A Single Pot Would Cook Up a Foul Immigration Stew : House should separate legal and illegal entry categories

The House of Representatives is scheduled to take up a mixed package of proposals on illegal and legal immigration, an attempt to cook up in a single pot a solution to an exceedingly complex American problem. Dealing with both aspects of immigration--legal and illegal--at the same time is counterproductive. It promises to alter the family reunification policy, the cornerstone of legal immigration. Fortunately, there is still time to follow the lead of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which wisely opted to split its immigration bill into the two separate aspects.

The Senate will deal first with illegal immigration, working on ways to block illegal immigrants at the border and apprehend those who have overstayed visitor or student visas. Then the Senate debate will shift to the issue of which potential immigrants should be admitted legally, and in what numbers. Legislative experts say separating the two aspects provides a more rational atmosphere, one in which the passions of the illegal immigration debate will not color consideration of legal entry.

To move in that right direction, House members Howard Berman (D-Panorama City) and Dick Chrysler (R-Mich.) have proposed an amendment to HR 2202, an immigration bill sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas). The amendment supports family reunification as a prime element in legal immigration.

It also counters the more prohibitive and unfairly punishing components of the Smith legislation. For example, Smith’s bill would require U.S. citizens to provide health insurance for their immigrating parents, which opponents say could cost $9,000 a year, an enormous hurdle. (Current law, appropriately, already prevents people from immigrating if they are likely to become public charges.)

Another troubling provision of the Texan’s legislation forbids without exception the immigration of siblings, whether adults or minors. Smith argues that opening the door to siblings of U.S. citizens creates a “chain migration.” This despite a just-released General Accounting Office report that finds no evidence “to support the theory that naturalized petitioners become citizens and then immediately petition for entry of adult family members.” The GAO investigators found that those who did petition for their relatives took an average of 12 years between the time they entered the country and when they applied to sponsor a relative.

Smith’s bill also addresses total immigration levels, putting a cap of 50,000 on annual admissions. The annual figure currently is determined by the White House in consultation with Congress and the appropriate agencies. It is important that the nation have such flexibility.

Opinion polls reveal a public perception that immigration levels are too high. The polls do not say, however, whether the public is distinguishing between legal and illegal immigration. The House should be guided by this ambiguity and deal separately with the issues of legal and illegal immigration. Nothing in this approach would prevent Congress from restructuring family reunification standards if it so chose. Or from setting a cap on total immigration. But separate consideration could, and should, keep one issue from coloring debate on the other.

We believe Sen. Spencer Abraham (R-Mich.) got it right when he promised, “We will not allow unhappiness with illegal immigration to cause us to make imprudent changes in legal immigration laws.” The House should follow the Senate’s example.