Hunting a Way In : Illegal Immigrants Grapple With Law That Will Speed Deportation

Sergio Infanzon, an illegal immigrant for a decade, decided last month to roll the dice: He turned himself in to the Border Patrol.

It was self-interest that motivated this gambit, however, and immigration authorities in Los Angeles and San Diego were not inclined to play along. Infanzon had to travel four hours to El Centro to find agents willing to collar him.

Behind the seemingly bizarre incarceration fervor of Infanzon and others is a historic new federal law that will slam the hatch on most illegal immigrants’ already faint hopes of obtaining lawful status.

By surrendering before April 1--the effective date of many of the new law’s provisions--many are gambling they will have a slim chance of staving off deportation under a humanitarian “hardship” exception for longtime residents. Come next month, Infanzon and many others will have no chance.

The odd spectacle of illegal immigrants desperate to get busted underscores how the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 dramatically alters the nation’s immigration landscape.

At its core, the Republican-crafted law makes deportation easier and faster for authorities, while making it harder for newly arriving illegal immigrants to gain a foothold.

Supporters laud the act as a long-overdue breakthrough, while immigrant advocates denounce it as the most draconian legislation since the 1920s. All agree that its impact will be far-reaching.

“This is certainly one of the most significant changes ever in immigration law,” acknowledged Eric Andrus, national spokesman for the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which is scrambling to train almost 20,000 employees in the details of the new law.

The streamlined deportation process--renamed “removal”--raises the stakes considerably for the nation’s estimated 5 million illegal immigrants, almost half of whom reside in California. Also facing expulsion are many here with temporary legal statuses and even green-card holders whose criminal pasts now render them deportable.

And, in an effort to curb what critics call abuse of the political asylum process, the law greatly restricts who will qualify for safe haven. Starting April 1, asylum-seekers generally must file their request within one year of entering the United States, the first-ever such time limit. In the past, people often delayed declaring for asylum for years--often filing only when they were caught. This affects those already residing here, either illegally or on temporary visas.

Newcomers claiming asylum upon arrival at borders, airports and seaports will face an even more pressing deadline: They must immediately demonstrate a “credible fear” of political or religious persecution. Their claims must be adjudicated within seven days, while applicants remain detained.

Undocumented arrivals at ports of entry who do not claim asylum may find themselves being sent back home on the next plane. Until now, virtually everyone has been entitled to a hearing.

Overall, the fast-moving legal panorama is in stark contrast to the time-consuming layers of administrative hearings and judicial review that have traditionally allowed deportation cases to drag on for years. The revisions--already facing constitutional challenges--are an outgrowth of hostility toward illegal immigration and a perception that many exploit loopholes to extend their stays indefinitely. As of April 1, time is no longer an ally.

“The whole process as far as being able to manipulate the system and remain longer has been shortened considerably,” said Richard K. Rogers, INS district director in Los Angeles.

The act contains no explicit call for large-scale deportations, massive workplace raids or neighborhood sweeps--though enforcement actions have risen sharply in recent years as the INS budget has ballooned, a trend that seems certain to accelerate.

With such complex and often drastic changes on the horizon, the approach of April 1 has generated a potent rumor mill and virtual misinformation industry. The sense of panic has even been blamed for long lines in marriage queues in New York, although the potential benefit garnered by tying the knot with a legal resident before April 1 is marginal.

Seizing the initiative, some illegal immigrants have made a calculated risk: Surrender before April 1 in the hope of initiating court proceedings under the more favorable terms of the lapsing law.

“Giving myself up was hard for me to do, but I felt it was my only hope,” said Infanzon, 30, a church-going engineering student who has learned English during his 10 years in California and boasts a folder full of recommendations from teachers, church members and others.

Infanzon hopes to win “suspension of deportation,” a reprieve now available to those of “good moral character” who have lived here at least seven years and can prove “extreme hardship.”

Starting April 1, the rules will change. Applicants must have been living in the United States for 10 years and prove that their expulsion would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a legal resident spouse, parent or child. Hardship to the applicants themselves no longer counts--eliminating from consideration single people like Infanzon.

