Immigration reform.

ABSORBED WITH South Africa, trade policy, farm credit, and tax reford, the Senate, remarkably enough, passed an immigration reform bill in mid-September. "Public demand for immigration reform continues unabated," says Senator Alan Simpson (R., Wyo.), sponsor of the 1985 Immigration REform and Control Act. The bill contains the same three essential provisions as its 1984 forerunner: fines or jail sentences for those employers who hire undocumented workers; amnesty for illegal aliens who have lived in the U.S. before 1980; and limited numbers of agricultural guest-workers to harvest perishable crops.

In the House, Peter Rodino (D., N.J.) and Romano Mazzoli (D., Ky.) have co-sponsored their own immigration bill, which differs marginally from the Simpson model. The Senate bill calls for higher civil penalties (employer sanctions) than its House counterpart, and its amnesty provision is stricter: Amnesty would be granted on condition that a commission, appointed by the President, certifies that employer sanctions and enhanced border enforcement have in fact curtailed illegal entry. In any case, amnesty cannot be delayed for longer than three years. The House amnesty, which takes effect upon the bill's passage, applies to illegals living in the U.S. prior to January 1982, whereas the Senate version requires aliens seeking amnesty to have lived here before January 1, 1980. Anti-amnesty sentiment, by the way, is growing among legislators. Many now share the view of Glenn English (D., Okla.), who says that he would not vote "for any bill" containing an amnesty provision.

Another sticky point was the agricultural guest-worker program. Growers' lobbies leaned on House and Senate members, especially Pete Wilson (R., Calif.), to open wide the gates for undocumented workers, so as to assure a large, docile, and inexpensive labor source. "We're confident Congress will see things our way," said a Washington lobbyist for a citrus trade association. He was right: Senator Wilson deftly secured the mid-September passage of an amendment permitting 350, 000 seasonal guest-workers into the U.S. each year. It remains to be seen whether this will be modified by limiting legislation later, but so far the growers are way ahead.

Why nothing has been done to get control of the illegal-immigration nightmare in this country remains a mystery. World population now stands at 4.8 billion, and it is expected to bloat to 6.1 billion in 15 years. Widespread famine and depressed economies have exerted prodigious immigration pressures on the United States. "This country accepts 1 per cent of the developing world's annual population growth as legal immigrants every year," says Carl Hampe, a demographer at the Population reference Bureau in Washington, D.C.

That statistic does not include the countless number of people who enter the U.S. illegally, on foot, in the trunks of cars, in tank trucks, or by overstaying a student or travel visa. When one considers that 1.8 million souls around the world are playing by the rules and have put in their applications for visas to the U.S., isn't it wickedly unfair to make them wait while millions of others crash our borders to reap the good life?

Once illegal aliens enter, they compete with Americans. "In Texas, illegal aliens are filling 85 per cent of all non-union jobs," Jackie St. Clair, executive secretary of the Texas Building Trades Council, told me. They're replacing American workers on construction sites in New Mexico, Florida, and California. If you want to find out who's illegal at any construction site, "just drive up in a green car, and all of the illegals will scatter like wildfire because they think it's the INS," observes St. Clair. For many years, American-born building and construction workers of both Anglo and Hispanic origin in Texas have made a decent living. "Now many of them can't even make ends meet because illegal aliens have crowded them out by working the same jobs for depressed wages. We need help from Washington, now!"

Chances Are Shaky

DON'T hold your breath, Mr. St. Clair. This situation is loaded with complexity. On the grassroots level, polarization is fierce--between those who feel that legalization and amnesty should not be granted, or granted only under the most rigorous criteria, and, at the other pole, those, like Congressman Barney Frank (D., Mass.), who would not accept last year's conference report on immigration reform because "it didn't have strong anti-discrimination provisions." No question that guarantees to protect people who look or sound Hispanic are tough to ensure.

In the House, co-sponsors Rodino and Mazzoli have urged the Speaker to put their measure on the calendar for floor debate. "Nobody knows exactly when that will happen," said an O'Neill aide, who added that Tip agrees "something needs to be done." That doesn't mean that either the Speaker or his aide is optimistic. "Chances for passage are shaky at best," says the senior staffer. "Nobody has been pushed to fight for it. The growers, civil-rights groups, and Hispanics are all against it. There's no real constituency behind the bill. It needs solid grass-roots support, and it doesn't have it. The people behind reform have no political skill, and until they build coalitions, an immigration bill won't be passed." That about sums it up.