INS Stand on Amnesty Fraud Criticized as Overreaction

U. S. immigration officials vowed Wednesday to step up their crackdown on alleged “massive” fraud perpetrated by amnesty-seeking farm workers, but immigrant advocates warned that the authorities may be overreacting and consequently shutting out many applicants.

As authorities continued to pound the drumbeat on fraud, critics charged that the INS crackdown has caused unreasonable--and possibly illegal--demands for documentation to be made of agricultural laborers seeking amnesty.

There have also been widespread reports that field laborers with legal residence cards obtained through the amnesty program, have had their paper work confiscated by U. S. officials at the U.S.-Mexican border in San Diego after admitting that the cards were obtained through submission of false data.

“We have no interest in protecting applicants who try to commit fraud,” said Carol Rogoff Hallstrom, chairman of the San Diego Law Coalition, which represents a number of immigrant organizations. “But we’re concerned that, in pursuing fraud, the INS doesn’t eradicate the rights that the (amnesty) legislation granted to these people.”

Notarized Affidavits

She cited the case of one unnamed farm-worker applicant in San Diego who, like many, was employed by a labor contractor. Last month, the applicant was informed that he would have to supply notarized affidavits from all ranchers and growers who used the contractor’s services. Among other things, the worker was also asked to supply the INS with an “exact list” of all employees who worked for the same contractor during a recent one-year period.

“It’s very unlikely that an individual could go out and get this information,” Hallstrom noted. “From our perspective, these are unjust requirements.”

But James Turnage, district INS director in San Diego, speaking at a news conference, defended his office’s tactics as necessary to deter fraud. He acknowledged that the legal-residence cards of 228 farm workers had been seized since the program began, mostly because the applicants acknowledged resorting to fakery to obtain the documents. Turnage denied, however, that his agents coerced anyone into admitting deception.

Because of the fraud problem, authorities announced several weeks ago that they would be reviewing applications more closely and would pursue criminal cases against document vendors and those who applied using phony paper work. Last week, a federal grand jury in San Diego handed down an indictment against an alleged ring that purportedly “coached” prospective applicants in the ways and mannerisms of field workers.

Criticized as Overgenerous

The controversy, which is rooted in the difference between requirements for farm workers and other amnesty applicants, reflects the INS’ growing concern about the unexpectedly large number of farm workers applying for amnesty. Successful amnesty applicants are granted documentation that allows them to live and work legally in the United States.

Harold Ezell, Western regional commissioner for the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, criticized the agricultural-worker amnesty program Wednesday as “overgenerous,” noting that more than 1 million people have already applied nationwide--contrasted with initial estimates of 300,000-500,000. More than half of the farm-worker applications reviewed recently in San Diego and other areas have been found to be fraudulent, Ezell said.

Farm laborers, who must show that they performed at least 90 days of field work during a recent one-year period in order to qualify for amnesty, have until Nov. 30 to submit their applications. The application period expired in May for general amnesty applicants, who were required to demonstrate that they had lived continuously in the United States since Jan. 1, 1982. More than 1.7 million people applied for amnesty under the 1982 standard.

The relatively liberal requirements for farm-worker applicants, the INS has argued, has opened the way for massive fraud. Others defend the requirements as reasonable and suggest that the fraud problem may be exaggerated.

The immigration service’s tough talk to field hands stands in stark contrast to their welcoming, distinctly non-hostile public pronouncements to other amnesty applicants. (“We’re here to serve you,” officials often repeated.) Although examiners recommended rejection of fewer than 2% of general amnesty applications nationwide, it is clear that the rejection rate for agricultural workers will be much higher.