Kemp May Ask Congress to Ease Immigration Act

Housing and Urban Development Secretary Jack Kemp may ask Congress to modify portions of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act that deny basic services to amnesty applicants and illegal aliens, a key HUD official said Tuesday.

Regulations to carry out the laws, adopted by HUD on June 1, contain “major conflicts and inconsistencies” that may unfairly restrict vital services to those groups, said HUD General Counsel Frank Keating.

“If (Kemp) finds that the act of Congress in denying benefits in emergency or critical care situations is offensive to what he regards as compassion, then he will . . . approach Congress for legislative remedy,” Keating said.

Kemp’s concerns about eligibility standards were aroused by a June 7 opinion issued by Keating that said the city of Costa Mesa can legally withhold funds--specifically HUD Community Development Block Grants--to nonprofit groups that knowingly provide service to illegal aliens.

The city had adopted such a policy last August but rescinded it while awaiting HUD’s opinion on whether it violated federal anti-discrimination guidelines.

Immigrant rights advocates and charitable groups criticized the subsequent opinion as “legal chicanery,” argued that it would set a national precedent and warned of the consequences to come if such policies were adopted in other cities.

On Monday, Kemp suspended the opinion as well as HUD regulations that limit services to undocumented residents and amnesty applicants, pending a review.

Kemp has called for an urgent meeting in Washington tentatively scheduled for Friday with Costa Mesa officials, immigrant rights advocates and others to discuss the implications of the opinion.

The HUD secretary received support Tuesday from at least one Orange County lawmaker who said he would work to draft legislation to correct inconsistencies in the immigration law.

“As far as the secretary is concerned, he has the power to change the regulations, and as far as Congress is concerned, we have the power to change the law . . . . I think there’s probably a lot of room for improvement,” said Rep. C. Christopher Cox (R-Newport Beach), who spoke with Kemp Tuesday.

But Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Lomita), who represents northwestern Orange County, had a different view.

“The people who say we should limit federal funds going to illegal aliens are absolutely right. . . . The more services we provide and the more money we give to people who are here illegally, (that) does nothing but attract more illegals and deprive legal American citizens of resources that are meant for them.”

Immigrant rights advocates cautiously supported Kemp’s position.

“It will depend on what comes out of his review,” said Rebecca Jurado, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union in Los Angeles. “It gets into how things are going to be monitored. To monitor the status of every person who comes in for any service would be akin to asking for a national identification card, and we oppose that.”

But Jurado said that, at the least, Kemp’s concerns will focus attention on the “almost incomprehensible” regulations that categorize resident status and determine who is eligible for what federal assistance.

The 1986 reform act has come under attack by some members of Congress following release of a recent government report, which concluded that employee sanction provisions have resulted in “widespread discrimination” against legal residents.

Keating said Kemp expressed particular concern that aliens who have been granted temporary resident status may be eligible for services such as meals and emergency shelter under some federally funded programs but not others.

For example, under the rules enacted June 1, a newly legalized resident would not be eligible to occupy a bed at a homeless shelter funded with federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) money but could receive services at a shelter funded by other federal assistance programs.

Similarly, amnesty applicants would be prohibited from getting a job or receiving child care under CDBG-funded programs but could receive the same benefits from other federally funded programs.

Under provisions of the 1986 immigration act, Congress required a five-year waiting period before aliens granted temporary resident status can receive benefits from certain federal financial assistance programs, including those funded by HUD community development grants.

The provision was used as legal justification for the June 7 opinion by Keating to Costa Mesa officials. It said, in effect, that if Congress did not intend for newly legalized residents to receive benefits from CDBG programs, it could not have meant for illegal aliens to receive those benefits.

“It is (Kemp’s) mandate to carry out the will of Congress, but he is very sensitive to the issue of those dispossessed and unable to care for themselves,” Keating said.

Cox, who this spring pressed HUD officials to speed the department’s long-delayed ruling on the legality of the Costa Mesa policy, said:

“Jack is interested in three things. As long as we can advance all three of these objectives, he is right on the money.

“He wants to be fair toward legal aliens. Second, he wants to be compassionate toward illegal aliens.

“Third, he wants to do the right thing by city governments generally, and Costa Mesa specifically, which is concerned about funding what is clearly an international problem with scarce local dollars.”

However, some critics said they would oppose attempts by Kemp to fundamentally change eligibility standards.

“We would certainly be opposed to changing IRCA,” said Richard Higgins, executive director of the Washington-based Immigration Reform Law Institute. Higgins described the group as being concerned with “population control” aspects of immigration. “The Immigration Reform Act was a compromise, and it would seem unnecessary and unfair to go back and change the terms.”

Higgins said his group sent a legal opinion to Keating endorsing Costa Mesa’s anti-alien funding policy and supporting Keating’s since-suspended opinion.

“I think this is all about drawing lines,” Higgins said. “We have a moral obligation to our citizens and taxpayers to see that federal money is utilized properly.”

Times staff writer Robert W. Stewart contributed from Washington.