House Panel Approves First Curbs on Legal Immigration Since 1924

By DAVID G. SAVAGE

Oct. 25, 1995 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

WASHINGTON — The House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday approved a broad immigration bill that scales back the number of persons who can come to the United States legally and tries to stop the flow of illegal immigrants by requiring employers to verify their status.

The bill passed on a 23-11 vote, with three Democrats joining the unanimous Republican majority.

Republican leaders say the legislation will not go to the House floor until early next year--at a time, they note, when it may inject the immigration issue into the 1996 campaign.

The House bill would be a sharp change in U.S. immigration law. Congress last restricted legal immigration in 1924. The flow of legal immigrants has risen sharply in the past decade, and in recent years, nearly 1 million newcomers have entered this country legally.

The House bill would reduce that number to about 700,000 a year for the next five years, mostly by closing the door to the parents and siblings of new citizens.

Committee Republicans say the heavy influx of newcomers, both legal and illegal, has been costly to the taxpayers and has hurt American workers.

“Americans want immigration to serve their interests, and the committee [approved] a bill that will do that,” said Rep. Lamar Smith (D-Tex.), its prime sponsor.

But a broad coalition that ranges from the American Jewish Congress and the U.S. Catholic Conference to the Microsoft Corp. and the National Assn. of Manufacturers has come together to try to stop the legislation.

Religious and civil rights groups cite humanitarian concerns for opposing the bill. Business groups complain that they need ready access to highly talented and skilled foreign workers.

“It makes no sense to slam the door on optimistic and talented legal newcomers and refugees who play by the rules, enrich our culture and energize our nation,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, which is leading the opposition. “An overwhelming majority of the American people want Congress to enact legislation that will reduce illegal immigration, before taking up the issue of legal immigration.”

Asian families will be particularly hurt by the canceling of immigration visas for the parents and siblings of new citizens, say leaders of the Asian advocacy groups, because more than half of the estimated 2 million persons in the immigration pipeline are Asian.

Smith counters that the cutbacks will still leave legal immigration at a higher rate than it has been in 60 of the past 70 years. “America will continue to be the most generous nation in the world,” he said.

Critics of the bill are hoping that splits among the Republicans will doom the effort. They note that Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Tex.) has opposed the cuts in legal immigration.

But backers of the bill say the American public is angry about reports of recent immigrants--legal as well as illegal--taking advantage of public benefits from welfare to Medicaid. The bill includes a series of changes that block newcomers from getting public aid and holds their sponsors legally responsible for their support.

To try to stem the flow of illegal immigration, the bill also sets up an experimental program that would require employers to check the status of their new workers by making a toll-free call to federal authorities.

Sen. Alan K. Simpson (R-Wyo.) says he will soon introduce a bill patterned after the House version.

Among the Californians on the Judiciary Committee, Republicans Carlos J. Moorhead of Glendale, Elton Gallegley of Simi Valley and Sonny Bono of La Quinta voted for the bill, while Democrats Howard L. Berman of Panorama City, Xavier Becerra of Los Angeles and Zoe Lofgren of San Jose voted against it.

The three committee Democrats voting in favor were Reps. John Bryant of Texas, Frederick Boucher of Virginia and Jack Reed of Rhode Island.