Policy on aliens in limbo

Benjamin Grove

Saturday, Nov. 18, 2000 | 3:07 a.m.

WASHINGTON -- A 46-year-old immigrant from Portugal living in America for 21 years recently approached Las Vegas immigration attorney Carlos Cantu. A 1996 federal law left the advertising and marketing director without work permits while his 12-year-old application for amnesty is pending.

Now he faces possible deportation -- unless Congress passes a law now under consideration that would grant amnesty to immigrants who have been in America since 1986.

"It's the only way he will be allowed to become a citizen," said Cantu, immigration director for Catholic Charities of Southern Nevada.

Lawmakers in Congress have heard similar stories.

Congress over the years has passed a patchwork collection of bewildering immigration laws, some of which unfairly denied citizenship to immigrants who have followed the rules after years in America.

This year lawmakers drafted several bills in an attempt to fix the complex web of problems with current laws.

But the legislation is caught in the swirl of confusion in Congress over the presidential election. Lawmakers recessed until next month to await an outcome. Now it's not clear when or if lame-duck lawmakers -- or the newly elected Congress that takes over next year -- will take any action on immigration policy.

"We either deal with it now or deal with it later," Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said, "but deal with it we must."

Congress and President Clinton are locked in disputes over several issues that have prevented Congress from adjourning for the year.

One sticking point is a proposal that gives immigration rights to Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Haitians and others that are equal to rights given Nicaraguans and Cubans, who were given status as permanent residents through laws passed in 1997 and 1998.

The proposal also allows all illegal immigrants on the verge of citizenship to remain in America as their applications are pending.

The final provision allows illegal immigrants who came to the United States before 1986 to apply for amnesty.

President Clinton and most Democrats support the proposals.

But many Republicans, led by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, oppose them. Republicans say granting amnesty encourages more illegal immigration. Hatch proposes amnesty for 400,000 immigrants unfairly denied amnesty between 1982 and 1986. He also wants to give guest visas to about 600,000 foreign spouses and children of U.S. citizens.

Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., said he generally supports Hatch's proposals.

"We're trying to reunite families," Gibbons said.

The "registry" date issue is particularly controversial. As it stands, most undocumented immigrants, including Mexicans, can apply for amnesty if they have been in America since before 1972.

But Congress periodically moves up that "cut-off" date, and most Democrats now believe people who have been in America since 1986 deserve citizenship.

"We've been changing that date since the early part of the century, and it's time to change it again," Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said.

Important context

The proposal has an important context: two years ago the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a law Congress passed in 1996 that stripped federal courts of jurisdiction over appeals cases made by aliens.

The law and court ruling also effectively voided the temporary work permits many immigrants had been renewing to earn a living as they appealed. The net effect left an estimated 350,000 immigrants nationwide out of work, out of options and subject to deportation.

Since then, many workers who have been in America for years -- some since before 1986 -- have been deported; still others continue to work illegally, ducking the INS.

Illegal immigrants who have been here 14 years face the question: Do I wait without work while Congress bickers -- or leave the country for good?

"I have to say to them, 'There is legislation pending, but if you leave, you give up all your rights,' " said Las Vegas lawyer Eva Garcia-Mendoza, who represents immigrants.

One client, whose adult children grew up in America, has been in this country since the late 1970s and worked until recently in a Strip resort kitchen, Garcia-Mendoza said. But several months ago the immigrant lost his work permit due to the 1996 law.

"He said, 'I bought a home and signed the mortgage papers relying on this work permit,' " Garcia-Mendoza said. "He doesn't know what he'll do." Garcia-Mendoza has lots of those stories. Teachers call the attorney with tales of long-time Nevada residents whose high school-age children reject state-sponsored Millennium Scholarships because they are not yet citizens.

"The most tragic parts of these cases are the children," Garcia-Mendoza said.

The pending immigration legislation is crucial in Nevada where immigrant workers drive the tourism industry by working service jobs in hotels and casinos. A year ago, Culinary Union officials lobbied on Capitol Hill for a change in the 1996 law, on behalf of workers who had lost work permits.

Officials estimate the legislation pending now would affect roughly 1 million immigrants, as many as 20,000 in Nevada.

Hispanic activists are surprised Congress this year has sidestepped bills that would help poor immigrant laborers, but passed laws easing immigration rules for skilled workers in high-tech industries.

"They weren't inclined to help the workers who clean the bathrooms in these industries," said University of Nevada, Reno, professor Emma Sepulveda.

Some immigration laws are fair -- when Mexican citizens slip into America they know they are here illegally, said Eddie Escobedo, radio talk show host and publisher of El Mundo, a Spanish-language newspaper in Las Vegas. But the issue becomes complicated for people who have been in America a long time, working and applying for citizenship.

"Most of these people pay taxes, and they have a home, obligations, children born in this country," Escobedo said. "It is unfair for the government to kick out those people who have been here 14 years, and those are the ones Sen. Reid is trying to help."

Activists await action

Activists in Las Vegas are eagerly awaiting action in Congress. In the final weeks of this bizarre political year, it's difficult to predict the actions of a lame-duck Congress and president, they say.

Democrats want to attach the legislation to a spending bill that sets the annual budget for the Commerce, Justice and State departments. Clinton threatens a veto if the language is not included.

"We're not going to give up this fight," Reid said.

In Washington, national Latino groups are urging lawmakers to act before a new Congress and president are seated next year.

An unusual, post-election "lame duck" session of the current Congress will meet again Dec. 5 to hammer out a few final compromises.

On immigration, Republican leaders and Clinton are closer to compromise than they appear, said Cecilia Munoz, vice president for policy for the National Council of La Raza, the nation's largest Hispanic advocacy group. Pre-election bickering hurt negotiating, she said.

"The partisan rancor that characterized the debate a month ago is not in the interest of either party, certainly not the Republican leadership," Munoz said.

The immigration legislation also has political implications for Republicans who vied for Hispanic voters during the election season. Hispanics voted 2-to-1 for Gore, said Angelo Amador, legislative analyst for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund.

"Whether the legislation helps 300 or 1 million or 2 million is irrelevant to us," Amador said. "It's the right thing to do."