Give Amnesty Regulations a Humane Interpretation

For more than 30 years the Immigration and Naturalization Service has been charged with hunting down undocumented aliens and expelling them from the United States. This, along with ever-increasing numbers of the undocumented in the Southwest, created an environment riddled with disorder and inequities. In an effort to restore order and promote equity, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, and included in the legislation a compassionate legal remedy--amnesty for those who have been here since Jan. 1, 1982.

The INS, having contributed to the social chaos, now has the responsibility of assisting undocumented individuals who may qualify for legal permanent residence. Unfortunately, the regulations that it has drawn up so far do not reflect Congress’ generosity; indeed, they might even be characterized as mean-spirited.

The most significant difficulty with the new regulations is their complexity. Most applicants will have to seek the assistance of an attorney or an accredited agency. In Orange County we estimate that 50,000 to 60,000 aliens will want to apply for legalization. The legal resources available in the county, however, are sufficient to help only 20,000 to 30,000. What this means is that the INS has created a process so complex that it may shut out perhaps half of those eligible for legal residence.

Another example of the INS’ insensitivity may be found in the fees that it proposes. Although we at Catholic Charities in Orange County believe that the proposed fee of $185 per adult applicant ($420 per family) is generally fair and reasonable, no provision has been made for those for whom the fee is excessive. We are speaking here of the vast number of people who live at or below the poverty line, but who have managed to be self-sufficient without resorting to cash public assistance. While $185 may not seem like much to the people who set this fee, it is a staggering and impossible sum to men and women earning the minimum wage, often only sporadically. There ought to be a fee waiver for such cases.

Another regulation disqualifies any otherwise eligible applicant who left the United States for more than 45 days. This is in callous disregard of Mexicans and Salvadorans whose families were stricken by earthquakes in those countries. Caring for injured relatives, settling a decedent’s estate, helping brothers and sisters to relocate can take longer than 45 days, especially in the chaotic circumstances that we all remember so vividly from television broadcasts. Should these men and women be punished by a regulation that no one could have foreseen two years ago?

At present, legal residents seeking U.S. citizenship are allowed departures of up to one year. There is no reason for the INS to apply different restrictions to people who have been here for at least five years and are now seeking to legalize their status under the new law.

The INS also should be understanding and compassionate when it reviews the documentation needed to demonstrate continuous residence in the United States. There is an unpleasant irony here: For years people who were here illegally tried to hide their status by taking cash-only jobs, or using pseudonyms, or never signing leases or other documents. Now the law requires that they prove their years of illegal residence by showing pay stubs, leases, tax receipts, driver licenses, etc. Difficult as this is, it is even more of an obstacle for women who have been at home all this time taking care of their families. The INS should accept as conclusive evidence the credible testimony of children and spouses, as it does in other contexts.

In the past the INS has been unwilling to recognize the realities of the family--indeed, has operated with a decidedly anti-family sentiment. This is a matter of great concern to church-related agencies that are trying to assist people who are seeking legalization. If a parent qualifies but a spouse does not, a family may be divided by the deportation of the ineligible spouse. If children qualify but parents do not, children may be subjected to a de facto deportation. At the very least, family members who do not qualify should have their deportation orders placed in a low-priority status.

The INS’ Western regional commissioner, Harold Ezell, said last week, “We realize it’s not going to be letter-perfect on every one of the applications. We’re not looking for ways to deny; we’re looking for ways to approve.” That is a heartening change from past INS attitudes. Those of us who believe that the law can be both fair and compassionate hope that these words from the commissioner take on the force of regulation.