Few Get Temporary Permit : Border Patrol Assailed Over Refusal of Status

Accusing the U.S. Border Patrol of “criminal misconduct,” a coalition of immigrants’ rights groups claimed Friday that the patrol has routinely refused to grant temporary legal status to undocumented foreigners who may have amnesty claims under the new immigration law.

Instead, the critics maintained at a press conference in San Diego, the patrol has unlawfully imprisoned potential applicants or coerced them into signing documents obliging them to return to their home country, usually Mexico.

“Our clients are being hurt and the people in the country are being abused because of this situation,” said the Rev. Douglas Regin, executive director of Catholic Community Services, which has been helping undocumented immigrants prepare their applications for amnesty under the new law.

Moreover, Regin and other critics maintained that the patrol’s systematic harassment of undocumented residents has dissuaded many from ever applying for legalization, or amnesty, under the new law. The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, parent body of the Border Patrol, has consistently maintained that it seeks to provide legal status to as many applicants as possible.

“As long as abuse and harassment . . . by the Border Patrol continue, we will continue to see (undocumented immigrants) remain in the shadows,” said David Valladolid, co-chairman of the Coalition for Law & Justice, a Latino rights group.

Official Sees No Proof

The group said they were making their complaints public after months of attempting to work out the problems privately with immigration officials. “We have to take our case to the people at this point,” said Regin.

Despite the complaints, Regin said his group will continue working with immigration authorities in an effort to legalize as many undocumented people as possible.

Bill Veal, deputy chief Border Patrol agent in San Diego, denied the allegations, which he characterized as anecdotal.

“I think it’s irresponsible for people to level charges like that without any substantiation to them,” Veal said. “It’s very easy for someone to claim that the Border Patrol is doing all these horrible things, and not produce any proof.”

Although the immigrants’ rights groups did describe several instances of alleged abuse, they provided the name of only one purported victim. The critics asserted, however, that there were probably dozens of similar cases of abuse throughout San Diego County, which houses the largest Border Patrol force in the nation and shares a 66-mile border with Mexico.

At the core of the dispute is a requirement of the new law that undocumented immigrants arrested in the United States be afforded the opportunity to apply for amnesty if they can demonstrate prima facie, or non-frivolous, evidence of eligibility under the new law. Federal guidelines allow that such applicants will be granted temporary residence permits--and work authorization documents--once they convince authorities of the legitimacy of their claims, swear to their prospective eligibility, and declare their intent to file for amnesty.

The new law generally provides prospective legal status to two broad groups of undocumented immigrants--those who have been living continuously in the United States since Jan. 1, 1982, and laborers who performed at least 90 days of farm work during the one-year period that ended May 1, 1986.

However, the critics maintain that the Border Patrol has refused to believe that some undocumented people arrested in San Diego may qualify under the law. In some cases, they asserted, the Border Patrol agents have even destroyed the immigrants’ documentation.

Between December and April, according to Veal of the Border Patrol, the patrol has provided temporary residence permits to about 300 undocumented immigrants who presented prima facie claims for amnesty. During the same period, tens of thousands of undocumented immigrants were returned to Mexico.

As a result of the Border Patrol policy, immigrant advocates say, many Mexican citizens who might qualify for amnesty have instead signed statements requiring them to return to Mexico. Signing such a document, however, can ultimately harm applicants’ chances to obtain amnesty; the law requires that most applicants demonstrate that they have resided continuously in the United States.