Report Claims Immigration Reform Act Has Led to Bias : Discrimination: Fair Employment and Housing Commission accuses INS of ineffectively enforcing employer-sanctions provision.

In a report hailed by Latino activists and civil libertarians, a California agency that monitors civil rights abuses has concluded that the landmark 1986 immigration reform law has led to widespread discrimination against hundreds of thousands of U.S.-born and foreign-looking persons seeking work.

The report by the state Fair Employment and Housing Commission, scheduled for release today, accused the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service of ineffectively enforcing the law’s employer-sanctions provision, giving many employers carte blanche to turn away job applicants even though many of them had proof of U.S. residency.

The seven-member commission recommended that the INS suspend enforcement of the employer sanctions, which call for fines up to $10,000 for those who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. The moratorium would allow the INS to eliminate backlogs of paper work that in the past has slowed the agency’s processing of a immigration documents.

The non-binding recommendations are the first by a public agency in the Western United States on the controversial Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), under which more than 3 million aliens applied for amnesty. More than half of those live in California. A similar report was issued by a New York state agency in late 1988.

The report comes at a time when the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, is preparing a final report on the effects of the reform law and its various provisions.

If the GAO agrees that discrimination has occurred, Congress is required under the act to consider changes. But most observers believe Congress may be hesitant to make such changes because of the emotionally charged debate that ensues any time the issue of immigration surfaces.

The commission, comprised of Republican Gov. George Deukmejian appointees, is responsible for enforcing California laws prohibiting discrimination in housing and employment.

While the commission did not call for repeal of employer fines, its findings overjoyed Latinos and immigrants’ advocates who opposed the law because the findings validated fears of discrimination that were expressed in the debate leading up to the law’s passage in late 1986.

“I predicted that would happen,” said Rep. Edward Roybal (D-Los Angeles), who voted against the law, “but no one at the time seemed to pay attention.”

INS officials predictably defended their performance in carrying out the provision, pointing out that the agency spent millions of dollars and thousands of hours of staff time to get out the word about it as well as the amnesty provision.

“The INS has done an excellent job of implementing this law,” agency spokesman Virginia Kice said. “I don’t think anyone can classify employer sanctions or IRCA as a failure.”

The commission’s findings were based on testimony given at a series of public hearings held last year in Oakland, Fresno and Los Angeles to assess the law’s effects.

In the report, the commission concluded that widespread discrimination occurred because many employers were confused about the law’s requirements. In some instances, the report said, INS efforts to educate employers turned out to be visits to find incriminating evidence in order to fine guilty employers.

“It appears that employers’ fears of sanctions, and confusion and misinformation about IRCA’s requirements, coupled with a tremendous administrative backlog at the INS, have resulted in a widespread pattern and practice of discrimination based on national origin and citizenship status,” the report stated.

Other testimony heard by the commission included:

- Several immigrant-rights attorneys told of many employers refusing jobs to “foreign-looking workers” although they appeared to have documents proving legal authority to work in this country. When pressed about this, the lawyers reported some of the employers as saying they didn’t want to bother with non-Anglo looking people because of the law.

- Executives with Levi-Strauss Co. in San Francisco said they had to rewrite many INS pamphlets because they were largely unintelligible.

- Several small-business employers, including one Los Angeles-area trucking executive, complained that the INS selectively enforced the sanctions provisions. The Los Angeles executive, Ronald Ravana, said he was fined about $8,000 for failing to completely fill out documents on each new hire. Many of the violations, he said, had to do with failing to fill out two separate spaces asking for the worker’s Social Security number.