If They Were Eligible, Admit Them : Archbishop Roger M. Mahony is right about the need to correct INS’ amnesty snafu

For all the controversy that preceded enactment of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act--and that has continued since it took effect--there is widespread consensus that one good thing the new law did was allow millions of otherwise honest illegal immigrants to come out of hiding.

That happened because IRCA, as it is commonly referred to, included an amnesty program for persons who had illegally entered the country before 1982 but were willing to report themselves to the government and apply for legalization of their immigrant status. More than 3 million people, one-third of them in the greater Los Angeles area, took advantage of that offer.

IRCA’s amnesty program was unprecedented in many ways, not just in size and scope, but also in the speed with which the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service and dozens of immigrant-aid groups had to implement it. Not surprisingly, there was occasional confusion, and it’s now becoming clear that some persons who qualified for amnesty got lost in the shuffle.

Los Angeles’ Roman Catholic Archbishop Roger M. Mahony estimates that as many as 200,000 persons who were otherwise eligible for amnesty did not file applications by the May, 1988, deadline because they were turned away by INS clerks who did not understand all the new IRCA regulations. INS officials do not dispute that mistakes occurred, but they question that they happened in such large numbers. They point out, for example, that of 5,456 “late amnesty” applications their Los Angeles office handled in July, only 243 qualified for amnesty. INS officials say that they suspect that many illegal immigrants are filing fraudulent late-amnesty applications in the hope of slipping into the program even though the cutoff date was more than two years ago. The agency has asked the courts to terminate the late application process, even if it means penalizing a few legitimate amnesty applicants.

That would be a mistake. Even if some amnesty applicants try to abuse the process, Congress intended for IRCA to help every immigrant who could qualify. Even if only a small percentage of the late applicants are entitled to amnesty, that’s at least a few more people who will be helped by a well-intentioned reform. By trying to stop the late amnesty process on technicalities, INS is being at best rigidly bureaucratic and at worst downright cold-hearted. Congress should order INS to keep the amnesty program going as long as anyone is eligible.