Beilenson, Gallegly Ideas in U.S. Spotlight : Politics: County’s congressmen take higher profiles as their get-tough proposals fuel the growing national debate over illegal immigration.

When Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley) first proposed a constitutional amendment in 1991 to deny citizenship to the American-born children of mothers who were in the country illegally, it was considered a radical idea with no chance of passage.

Nearly two years later, adoption--requiring a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate and ratification by three-quarters of the states--still appears highly unlikely. But in recent months, it has sparked high-profile interest.

Gov. Pete Wilson has endorsed it as part of his get-tough program against illegal immigration. Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has included it in his package of immigration reform measures. And Rep. Romano L. Mazzoli (D-Ky.), chairman of a key immigration subcommittee, has asked Atty. Gen. Janet Reno to consider the citizenship issue as part of a top-to-bottom review of the nation’s much-criticized immigration policy.

The increased attention to the amendment reflects the growing prominence of proposals by Gallegly as well as Rep. Anthony C. Beilenson (D-Woodland Hills), who represents most of Thousand Oaks. As the national debate over illegal immigration heats up, the two Ventura County lawmakers and their ideas have begun to move into the spotlight.

“In terms of sensitizing people to the issue, I think I’m beginning to have a large impact back here,” said Beilenson, whose proposal for a fraud-resistant Social Security card for those seeking work has received newfound support. “I now think there’s an opportunity for us to have some success with it.”

Gallegly concurs. “The issue obviously is a lot higher profile today than it was when I started on it three or four years ago. I think you’re going to see a lot more discussion.”

It is no coincidence that two of the most hard-line legislative voices in the immigration debate represent suburban Southern California communities. Illegal immigration has become one of the hottest issues in Ventura County, according to officials and community activists.

Gallegly and Beilenson say that their legislation emerged, at least in part, in response to concerns raised by constituents in town meetings, constituents’ mail and telephone calls and contacts with local officials. Latino and immigrant rights advocates agree that the backlash against illegal immigrants--if not all immigrants--has been evident in Ventura County for some time.

“It’s very pervasive right now,” said Oscar C. Gonzalez, an Oxnard attorney and spokesman for the recently formed Ventura County Coalition on Immigrant Rights. “You can’t pick up a local paper and there’s not a column or a story or a letter to the editor. It’s such a hot button.”

The outrage over illegal immigrants, particularly those crossing the Mexican border, has intensified amid a lingering recession, increased congestion and an influx of Latinos.

The anger has arisen against the backdrop of significant growth in the county--fueled by Latino and Asian newcomers. The county’s population surged by nearly 140,000, or 26%, between 1980 and 1990, according to the 1990 U.S. Census. About 82,500 of the newcomers were Latinos, Asians and other ethnic minorities--bringing the county’s minority population up to one-third.

Determining the figure for illegal immigrants is more difficult. But immigration experts say that many illegal--as well as legal--immigrants have been drawn to communities like Oxnard and Moorpark in pursuit of economic opportunity and a better life. Some pick fruit and vegetables or work as gardeners, housekeepers and nannies. Others seek day jobs on street corners.

Gallegly and Beilenson say the public is reacting justifiably to unwelcome growth and budget-busting social-service, education and criminal-justice costs thrust upon hard-pressed Southern California by the nation’s porous immigration laws and enforcement procedures.

Attorney Gonzalez, however, maintains that Gallegly and Beilenson have pandered to constituents who blame the undocumented for too many of society’s ills. Like many in the immigrant rights community, Gonzalez says that illegal immigration is a problem but that the lawmakers’ proposals are hardly the answer.

“During hard economic times, there has always been a tendency in this country to look for scapegoats,” said Gonzalez, a former president of the Ventura County Mexican-American Bar Assn. “And I think that’s exactly what’s going on at the statewide level by Gov. Wilson and at the federal level by Elton Gallegly and Anthony Beilenson.”

