Clinton Seeks $24.8 Billion for Immigration : Government: White House says request is one-third greater than Bush Administration’s plan. But Wilson aide criticizes it as creative accounting.

Showcasing its attentiveness to the immigration issue, the Clinton Administration released figures Tuesday indicating that its spending requests for the next fiscal year were one-third greater than the amount sought for immigration-related programs in the last Bush budget.

The briefing, held by Budget Director Leon Panetta and INS Commissioner Doris Meissner, came on the eve of Gov. Pete Wilson’s visit to Washington today in search of federal funding to offset the costs of illegal immigrants--and presumably to take the Administration to task for not acting forcefully or quickly enough on his demands.

The figures show California in line to receive the lion’s share of the proposed federal spending on immigration-related programs that range from agriculture to education to law enforcement. But in compiling the figures, the Administration combined federal spending for legal and illegal immigration, thus yielding more robust spending numbers than had been previously used in the Washington-Sacramento dispute.

An Office of Management and Budget spokesman said the federal spending could not be accurately broken down between legal and illegal immigration.

Of the $24.8 billion sought by the White House for immigration-related programs in the next fiscal year, the Administration projected that California would receive $8.4 billion--nearly $6 billion more than second-place New York.

Panetta calculated that in fiscal 1993 President George Bush requested $18.8 billion in federal spending on immigration and other programs affecting immigrants. The Clinton fiscal 1995 budget seeks about $6 billion more, representing the one-third increase nationwide.

The combination of federal spending for legal and illegal immigration spurred swift reaction from a top Wilson aide.

Leslie Goodman, the governor’s deputy chief of staff for communications, dismissed the Clinton numbers as creative accounting and an attempt to “get the cash register to ring to a higher number.”

“They saw this as an opportunity to get their story out before the states give out the facts. To confuse (spending on legal and illegal immigration) is to start down a very slippery slope,” Goodman said.

Wilson in January estimated that the federal government owed the state $2.3 billion in illegal-immigration costs and factored the entire amount into his state budget calculations. He has since lowered his budget expectations to $760 million in federal reimbursements, but argues that the federal government still owes California the higher amount.

“I think the governors of each impacted state have legitimate problems . . . but I think that there’s a tendency in some instances to overplay this issue,” Panetta said. “I don’t think the President questions the need to deal with the issue, but it has to be done with sensitivity and responsibility.”

Meissner, meanwhile, offered an update on the Administration’s plan to slow illegal immigration with greater vigilance along the country’s southwest border.

San Diego and El Paso, which account for 65% of the country’s yearly immigrant apprehensions, are targets of the most assistance.

Meissner cites 350 new Border Patrol agents, 250 new vehicles, 350 new encrypted voice radios, 14 additional miles of border fence and a new automated processing system as examples of the Administration’s efforts.

Also included in the Administration’s proposed immigration reform package are speedier deportation procedures, streamlined asylum adjudications, stiffer employer sanctions and greater emphasis on naturalization of legal immigrants.

In a plea for increased cooperation, Panetta called for a state-federal partnership to combat Capitol Hill opposition to the immigration initiatives, which benefit only a few states.

Of particular importance to California is an Administration plan to seek $350 million to help states saddled with the costs of incarcerating large numbers of illegal immigrant prisoners.

Panetta, a veteran California legislator who formerly chaired the House Budget Committee, announced the spending allocation with considerable fanfare in April. But he warned that it faced a difficult legislative sojourn because it would benefit only the six or seven states most severely affected by the problem.

As if on cue, the money was yanked out by an appropriations subcommittee earlier this month in favor of diverting it into an anti-drug program that would distribute the funds throughout the country.

“How do you get resources to these (affected) states?” Panetta said. “My God, we’re having one hell of a time trying to commit resources to the investments that all of us care about. . . . If six or seven impacted states are asking for additional resources, then is there any question in anybody’s mind that this is one hell of a battle?”