Illegal Immigrants Aided on Residency Bid in House Vote

The House approved legislation Tuesday that would allow thousands of foreigners to seek legal residency in the United States, even though they are in the country illegally.

The 275-137 vote handed President Bush, an advocate of the measure, a victory he can tout as a sign of U.S. goodwill toward immigrants when he travels to Latin America next week. It also was a defeat for lawmakers, mostly Republicans, who favor restricting immigration.

The measure, considered under rules that required a two-thirds majority for passage, cleared the House by the barest of margins. A one-vote switch would have defeated it. The measure now heads to the Senate, which has already given broad bipartisan approval to similar legislation.

Bush praised the House action, saying it would help keep families together and make America a “more welcoming society.” He urged the Senate to pass the measure quickly.

The core of the House bill would allow thousands of potential immigrants--most of whom entered the country illegally or overstayed visas--to remain with their families while they complete paperwork to obtain a precious green card entitling them to settle in the United States. To do so, applicants would have to pay a $1,000 fine.

Without the exemption, the immigrants would be forced to return to their native countries to file an application. Once there, they could be barred from reentry for up to 10 years--a major disincentive to many of those who would otherwise make a bid to become legal residents.

Last year, a similar four-month program drew 400,000 applicants. Wedding chapels in cities across the country, including Los Angeles, were thronged by people hoping to emerge from the migrant underground by marrying a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident.

Some advocates estimate 200,000 or more people could step forward under a renewal of the program, many from Southern California. But others say the numbers this time could be much smaller, in the tens of thousands.

The window of opportunity opened by the measure would be narrow. The provision would apply only to foreigners who had obtained a qualifying sponsor--through employment with a U.S. company, for example, or marriage--before Aug. 15, 2001. They would have until Nov. 30 of this year to apply for an adjustment of their immigration status.

Then the measure would end.

A leading House Republican who backed the measure, Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin, noted that its provisions would “not become a permanent part of our immigration law, and [illegal immigrants] should not base their future actions on the assumption that it will be.”

Assessments of the measure’s effect varied sharply.

“Every time we talk about unification of families, there’s always going to be high demand,” said Ben Monterroso, Western regional director of the Service Employees International Union, based in Los Angeles, which supported the measure. “It’s a step in the right direction.”

But Cecilia Munoz, vice president of the National Council of La Raza, a Latino rights group, said: “It’s an incredibly modest proposal which doesn’t ultimately help very many people. In some ways, it’s more symbolically important than substantively important.”

Some immigration lawyers said they worry that the measure would be misunderstood by people who believe, erroneously, that Congress is moving toward a general amnesty for illegal immigrants. Some also fear that swindlers will profit from people who think they could be eligible for the bill’s provisions but are not. Anyone seeking to get married this year, for example, to gain sponsorship for a green card would not qualify.

“People will lose a lot of money from fraud,” said Judy Golub of the American Assn. of Immigration Lawyers.

The bill was packaged in the House with another measure to authorize $300 million to beef up border security and improve the tracking of foreign visitors, a response to the security failures exposed by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

But the House debate centered on the temporary exceptions to immigration rules.

Democrats, who largely supported the measure, lamented that the program, known in immigration law as 245(i), would not be made permanent. House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) charged that the legislation “fails to adequately recognize the importance of this provision in reuniting immigrant families.”

Gephardt said Bush was “unable to convince congressional Republicans to work with him in securing a more meaningful extension.”

Republican opponents said the bill went much too far, and their arguments almost defeated it. On Tuesday, they mustered nearly 100 more votes against the bill than they had when an earlier version passed the House in a preliminary 336-43 vote last May.

The narrower margin was a sign of heightened sensitivity of immigration politics since Sept. 11.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach) called the bill “insulting to all of the immigrants who obey our laws and are standing in lines throughout the world.”

And Rep. Thomas G. Tancredo (R-Colo.) said the message of the bill was: “Sneak in under the radar, stay here long enough, don’t worry, we’ll get you amnesty.”

Advocates vigorously denied that the bill would grant amnesty. They said it was limited to applicants who could show eligibility for a green card.

Prominent senators cheered the House action. The Senate approved a similar bill without dissent in September.

*

Times staff writer Janet Hook contributed to this report.