Don’t Extend Amnesty; Just Make It Work--Now

The first provision of the new immigration law to be implemented was amnesty: the one-year period in which illegal aliens could apply for legal residence without fear of deportation. Ever since the application period began on May 5, there has been an increasingly unbecoming posture of finger-pointing between the government and the agencies designated to assist applicants. Each blames the other for the unexpectedly modest numbers that have applied, and now there is talk about extending the amnesty period.

Before such talk goes any further, it would be well to make adjustments in the program that are needed to get the job done in the year-long period designated for it.

After three months, perhaps the shakedown period is behind. More than 322,000 applications have been filed, and the 40,000-per-week rate needed to reach the 2-million figure that experts agree are eligible has been established. But this rate will be maintained only if the bickering stops in the public-private partnership that has been assembled to carry out the program. It’s time for a truce. Here are the needed elements:

Publicity-- Amnesty observers agree that the three most important requirements for a successful program are publicity, publicity and publicity! The government’s legislatively mandated information campaign is just hitting the airwaves. To overcome terrible tardiness, ads at this point should feature documentation requirements and profiles of legalized persons, to meet the task of supplying clarity and public confidence about the program.

In exchange, interest groups should stop harping about aliens’ fears of the government. A legitimate early concern, this line has a hollow ring now that the Immigration and Naturalization Service has shown that it is not running a deportation sting.

Administration-- The INS deserves praise for opening 107 new offices on time. But the assistance agencies also had to mount a major buildup. Theirs was complicated by tens of thousands of people who had been told to contact them for help in preparing applications. The agencies blame the slow start on the government’s failure to issue regulations until early May; the government accuses the agencies of withholding finished applications. Both are cheap shots. Government rule-making is a lengthy process designed to obtain public review; this one was done in record time. Applications have accumulated with the agencies because they were the front line during the early weeks when uncertainty surrounded documentation requirements. A rocky start was inevitable. The need now is for consensus and consistency on requirements among INS offices, and for applications to flow.

Family members-- The government must revise its unyielding public position regarding ineligible relatives of eligible aliens. Yes, the legislation specifies that individuals must qualify in their own right. But that is very different from deportation of relatives who cannot qualify. Immigration professionals know that the cornerstone of our immigration system, family reunification, has historically been preserved by the INS through a variety of procedures. In this case, the INS purportedly fears that signaling such leniency will encourage pressure for leniency in other aspects of the new law. Such pressure will occur in any case. It is an indefensible reason to stonewall on the fate of family members, a matter of paramount and legitimate concern to alien communities.

Reimbursement-- The antecedent for the public-private partnership is in the refugee program, where churches and other groups have assisted in critical ways to carry out the nation’s humanitarian policies. In the amnesty program, the assistance agencies are to be reimbursed for providing no-risk information and time-consuming assistance in preparing applications. As a result of that work, the INS receives a perfected application, making the expenditure of its resources highly efficient. This is worth paying for. Money is not yet flowing, however, because only a small percentage of the applications filed have come through the agencies. Some forward funding should begin as compensation for the build-up and applications in the pipeline and as a demonstration that the partnership is grounded in sound business principles.

Although legalization is unique in our history, the United States is not the first nation to have run an amnesty for illegal aliens. Among the lessons of those other experiences is that adjustments must be made regularly as the program proceeds.

The new immigration law will have enough inequities and human hardship in its consequences. Legalization need not become another if we do it right, now.