canada, Josefina was sure of only one thing: “I won’t go back to Guatemala.” Guadalupe, who remembers the bloody political violence that racked her country before she left, said she is not going anywhere. “If they deport me, I’ll return, even if I have to cross back into the country illegally.”

At meetings in church and union halls, community and school auditoriums, immigrants are wrestling with similar questions and a range of emotions as they learn about the new immigration reform law that calls for sanctions against employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens and that grants legal status, or amnesty, to those who can prove they have lived continuously in the United States since before Jan. 1, 1982. A more liberal provision grants amnesty to those who have spent at least 90 days working in U.S. agriculture during the 12-month period that ended May 1.

In Orange County, illegal aliens have been flocking to information sessions held by Catholic Charities, an arm of the Diocese of Orange. They come in such numbers that the organization has had to move the twice-weekly sessions from its own offices to a union hall in Santa Ana.

Ted McCabe, the group’s immigration attorney, said that nearly 2,000 undocumented immigrants have attended the sessions.

Questions abound: “Will I be disqualified if I’ve used a false Social Security card to work?” “Will an outstanding bill for our last child’s delivery at a county hospital hurt our chances?” “If (the authorities) catch me during this period, will I be disqualified?” “Where can I sign up to learn English?”

“That is the major concern of most of them--learning English--since generally these are people with less than six years of education,” McCabe said. “They don’t even have high literacy in their native language.”

Nazario, a 24-year-old Mexican who lives in Santa Ana, said he is confident he can learn enough English to pass an exam. It would be better to be legal, he said, but not if an unsuccessful application for amnesty only ends up costing him his job as a janitor.

“We didn’t come here for the fun of it; we came here because we needed work,” he said. “I have to support my mother and my sisters, who don’t work.”

The answers from immigration lawyers and consultants, immigrants’ rights advocates and church organizations are often indefinite--and sometimes contradictory. The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, the agency charged with writing the regulations to answer these questions, has yet to formulate them. And even some agency officials admit confusion.

The landmark law, which leaves some key decisions up to the executive branch, is “a skeleton of a skeleton,” according to one lawyer. Enacted Nov. 6, it calls for a six-month educational period during which the agency will also write the regulations to implement the law. For a year, beginning May 5, the agency will accept amnesty applications and those found to qualify will be granted temporary resident status. After 18 months, those who can show a “minimal understanding” of English and knowledge of U.S. history and government will become eligible for permanent status. Citizenship would be available to them beginning in 1993.

The INS faces a formidable task. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates there are 3 million to 5 million illegal aliens in the United States. In the six-county INS Los Angeles district alone, officials say they expect to process about 3,000 applications daily during the initial one-year application period.

Meanwhile, most immigrants and their advocates are at a loss as to how to proceed. Some groups are already challenging the law’s implementation in court, while others suggest that some activists who opposed the law are adding to the confusion by frightening immigrants away from the law.

“A Pandora’s box has been opened,” said Linda Wong, attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. “But it will be quite a while before any kind of coherent response is formulated.”

One of the biggest concerns is that the INS will take a narrow view of the law, imposing stringent requirements that will make it difficult for applicants to qualify.

“If I had to ballpark it, I’d think there will be an 80% denial rate,” said attorney McCabe. “It depends on how ruthless the INS is.”

The law calls for proof of five-year residency backed up by “independent corroboration.” Although the INS has yet to specify what types of documents will be acceptable, agency officials have suggested that paycheck stubs, rent and utility receipts, income tax and children’s school records may be helpful.

Even immigrants who, after searching their memories, can think of no strike against them, are unsure whether they should apply.

“I’ve always paid my taxes and have never received any government assistance, but who knows what else they’ll ask?” said a Salvadoran woman who, like others attending an informational session at an East Los Angeles community center, expressed a deep mistrust of the government she has learned to avoid.

“Now we live here safely and the authorities know nothing about us,” she said. “But once we submit our application, they will know about us and where we live. And if they turn us down, they will throw us out.”

This interim six-month period--described by one immigrant as “limbo--neither heaven nor hell”--is marked by anxious uncertainty on all sides. Wong calls it “probably the most vulnerable period.”

Referring to scattered reports of firings by panicky employers confused about the law, Wong said that these workers may find themselves in a Catch-22 situation. Unemployed, these aliens will be hard-pressed to meet the legalization rule requiring them to demonstrate that they can support themselves without becoming a public charge, she said.

Despite a call by community leaders to remain calm and do nothing until the law is clarified, there are already some reports of families who, fearing that they will not qualify, are packing their belongings, preparing to return to their countries of origin. Other immigrants, on the other hand, are reportedly encouraging relatives who have formerly lived in the United States to return under the mistaken notion that they might qualify for amnesty.

Community leaders are also concerned that anxiety over the law will be exploited by lawyers and immigration consultants. Misleading ads, urging immigrants to get a head start on an application process that has yet to officially begin, have begun appearing in Asian and Latino community newspapers and on radio.

Latino and civil rights organizations, many of which fought passage of the law, charging that employer sanctions would unleash rampant discrimination, are changing gears, concentrating now on informing immigrants about the law through community seminars, flyers and public service announcements. They are also closely monitoring the law’s implementation.

“Now that the law is in effect, our mandate is clear,” said Raul Yzaguirre, director of the National Council of La Raza, an umbrella organization of community-based Latino groups. The council has joined several national church, Latino and civil rights organizations in an ad hoc coalition to monitor the law. “Our work is to maximize the number of people eligible for legalization and minimize employment discrimination,” Yzaguirre said.