The congressmen reject such assertions. Both say they are addressing the nation’s failed efforts to end illegal immigration, which is undermining support for legal immigration.

Both say they strongly support legal immigration. Both nonetheless opposed a successful 1990 reform bill--at least in part--because the landmark measure dramatically increased the number of legal immigrants. Gallegly says he voted for an annual cap of 630,000 newcomers; the bill allowed 675,000.

Gallegly became involved in the immigration issue three years ago after Agoura Hills officials complained to him about day laborers at a small shopping center. At the time, Gallegly represented Agoura Hills and other San Fernando Valley communities as well as eastern Ventura County. Today his 23rd District includes Carpinteria in Santa Barbara County and all of Ventura County, except most of Thousand Oaks.

“Business dropped off 50% because people were intimidated to buy goods and services, and it was devastating that center,” Gallegly said. “The day workers that were there were making catcalls at the women--some would actually run up and jump into their cars and try to talk them into giving them a job--and exposing themselves publicly.”

In October, 1991, Gallegly introduced a package of bills intended to combat illegal immigration. Besides the citizenship amendment, measures called for issuing counterfeit-resistant identification cards for immigrants eligible for employment and increasing staffing for the Border Patrol. Congress recently approved funds to add 600 new Border Patrol agents.

The four-term lawmaker has also proposed cracking down on the payment of federal benefits to undocumented residents. Illegal immigrants are not eligible for welfare and many other programs but can receive emergency medical care--including prenatal and childbirth care. Gallegly maintains that fraud is “rampant,” but he would not curtail the emergency care.

Gallegly’s proposals were not new. The identification card had been proposed for years by Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) but had been shot down by intense opposition.

While experts debate whether illegal immigrants help or hurt the economy, Gallegly is particularly outspoken about the burden on public treasuries. He often cites a study by Los Angeles County that found that the net cost of providing public services to its estimated 700,000 illegal residents was $308 million in the 1991-92 fiscal year. No comparable study has been done by Ventura County.

More recently, Gallegly points to a new study by Donald Huddle, economics professor emeritus at Rice University in Houston, concluding that in 1992, the direct and indirect taxpayer costs of an estimated 4.8 million illegal residents in the U.S. was $13.5 billion. Huddle estimated net costs over the next decade at $181 billion.

Immigrant rights advocates say that such studies tend to overestimate the costs of illegal residents and underestimate the benefits, including the sales, property and Social Security taxes that many pay as well as other contributions they make to the economy. Huddle’s study, which was commissioned by a group that favors restrictions, is particularly controversial.

But even advocacy groups acknowledge significant costs to states and localities--mostly because a large portion of the revenue from immigrants goes to the federal government and the costs tend to take their toll at the local level.

Gallegly also cites a survey by the Los Angeles County Health Department that found that two-thirds of all mothers who delivered at the four Los Angeles County-run medical centers in the 1990-91 fiscal year were undocumented. The children become citizens and their mothers become eligible for welfare as their guardians.

“Once they get across that border, they’re going to have a job or have access to benefits if they don’t get a job,” Gallegly said. “They’re going to have welfare, they’re going to find ways to obtain public housing, they’re going to have access to education. Common sense will tell you that people are not coming to the United States illegally for the beaches in California.”

Gallegly provoked an uproar when he became the first lawmaker to introduce the amendment to deny citizenship to American-born children of undocumented residents. He acknowledges that amending the Constitution is a profound, and politically torturous, step but says he has been unable to find another way to remove a magnet drawing illegals to the United States.

Immigrant rights groups say the proposed amendment flies in the face of American history and the most fundamental notion of what it means to be an American--which is to be born in the USA. They also contend that immigrants come to the United States pursuing work, not welfare.

