Amnesty Ruling Sparks Fragile Hope

A federal court ruling has brought hope and confusion to hundreds of thousands of immigrants who have been seeking amnesty for more than a decade.

“It has caused a lot of stress and uncertainty,” Umberto Zavala, a 37-year-old Mexican immigrant and father of two U.S.-born children, said as he waited Thursday at an Immigration and Naturalization Service office in Boyle Heights. “But maybe we’ll have a chance now.”

The ruling was issued July 2 by federal Judge Lawrence K. Karlton of Sacramento in an effort to clarify confusion over a 1986 law that granted amnesty to about 3 million immigrants who were here illegally.

The INS refused to award amnesty to many who had left the country for short periods between 1982 and 1988. Lawyers for immigrants have long disputed that agency action, saying that the 1986 law permitted brief departures. In his ruling, Karlton agreed that some, but not all, such immigrants may merit amnesty even if they left the country briefly.

The biggest single number of immigrants affected by the decision is believed to be in the Los Angeles area.

Peter Schey, chief attorney for the immigrants whose litigation led to the ruling, said that as many as 400,000 amnesty seekers nationwide are currently subject to possible deportation. The INS says that the number is closer to 75,000.

Karlton’s injunction provided a glimmer of hope for many immigrants who say that they were wrongly denied legal status during the government’s 1987-88 amnesty initiative.

Partially shielded by the judge’s order are so-called late amnesty seekers, who contend that they were improperly blocked from filing for amnesty because of their short absences from the United States. Amnesty applicants had to prove continuous U.S. residence between 1982 and 1988, but Congress specifically decreed that “brief, casual and innocent absences” should not disqualify anyone.

The complex, bitterly disputed case--which has remained unresolved despite a 1993 Supreme Court ruling and a law passed by Congress in 1996 specifically to end the protracted litigation--turns on a difference over what constitutes a brief, casual, innocent absence.

Immigrants suing the INS say that the agency’s guidelines were too strict, eliminating many who had merely gone home for short periods to visit ailing relatives or friends. But INS lawyers insist that they followed the law.

Agency officials have declined to comment on the litigation but have promised to hear the cases of any people who can show they were improperly turned away during the 1987-88 amnesty application period. However, officials have privately voiced fears that most applicants are fraudulently seeking to secure legal status.

“It seems like what some folks are trying to do is climb on the bandwagon,” said one INS official in Washington.

In his order, Karlton cited the potential for lasting harm to “primarily low-income plaintiffs.” The judge barred the government from deporting most affected immigrants and ordered the INS to renew the work permits that many plaintiffs have now held for eight years or more. In the meantime, the agency must devise a procedure for processing applicants who can demonstrate that they were improperly turned away from INS offices.

The agency is seeking an emergency stay of the judge’s ruling.

The fact that Karlton ordered the INS to renew work permits was a relief to residents like Rajinder Singh, a native of New Delhi whose permit recently expired, relegating him to undocumented status.

“We’ve been very nervous,” Singh said in the lobby of the Eastside shopping center where the INS has an office that handles amnesty cases. “My life is here now, and I want to stay in this country.”

Many of the affected immigrants have U.S.-born children, houses, steady jobs and other links to the community.

“My children hardly know my country,” said Colombia native Lucy Martinez, a 38-year-old mother of three who lives in La Habra.

Martinez has lived in the United States since she was 21, she said. Her two young boys, ages 5 and 10, were born here, and her eldest, 22, has lived virtually all of his life in the United States. She runs a day-care center, owns her home and lives what by all appearances is a normal existence--but always under the threat of deportation.

Martinez said she sought to apply for amnesty in 1987 but was turned away at an INS office because of a monthlong trip home to visit an ailing brother. Lawyers say that those in her situation will probably be in a stronger position than the many amnesty hopefuls who say they were discouraged from applying and never made it to an INS office.

“I’ve lived half my life here, I pay my taxes, and I don’t take welfare or commit any crimes,” Martinez said. “I think I deserve to stay.”