Commentary : Unraveling the Immigration Law

Unfortunately, a large part of the national immigration debate over the Simpson-Rodino immigration reform bill enacted by the Congress last year was characterized by xenophobia and cultural intolerance.

The public’s perception of an “immigration crisis” manifested itself in Orange County. The open hostility by the citizens of Orange and Costa Mesa toward the undocumented day laborers was a reflection of fear. Similarly, the housing problems in Santa Ana resulted in citizens appearing before the City Council to demand that the council take action against the “foreigners” who were driving property values down and insurance rates up.

Candidates for local public office took advantage of the public fears and tried to use the immigration issue for political advantage. Thus, in the midst of the emotionalism, fear and racism, the political climate was ripe for passage of the Simpson-Rodino bill. Now that the bill is federal law, what ramifications will its implementation have for Orange County residents? In a sense, Latinos are clearly the greatest beneficiaries--and the greatest victims of the immigration reform legislation.

The sanctions against employers who hire undocumented people is the legislation’s principal enforcement provision. Its proponents argue that it will cut off the job “pull” factor, which draws illegal immigrants to the United States and “liberate” jobs for American citizens.

That rationale is seriously flawed. It views undocumented workers as a supplemental labor force that can be readily replaced at will. The opposite is true.

Undocumented workers energize the economy at both the primary (skilled and white collar) and secondary (low-wage, low-skilled) labor markets. They are especially crucial to Orange County’s service industry. The restaurant, hotel and manufacturing entities rely on the stable and productive undocumented work force.

I am not suggesting that our society should maintain the secondary labor market to ensure economic growth. We must, however, recognize that U.S. citizens historically have not opted for jobs in the secondary labor market because of the arduous work and the lack of mobility. We can only speculate as to what effect the employer sanctions will have on the county’s economy if industry is not able to recruit and retain an adequate work force.

The business community will also be affected by the employer sanctions. The law places two additional burdens on employers: The employer will have to verify that all prospective employees are legally entitled to work in the United States and will have to keep the verification records for three years. The administrative costs will have a substantial impact on small businesses.

The employer sanction provision poses grave consequences for Orange County’s Latino community. Latino groups actively opposed employer sanctions because of the potential for employment discrimination directed against Latino citizens and legal residents. An employer with racial biases could overtly discriminate against Latino job applicants by rejecting the application and simply stating the applicant’s documentation was questionable. And the threat of civil sanctions could result in small businesses shying away from hiring “foreign-looking” people.

Congress has included an anti-discrimination provision, but it is inadequate in that the monitoring of complaints was delegated to the General Accounting Office, which is understaffed and incapable of adequately monitoring discrimination on a national level.

The amnesty provision is the most controversial part of the law. It raises the most vexing question: How will the Immigration and Naturalization Service receive and interpret the documentary proof that applicants will have to show to prove that they arrived in the United States before Jan. 1, 1982? This issue will be the principal obstacle for the undocumented community that has made every effort to leave no trace of its presence in the United States in the first place. For many undocumented workers and families producing rent receipts, utility bills, canceled checks will be difficult. Will this result in massive deportation for undocumented applicants whose applications are denied?

The Latino community has questioned the sincerity of the INS regarding legalization. In the midst of the publicity about legalization, INS raids have continued in factories and neighborhoods, raising skepticism of the INS’ intentions.

If the business and the Latino community came out on the short end of the law, who benefited?

Clearly the direct beneficiary of immigration reform was agribusiness. Western growers have always demanded a constant supply of foreign-born workers and relied on a labor force that by law was imported via bracero contract or “illegal” workers. The temporary agricultural worker provision expedites procedures for grower requests for foreign labor. It also allows undocumented farm workers who have worked in agricultural jobs for 90 days during the past three years to become permanent resident aliens. And it will prohibit INS officers from entering farms or open fields without a search warrant or owner consent.

Thus, the new law will benefit Orange County farmers. And certainly undocumented farm workers will have a better opportunity to prove their right to legalization than their urban counterparts.

The new immigration law will have profound implications for Orange County. It is vital that a countywide panel be formed to take immediate action to inform residents, businesses and public agencies about the legalization. A countywide panel could be used to develop safeguards against discrimination, evaluate how public agencies respond to the law and recommend improvements.

The new immigration law’s greatest deficiency is its failure to address the economic and political conditions in Latin America that contribute to illegal immigration. Locally, Simpson-Rodino will no doubt result in economic dislocations and a civil rights nightmare for the Latino community.