Wong and Peter Schey of the National Center for Immigrants Rights Inc. said their groups will also seek a say in the selection by INS of voluntary community agencies that will be officially designated to help it process amnesty applications. They hope to promote the selection of agencies willing to advocate on their clients’ behalf, and not merely represent the INS.

Despite differences of opinion on how to proceed, there is general agreement on some basic advice to illegal immigrants: Do not approach INS during this interim period; sit tight while the law’s amnesty regulations take shape; pay off any outstanding debts to county hospitals or other government agencies; and don’t be taken in by false advertising; rather, approach nonprofit community and church agencies for information and pre-screening services.

Immigrants’ rights groups also advise those who are apprehended by INS agents to refuse to leave the country voluntarily. If INS refuses them permission to remain in the country pending submission of an amnesty application, they advise immigrants to opt for a full-scale deportation hearing before an immigration judge. And they note that aliens involved in deportation proceedings must apply for amnesty during the first 30 days after the application period begins in May.

Agreement among immigration lawyers seems to end there, however.

Those who look with optimism toward a generous application of the law encourage immigrants to begin gathering documentation in preparation for a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Others, however, admitting distrust of an agency perceived as an enemy of immigrant communities, predict that only a fraction of illegals will be judged eligible and thus advise “extreme caution and skepticism” in deciding whether to apply.

Some lawyers also contend that the amnesty process will take longer than anticipated and they advise immigrants to investigate other longstanding legal remedies, such as political asylum or immigration through a relative who is a U.S. citizen.

And despite the law’s stipulation that information on amnesty applications shall remain confidential and shall not be used to deport aliens denied amnesty, Wong and others remain skeptical.

Juan Gutierrez, director of One Stop Immigration, a nonprofit organization with a long history of service in the community, contends that such “somber” views are doing the community a disservice by “frightening immigrants away from the amnesty program.”

However, Antonio Rodriguez, director of the Los Angeles Center for Law and Justice and a vocal immigrants’ rights activist, contends that “the very same zealots who have made it a political crusade to hunt down, arrest and deport immigrants . . . are the same people who are going to be entrusted with the duty of deciding whose application to grant.”

“It’s worse than the coyote watching over the chickens,” he said.

Lawsuit Filed

Already, the first salvo in an expected legal barrage over implementation of the law has been fired by immigrants’ rights advocates who charge in a national class-action lawsuit filed in federal court in Sacramento that the INS is not living up to the law’s provision that aliens who can show that they may be eligible for amnesty may not be deported.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton ruled Monday in favor of the plaintiffs, barring the INS from deporting eligible aliens who briefly leave and illegally re-enter the United States. He further required the INS to either stop accepting departure forms from eligible aliens--whether for deportation or for voluntary departure--or to post signs at border crossings advising illegal aliens of their rights under the new law.

INS officials, who have maintained that aliens who leave the United States after the law was enacted will be considered to have broken the “continuous physical presence” requirement and that it is not the agency’s responsibility to advise aliens of their rights, said they planned to appeal the decision.

Since the issue remains unclear, most immigrants’ rights groups advise aliens to avoid risking their eligibility by leaving the country. They note that some Mexican immigrants, particularly men who work seasonally in the United States, traditionally return to Mexico for the Christmas holidays. And they also cite cases of immigrants faced with tough decisions when confronted with family emergencies in Mexico.

“We have clients who haven’t seen their parents for a decade or more and it’s very sad when they get word that one of their parents is deathly ill,” said Sylvia Gonzalez, director of the immigration program at the Los Angeles International Institute, a nonprofit service agency. “We can’t advise them to go or not to go. They have to weigh the consequences themselves.”

Washington-based INS spokesman Duke Austin maintains that eligible aliens facing a family emergency may receive authorization from INS offices to travel to their country of origin, but immigration lawyers remain skeptical.

“You’d have to turn yourself in,” said Wong, who--like Austin--said she is not aware of any immigrants who have actually exercised that option. “I’m not sure immigrants would want to take that risk.”

Further litigation is contemplated by some leaders in the Asian community, who share many of the concerns of their Latino counterparts.

Like other immigrants who enter the country from faraway countries via international flights, Asian immigrants tend to come in with legal visas that later expire, said Stewart Kwoh of the Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California. But the new law specifies that in order to qualify for amnesty, an alien must have been in the country illegally. More specifically, it states that aliens who entered with visas must show that their visas lapsed or that their “unlawful status was known to the government” before 1982.

“In other words, the more illegal you are, the better off you are,” said Gil Roy Gorre, editor of the Los Angeles-based Philippine American News. He charged that the law is unfair to those who came to the country intending to stay but who have either renewed their visas or let them expire after 1982.

“When the law first passed, there was a sigh of relief in our community,” Gorre said. “But now people are holding their breath again as more and more uncertainties surface.”

INS Confused, Too

The confusion engendered by the complex law is not limited to those it is aimed at. Even INS officers, awaiting more specific guidelines, sometimes find themselves at a loss.

Soon after the law was enacted, George Rayner, INS assistant district director for detention and deportation in Los Angeles, identified a handful of aliens in his custody who appeared eligible under the amnesty program.

While the law states that such aliens may not be deported, Rayner pointed out that it does not stipulate what is to be done with them. So the men remain in custody.

“It’s hard to administer a law without regulations,” Rayner said. “Until we get them, we’re unsure exactly how to proceed.”

Times staff writer Bob Schwartz contributed to this article.