Following his 1992 reelection campaign--during which he touted his immigration proposals--Gallegly joined the Judiciary subcommittee on international law, immigration and refugees, which handles immigration legislation. As a member of the minority party, he has yet to win a hearing for any of his bills. But 100 members of the House have co-sponsored at least one of his measures and he has expanded his role in the legislative debate.

Moreover, Gallegly has shaped his political identity in both Washington and his district through the immigration issue. The congressman is protective of his role; he and his staff are quick to complain when a newspaper story mentions his ideas without crediting him by name.

“Gallegly’s contributions are important because he puts them in the hopper and people see them framed,” said Dan Stein, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a pro-restriction lobby. “Then there’s a basis for discussion.”

Beilenson, a nine-term lawmaker with a strong record on civil liberties, became the first Democrat to endorse many of Gallegly’s bills--including the citizenship amendment and the ID card proposals--in early 1992. He rejected criticism that he was responding to the political realities of a newly drawn, more conservative district.

“I myself have believed this was a major and growing issue for a long time now,” Beilenson said, recalling that he broke with other Democrats in the early 1980s to support controversial immigration reforms. “The reason that I’ve long been sensitive to immigration issues of all kinds is that I’ve long been concerned about population problems” in developing countries that cannot produce enough jobs for their people.

Beilenson went a step further early this year when he introduced his own package of immigration bills--including the citizenship amendment and a measure calling for a counterfeit-resistant Social Security card to verify employment eligibility. Some experts say that the proliferation of bogus identity documents is undermining the sanctions against employers who hire undocumented workers that were adopted in a sweeping immigration bill in 1986.

Beilenson has followed up by circulating letters to colleagues on the issue and testifying before the House immigration subcommittee about his identification document proposal.

“We’d have more success if a Democrat introduced it rather than simply having these bills introduced by relatively conservative Republicans,” Beilenson said. “It’s an issue that’s not going to go away, and it’s important that it’s not just the Pat Buchanans of the world who are going around talking about it. . . . It gives some credibility to the issue.”

Beilenson says a virtue of his Social Security card proposal is that it builds on an existing document. Every American--not just immigrants--would be issued one and be required to produce it only when seeking work. It would decrease discrimination, he says.

Latino lawmakers and civil liberties groups, who oppose any new identification card, contend that only ethnic minorities would be asked to produce it and might be forced to do so by police or other authorities. Critics say that it would also lead to an invasion of privacy.

Cost is another obstacle. Lou Enoff, acting commissioner of the Social Security Administration, said it would cost $2.5 billion to reissue new Social Security cards, and adding a photograph, fingerprint or verifiable bar code would increase that price tag.

President Clinton has suggested that some form of tamper-resistant document be considered for immigrants. The Administration plans to create an identity card for use in a national health-care system, but officials say they would prohibit its use for non-medical purposes.

In any case, Beilenson’s voice has been heard.

“By virtue of the fact he has a good record and he’s known as someone who’s fair and balanced, his role is important,” FAIR’s Stein said. As a Democrat, he’s “playing a very constructive role in at least laying out these issues.”

The real solution, say immigrant advocates, is better federal enforcement of wage-and-hour and workplace-safety laws to discourage employers from exploiting vulnerable newcomers. And California lawmakers--including Beilenson and Gallegly--have urged the federal government to reimburse the state for more of the costs associated with immigration, a federal responsibility.

Some experts say the long-term answer is economic development in Mexico so that Mexicans will no longer need to go north to find opportunity. The proposed North American Free Trade Agreement has been touted as fostering this goal. Beilenson has said he is inclined to support the pact; Gallegly has not yet decided.

In the meantime, Moorpark City Councilman Bernardo Perez, whose mother was born in Mexico, says anti-immigrant sentiment is reaching the level of hysteria--and some of it is racially charged.

“I’ve seen some real hateful sentiments expressed,” Perez said. “We need to acknowledge the benefits that all people bring to our communities, and we shouldn’t judge them on the color of their hair or their education, or maybe their residency status, at every turn.”