Report on Chicago Symposium on a “Catholic Policy Toward Immigration Reform”

Should the United States Catholic Conference (USCC) support proposed legislation which promises to benefit thousands of undocumented persons by giving them legal status, but which admittedly has serious detrimental aspects as well? This moral and philosophical consideration was a recurring theme at a Symposium on Immigration Reform Legislation held on March 2 and 3 in Chicago. The Symposium, co-sponsored by two USCC departments, the Secretariat for Hispanic Affairs and the Department of Migration and Refugee Services, was a dialogue involving key Catholic organization personnel to clarify concepts, review the experiences of the Simpson/Mazzoli Immigration Reform Bills of 1982, and refine working knowledge of the complex issues at hand.

The sponsors of the Symposium serve as advisors to the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops on the issue of immigration. The USCC supported the 1982 Simpson/Mazzoli bills, with some reservations. Pablo Sedillo, Director, and Cecilio Morales, Communications Specialist, represented the Secretariat for Hispanic Affairs, and Donald Hohl and James Hoffman, Director and Assistant Director, respectively, represented the USCC’s Migration and Refugee Services. The meeting was held at the Archdiocesan Latin American Committee Office in Chicago.

Last year the Senate version of the immigration reform bill, sponsored by Sen. Alan Simpson, passed the full Senate, and the House version, sponsored by Rep. Romano Mazzoli, passed through Committee and was headed for the full House when the session of Congress ended.

1983: The Bills are Back Again

Now, the Simpson/Mazzoli bills are being reintroduced with new numbers (HR 1510, S 529) in both Houses of Congress. The Chicago Symposium was held to solicit ideas and opinions from Catholic organization personnel who are familiar with the bills, and knowledgeable about the human effects such legislation will have, if passed. Similar symposia were planned for San Antonio, New York and San Jose, California.

The Symposium began with an evening “Town Meeting” forum on the general issues which surface in discussion of the Simpson/Mazzoli bills. Approximately 40 people from the Midwest took part, from such varied places as Davenport, Iowa; Saginaw, Michigan; Toledo, Ohio; Dodge City, Kansas; South Bend, Indiana. The Symposium continued the next day with a detailed consideration of the salient topics of the bill, namely: 1) Employer Sanctions and Enforcement; 2) Legalization; 3) Regular Immigration Reform; 4) Asylum and Refugees; 5) Temporary Foreign Workers Program.

Consensus: Oppose the Bills

The consensus of the attendants at the meeting, which several times reached a high emotional pitch, seemed to be that the proposed legislation is inadequate to meet basic human rights criteria with regard to immigrants, and that the USCC should oppose the legislation this year, rather than supporting it with reservations.

Two areas of the proposed legislation met with vehement criticism, the Employer Sanctions and Temporary Workers clauses. The Employer Sanctions clause would provide for fines of up to $2,000 for employers who knowingly hire undocumented persons. Since it would be necessary to identify the legal status of persons seeking employment, the bill provides for the possibility of the creation of some type of identification card to be carried by all persons seeking employment. Critics of this clause argue that foreign-looking and -sounding persons, especially Hispanic-appearing persons, would be most suspect of being in the country illegally and would be unduly subject to discrimination. However, the ALF-CIO and other organized labor groups have supported the Employer Sanctions clause, believing that it will protect American jobs and the rights of workers.

The Temporary Workers Program provision would enable the government to bring in on a short-term basis large groups of laborers from other countries to fill a labor demand in the event that it could not be met by U.S. citizens. Critics of this aspect of the bill, among them the USCC itself, contend that workers brought in would be subject to exploitation in the form of low, unregulated wages, poor living and working conditions, and few legal rights, since no protective clauses are included. Critics maintain that the miserable experience of the 1950s “Bracero” program should be considered evidence that a temporary workers program cannot work without protective measures and the careful monitoring of the treatment of workers. Moreover, some critics believe that the entire concept of importing “cheap labor” to do work U.S. citizens will not do is immoral.

Legalization: The Good Outweighs the Bad

The Legalization clause of the Simpson /Mazzoli proposal is its major selling point in the eyes of the USCC. As it now stands, undocumented persons who arrived in the U.S. before January 1, 1977 would be granted “Permanent Resident” status, with the possibility of applying for citizenship at a later date. Undocumented persons who arrived in the U.S. before January 1, 1980 would be immediately granted “Temporary Resident” status, with the possibility of later applying for permanent resident status, and later, citizenship.

The USCC believes that legalization would benefit so many thousands of undocumented persons that it is willing to make concessions in other aspects of the bill with which it has serious problems, just to ensure that the legalization clause remains in the final version. It is willing to “trade-off” legalization with the negative aspects of the bill, if it must. However, the USCC is recommending two changes in the proposal: 1) that all persons granted legal status immediately be given the status of “Permanent Resident”; 2) that the cut-off date be made as current as possible, to include many of the Central American refugees who have arrived since 1980.

Refugee Status: Just What is a “Political Refugee?”

A separate but related concern frequently voiced at the Symposium involved the imminent need to redefine refugee status. The Refugee Act is scheduled for reconsideration soon after the Immigration Act. Many persons at the Symposium expressed a belief that political asylum and possibilities for legalization should be granted to persons fleeing war-torn countries where political persecution is commonplace and where the refugee faces almost certain danger if returned to his/her country. The specific concern currently is with refugees from El Salvador and Guatemala, who are considered to be economic refugees and are therefore returned to their countries under current law.

Author

  • Peggy Osberger Wilder

    In 1983, Peggy Osberger Wilder was Communications Coordinator for the Commission Catholic de Habla Hispana.

tagged as:

Join the Conversation

in our Telegram Chat

Or find us on
Item added to cart.
0 items - $0.00

Orthodox. Faithful. Free.

Signup to receive new Crisis articles daily

Email subscribe stack
Share to...