By Pamela Constable and N.C. Aizenman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 19, 2007
The sweeping immigration reform plan proposed by the Bush administration and a bipartisan group of senators Thursday has left immigrants across the Washington area scrambling to determine whether the complex compromise agreement would help or hurt them.
The answer varies as much as the circumstances of the estimated 600,000 foreign nationals who call the region home.
Luis, 24, a Guatemalan house painter waiting for work with other illegal immigrants outside a convenience store in Falls Church yesterday, said he was pleased that the plan offered him a path to legalization, but he was suspicious of the fine print.
"I heard it says you have to go back to your country to become legal, but maybe that's just a trick to get people to leave," said Luis, who declined to give his last name.
Annabelle Flores, 48, a U.S. citizen living in Manassas who has waited 15 years to get permanent residency for her sister and three brothers back in the Philippines, was thrilled to learn that the proposal might speed their arrival. But she was dismayed that it would prevent naturalized U.S. citizens from sponsoring their foreign-born siblings and adult children for visas.
"I understand that they need to do that to make room to legalize all the illegal immigrants that are here. . . . But it seems so unfair to people like us who followed all the rules," she said.
Local immigrant advocates offered a similarly mixed verdict -- praising the 380-page agreement as an important starting point for debate, yet vowing to oppose it unless a raft of provisions they consider unfair and impractical are amended.
Of particular concern was the temporary nature of the additional work visas that the plan would extend to as many as 400,000 immigrants per year. Such workers would be required to return to their home countries after two years and remain there for one year before they could come back to the United States.
This would create a large pool of second-class workers who have little legal protection and no stability, said Thomas Snyder, the D.C-based political director for Unite Here, a union that represents hotel, restaurant and garment workers.
"Temporary workers by definition have fewer rights. They cannot assimilate and become part of the workforce," he said. "These are not seasonal jobs, they are temporary workers for permanent jobs. This creates a revolving door of lower-status workers that we just don't need."
Immigrants and their supporters also had qualms about the plan's provisions for legalizing most of the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States.
Under the proposal, illegal immigrants who entered the country before January, who pass a criminal background check and pay $3,000 could apply for a four-year "Z-visa," renew it for another four years, then pay an additional $4,000 to apply for legal permanent residency. However, heads of immigrant households would have to return to their home countries to file the permanent residency application from there.
Jaime Contreras, president of the National Capital Immigration Coalition, said that was too heavy a burden. "Instead of creating more strain on families, it would be much more humane and common sense to let the head of the family stay here."
Another potential sticking point is that illegal immigrants who get Z-visas under the plan would be unable to sponsor children or spouses overseas until they become legal permanent residents -- a process that could take up to 13 years.
"The reality is people are just not going to wait that long," said Kevin Appleby, director of migration and refugee policy for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. He added that it "will just encourage more undocumented immigration. What you'll see is a lot of women and children continuing to come across the border."
Groups that assist families of legal immigrants said the proposed bill would unfairly penalize hundreds of thousands who have obeyed the law and waited abroad for their turn to be united with relatives who had legally immigrated to the United States.
For example, foreigners who have applied for legal permanent residency under categories that are slated to be eliminated under the bill -- such as adult children and siblings of U.S. citizens -- will be grandfathered in only if they filed their application before May 2005. An estimated 800,000 who applied after that date will lose their chance to immigrate.
In addition, spouses and minor children of legal permanent residents, who already faced a five- to 10-year delay to immigrate, would have to wait up to 20 years.
"We think this sends a ridiculous message because some people who came illegally can now go through the legalization process, while some who tried to play by the rules now find the rules going against them," said Karen Narasaki, president of the Asian American Justice Center in Washington.
While immigrant advocates criticized the proposal as making it too hard for illegal immigrants to obtain legal status, area organizations that oppose illegal immigration complained that the bill is far too lenient on foreigners who entered the country illegally.
"This bill would grant amnesty to folks who broke the law, which is outrageous," said Greg Letiecq, a community activist in Manassas. "It allows people who broke the law to buy their way out of the consequences. They should be prosecuted and deported."
Letiecq said the idea of seeking a broad immigration bill through bipartisan compromise was a mistake. Instead, he said various aspects of the issue, including border enforcement, should be considered separately.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.