The Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act: Cutting Through the Rhetoric

As Congress and the President come close to wrapping up legislative business for the year, one of the last issues to be resolved is related to our immigration policy. The White House and Congressional Democrats are seeking legislation, the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act ("LIFA"), that would help certain immigrants gain residency. This legislation is being characterized incorrectly as a "blanket amnesty." A "blanket amnesty" would provide immigrant visas to an estimated six million undocumented or temporary immigrants in the U.S. By contrast, "LIFA" would provide approximately 800,000 immigrant visas to some of these immigrants. Many, if not most, of these immigrants have been living in the U.S. legally, but are in legal limbo for a variety of reasons. These are immigrants who have been treated unfairly by our inconsistent laws in the past, or who in some other way deserve to be granted residency.

"LIFA" would provide new immigrant visas to immigrants who have been in the U.S. for a minimum of five years (and many have been here for well over a decade). Recent public opinion polling has shown that Americans support a limited legalization program for immigrants who have resided in the U.S. for more than five years. A "blanket amnesty" would include newly arrived immigrants, without the same long-established ties to the U.S.

Who would be covered by "LIFA?" The law would apply to three groups of immigrants:

• Victims of the INS's misinterpretation of the 1986 legalization program. The latest compromise proposal floated by the White House would cover persons who have been in the country since 1982, and would likely have benefited from the legalization program that Congress enacted and President Reagan signed into law in 1986. Most of these individuals, about 235,000, have been residing in the U.S. legally, with work authorization, while lawsuits challenging the INS's interpretation of how their cases should be treated are pending in the courts. Providing residency for these people makes sense because, if they had been treated properly in the mid-1980s, most would be citizens by now. Additionally, close family members of those who came before 1982 would also be covered. These individuals would also be eligible for citizenship now if their family members had been treated properly in the mid-1980's.
• Refugee victims of civil conflict treated inequitably in the past. A second group of immigrants that would gain residency under "LIFA" include a limited number of refugees, most of whom fled civil unrest and political persecution in Central America in the 1980's and early 1990's. Many of these individuals have also been residing in the U.S. legally, with permission to work, because they won a settlement in a lawsuit brought against the government back when our asylum system was crippled with political bias against them. This group of approximately 450,000 individuals would simply be given the same opportunity for residency that Congress approved for favored groups in similar circumstances just three years ago. Again, many of these individuals, if treated fairly in the past, would now be eligible for full U.S. citizenship. Providing these individuals with residency now would end a legacy of unequal treatment by various administrations and by the Congress over the years.
• Individuals who are qualified for immigrant visas after being sponsored by a close family member or an employer. "LIFA" would restore Section 245(i) of the immigration law, so that these individuals will be able to obtain their immigrant visa in the U.S. if the visa is available to them. Without this provision, immigrant visas are processed in U.S. consulates in the immigrant's home country, and the immigrant must obtain the visa from the consulate. Due to other provisions of the law, enacted in 1996, anyone who is here without immigration status, or who is here in violation of their status for more than six months, must remain outside the U.S. for three or ten years.
• No additional immigrant visas would be allocated as a result of the restoration of Section 245(i), and individuals who would benefit from this provision would have to wait in the same backlog for immigrant visas as anyone else waiting for a visa. Until the visa is available, individuals who are in the U.S. without legal permission would be subject to deportation, if caught. Section 245(i) punishes those illegally residing in the U.S. by imposing a $1,000 penalty. Section 245(i) is not a substantive change in immigration law; it merely allows the processing of a visa to take place in the U.S.

The Republican counter-proposal also benefits immigrants in the U.S. legally and illegally.

Republicans have proposed their own legislation, the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act ("LIFE"). This legislation would primarily benefit two groups of individuals who are outside the country, in the U.S. in some temporary status, or in the U.S. illegally.

Some of the individuals who were wrongly denied legalization in the mid-1980's. "LIFE" would allow immigrants who were eligible for legalization in the 1980's, but were wrongly turned away, only if they filed for membership in two of the several lawsuits brought against the Immigration Service for the agency's misinterpretation of the law. Other equally deserving individuals who either did not know about these specific lawsuits or who did not know about any lawsuits would not benefit from "LIFE." Republicans say that this proposal would benefit 400,000 individuals (though this is probably an overestimate of the number of individuals who fit the requirements and who are still in the country without documentation).

Spouses and minor children of Legal Permanent Residents who have been in the immigrant visa backlog for more than three years. These individuals would gain a temporary visa and would be able to obtain their immigrant visa in the U.S. when it became available. Individuals would benefit regardless of whether they are outside the country or inside the U.S. illegally. Of the total number of potential beneficiaries, a large percentage are already in the U.S. For example, in 1997 approximately 47% of the spouses and children of Legal Permanent Residents who gained immigrant visas were already in the country. Republicans say this provision would help 600,000 people. If true, approximately 300,000 are probably here illegally.

Both "LIFE" and "LIFA" would benefit primarily immigrants who are here in some legal but vulnerable temporary status, as well as some immigrants who are here illegally. Both are deserving of congressional action, but one cannot be a substitute for the other.

Maurice Belanger
Senior Policy Associate
National Immigration Forum