Well aware that the INS in Los Angeles is declining to arrest people on the spot, Infanzon first traveled to the busy Border Patrol checkpoint along Interstate 5 north of San Clemente. Expecting to be shackled and thrown into detention by la migra, Infanzon was instead met by skeptical officers who showed him to the door.

“Go to Los Angeles or San Diego,” one advised him. “We can’t help you here.”

He finally managed to get arrested at another Border Patrol checkpoint near El Centro. Freed on his own recognizance, Infanzon now awaits a deportation hearing date.

“I hope what I have done will finally lift this weight from my life,” the Mexico City native said afterward. “I can’t keep on living with this uncertainly, not knowing if I really belong to this society or not.”

INS officials could provide no estimate of how many have turned themselves in voluntarily because of the April 1 deadline. But private immigration lawyers say they have advised many clients to get arrested in a seemingly paradoxical effort to avert deportation. All face long odds and are now on a formal track to be deported.

Besides surrender, the new law is forcing thousands to make another kind of excruciating choice: Return to their home countries or hunker down into shadow existences, with virtually no prospect for relief.

“What hurts me most is having to leave my family behind,” said Peter Zawadzki, a 36-year-old Pole who lost a claim for political asylum and now probably faces a four-year wait to obtain a visa through his wife, a legal U.S. resident.

In the past, said Carl Shusterman, the couple’s attorney, many in Zawadzki’s position have remained unlawfully until their visa numbers were called. But the legal implications change radically April 1.

That’s when the clock starts ticking on new rules that strictly penalize those who remain here without legal status. Illegal immigrants who stay for six months after April 1 are henceforth banned from the United States for three years, even if they have a legal visa upon attempting to reenter; those here illegally for a year or more face 10-year bans.

Rather than risk such a long-term separation, Zawadzki says he is steeling himself to return to Poland until his visa is ready, leaving behind his wife and his 14-month-old, Erica, a U.S. citizen by birth.

“What else can I do?” asked the perplexed Zawadzki, a former member of the Polish national body-building team.

The new law also imposes the apparent first-ever annual limit--4,000--on the number of hardship exceptions to deportation. With demand rising, this year’s cap has practically been reached already, leaving in legal limbo pending cases like those of Tai Liao, a 25-year-old Taiwan native who is scheduled for a deportation hearing this month.

“This whole situation is very frustrating,” said Liao, who arrived with his mother 15 years ago on a tourist visa and remained illegally, graduating last year from dental school in Loma Linda.

Today, Liao’s income as a dentist helps support his aging parents, legal immigrants who run a fish-and-chips shop in Redlands. Thoroughly Americanized, Liao says his spoken Mandarin is rough and he cannot read or write in his native language. He would appear to have a strong hardship case, even under the new law, but the cap mandate means no new waivers are being granted.

Reflecting on his predicament, a disbelieving Liao concluded, “There’s no security from one day to the next.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Immigration Reform

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, signed into law by President Clinton on Sept. 30, imposes sweeping changes, many of which become effective April 1. Among other revisions, the law:

* Severely restricts judicial authority to review Immigration and Naturalization Service decisions or to check alleged abuses of power.

* Allows many illegal immigrants to be expelled without an administrative hearing or judicial appeal.

* Narrows the window for asylum-seekers arriving at borders, airports and seaports to press their cases. Virtually everyone seeking political asylum must do so within one year of arriving in the United States.

* Makes illegal immigrants who leave the United States subject to future bans of up to 10 years should they attempt to reenter, even with valid visas.

* Greatly restricts current humanitarian waivers that enabled longtime residents to avoid deportation.

* Imposes new civil and criminal penalties for a range of offenses, including immigrant smuggling, document fraud, illegal entry and illegal voting by noncitizens.

* Expands the number of crimes that are grounds for deportation.

* Mandates detention of illegal immigrants and many others facing deportation.

* Waters down sanctions against employers who hire undocumented workers by adding an exemption for employers who make a “good faith attempt” to comply with requirements.

* Binds U.S. residents sponsoring immigrants to support the immigrants at 125% of the poverty level until they become citizens or have worked in the United States for 10 years.