Residency at Core of Immigrant Debate

As the immigration debate sharpens in Washington, a simple but profound question looms as perhaps the pivotal point of contention: Can those who work stay?

Except among the most conservative Republicans, support appears to be developing inside both parties for a program that would provide millions of illegal immigrants from Mexico--and probably other countries--the legal right to work temporarily in the U.S. The sharpest dispute is likely to come over how many of those workers should be allowed to move toward permanent residence and U.S. citizenship.

Church, labor and immigrant advocacy groups maintain that a broad opportunity to acquire citizenship must be the centerpiece of any legislation to regularize the status of the estimated 8.5 million undocumented immigrants now in the United States. “It has to be the central principle in the debate,” insisted J. Kevin Appleby, director of migration policy for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Many Republicans, though, seem to envision a narrower funnel that would allow fewer illegal immigrants to move from temporary workers to permanent residents and citizens. In the most restrictive expression of that sentiment, Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas) is preparing legislation that would allow potentially all illegal immigrants now in the U.S. to stay temporarily as legal workers but offer none the opportunity to settle permanently.

The Bush administration hasn’t tipped its hand but seems to be searching for middle ground that would establish a guest worker program for undocumented workers and then “provide a way for some of the workers to achieve permanent status over time,” as White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

Bush is expected to fill in more details of his proposal when Mexican President Vicente Fox arrives in Washington for a state visit in early September. But whatever Bush proposes will likely just constitute the opening bid in the congressional horse-trading that will be required to pass any sweeping immigration reform.

“If only from a political point of view, permanence for a big chunk of the people who have been here illegally has to be part of the deal,” said John Gay, co-chairman of the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, a business group promoting immigration law reform. “If it’s just a guest worker program, you won’t get the votes.”

Under current law, guest workers are allowed into the United States for a fixed period of time but must leave when their visas expire. High-skilled immigrants on long-term guest worker visas can be sponsored by employers or family members to become what’s called a lawful permanent resident, a status that provides the coveted green card.

Such permanent residents can remain indefinitely and are eligible after five years to become citizens, which confers the right to vote. The hitch is that only a limited number of immigrants are allowed to obtain permanent legal status each year--and there’s currently a several-year backlog of applications. That means even if undocumented immigrants are granted work visas, few could obtain green cards unless Congress creates a special exemption.

The tension between permanent and temporary status raises broad policy questions. Church, union and other immigrant advocacy groups argue that an expansive opportunity for illegal immigrants to achieve permanent status is the only way to prevent the development of an underclass of temporary workers inevitably facing exploitation in the workplace.

“You have to build in a mechanism for people to ultimately have full rights,” said Doris Meissner, who headed the Immigration and Naturalization Service under former President Clinton. “Having the opportunity to become a citizen is really a proxy for being able to have full rights.”

Even some business groups argue that allowing for permanent residence would help create a more stable, reliable work force. “If you find an employee you like, it doesn’t do any good to you to have to send them home after three years,” Gay said.

But many conservatives say that creating a broad path toward permanent residency would reward illegal immigrants for breaking the law.

Gramm argued that allowing Mexican workers to remain in the U.S. permanently would also undercut Fox’s effort to invigorate the Mexican economy and thus create jobs that would cause workers to stay at home in the future. “That economy is not going to change until people come back and they come back with skills and money,” said Larry Neal, Gramm’s communications director. “It seems self-defeating to bring them here, give them work, give them skills and then let them stay.”

A policy change has important electoral implications. A generous path toward permanent residency could produce millions of new, predominantly Latino citizens late this decade. Though some Republicans believe it would strengthen the party to support a liberalized legalization policy, Latino voters have generally backed Democrats by margins of 2 to 1 or more in recent congressional and presidential elections.

Some analysts believe the prospect of creating perhaps millions of Democratic-leaning votes could make GOP legislators hesitant to pursue a broad-scale legalization plan.

From Bush on down, almost everyone involved in the discussion agrees that even if Congress can agree on a plan, it won’t simply provide all illegal immigrants access to permanent residency--what’s often described as a general amnesty. That means the scope of any legalization plan will be answered by several key questions. Most important among them:

* What nationalities are eligible? The administration’s Justice-State Department working group has focused on Mexicans who are illegally in the U.S.; Democrats and their allies are insisting that any plan has to address all undocumented workers. Politically, it may be difficult to limit any plan to Mexicans; on Thursday, Bush indicated he would “consider all folks here.”

* What’s the cutoff date for eligibility? The last major legalization program, signed into law by President Reagan in 1986, made all illegal immigrants who had been in the U.S. for at least four years eligible for legal status. This time, Congress could reduce the pool eli- gible for legalization by requiring a longer term of residence--or increase the numbers by allowing those who had been here even shorter periods to apply. As the debate starts, immigrant advocacy groups are pushing for a shorter eligibility period, though many acknowledge the four-year cutoff might be a reasonable compromise.

* What’s the process for permanent status? The 1986 law established a two-stage process for illegal immigrants to become permanent residents. Those who met the four-year cutoff were immediately granted a temporary legal status that allowed them to stay and work; after 18 months in that category, they became permanent legal residents, providing they could demonstrate a minimal knowledge of English and U.S. history and government. Ultimately, 2.7 million illegal immigrants became permanent residents under that program.

Generally, those involved in today’s debate also envision a two-stage process toward permanent residence. The new wrinkle is that some are suggesting that any eligible undocumented workers be compelled to meet additional conditions--such as sustained employment--to move from temporary to permanent legal status. In particular, the Bush administration has signaled interest in such “earned legalization” ideas.

“Clearly, the concept is that you can’t convert someone from illegal to legal status by magic wand,” said one White House official following the internal discussions. “There has to be some component of behavior that justifies your conversion from one to the other.”

If Congress moves in this direction, the model could be a prospective deal that Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Mission Hills) helped broker last year between farm workers and agricultural employers. It would have allowed illegal farm workers who had worked in the United States at least 100 days in the previous 18 months to achieve permanent legal status once they had worked an additional 360 days. Though Gramm’s opposition killed the deal at the end of last year’s congressional session, Berman said that the link between work and legalization could help cement a broader agreement now.

“There is something to be explored there--you don’t get [permanent status] just because you’re here; you get it because you’ve worked,” Berman said. “On the other hand, it’s a little bit of an academic question because there is no group that works more than these immigrants. They are here to work.”