The Administration has specifically mentioned provision of bilateral and multilateral economic assistance, technical assistance, encouragement of private financing, and enhanced trade and population programs. We would add, with regard to Mexico specifically, allowing products produced or manufactured in Mexico greater access to U.S. markets by means such as substantial tariff reductions, and stimulating Mexico's tourist industry by increasing the amount of duty-free goods U.S. citizens are permitted to bring back from Mexico. D. Adjustment of Status MALDEF objects strenuously to the Administration's adjustment of status proposal for the following important reasons: (1) by extending legal resident status only to those persons continuously residing in this country prior to January 1, 1970, the proposal would wrongfully deny such status to hundreds of thousands of undocumented persons who have built up substantial equities in our society; (2) by offering only nondeportable status to persons continually resident in the United States since on or before January 1, 1977, but not prior to January 1, 1970, the proposal would institutionalize a subclass of lawful residents having uncertain, but clearly limited, constitutional and statutory rights, unjustifiably exploit the persons assigned such status, and inflict serious injury not only upon the Mexican American community but also 35-527 - 79 upon the fabric of American society; and (3) by failing to provide clearly defined amnesty for persons applying for adjustment of status and their families, the proposal would leave federal officials free to prosecute such persons for outstanding violations of the immigration laws. We address each of these points, and related matters, in the following 16/ discussion. 1. Amendment of INA Registry Provisions The Administration proposes to amend Section 249 of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), 8 U.S.C. S 1259 (1970), to allow persons who have "resided continuously" in the United States from before January 1, 1970' to the present 16/ Two integral parts of the Administration's proposal will not be discussed in great detail. These relate to immigration policy and temporary foreign workers. Briefly, we applaud the decision, in answer to a long-neglected need, to undertake a comprehensive inter-agency study of our immigration laws and policies, and fully support the Administration's resolve to support pending legislation to increase the annual limitation on legal Mexican and Canadian immigration to a total of 50,000 (to be allocated between the countries based on demand). We also endorse the Administration's decision to conduct a comprehensive review of the present temporary foreign worker certification program. In particular, we think two considerations should figure prominently in that review: (1) the Labor Department should make greater efforts than those made at present to ensure that domestic labor is unavailable before the importation of temporary foreign labor is authorized; and (2) under no circumstances should a bracero-type program (or any program sharing common chracteristics with the bracero program) be reinstituted. to qualify for permanent resident status. These persons would have to apply for such permanent resident status, and present "normal documentary proof" of the necessary continuous residence. Under existing immigration laws, persons granted permanent resident status could apply for U.S. citizenship five years after attaining that status. In our view, the Administration's proposal is far too niggardly in its adoption of January 1, 1970 as the cut-off date 17/ for qualification for permanent resident status." Under the Administration's standard, hundreds of thousands of undocumented persons who have made substantial contributions to American society, and who have developed binding ties to their local communities, would be denied legal resident status, and would instead be shunted into the netherworld of nondeportable resident status. To this, we are unalterably opposed. We are cognizant that the United States, if it is to preserve its present economic and social structure, cannot adopt a policy of allowing unlimited immigration, even from 17/ Others have endorsed substantially shorter residence requirements, and with good reason. For example, Representative Edward R. Roybal's bill adopts January 1, 1977. (H.R. 6093, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. § 101 (1977)), and Representative Herman Badillo's bill adopts July 4, 1976 (H.R. 4338, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 2(a) (1) (1977)). Indeed, Labor Secretary Marshall, in his Interdepartmental Task Force Report to the President (April 27, 1977), recommended adoption of a five-year residency requirement. countries with a contiguous border, and this we do not ask. What we do urge is that undocumented persons who have resided in this country for a substantial length of time, members of their immediate families, and persons constituting special hardship cases, all be deemed eligible for permanent resident status. In our view, undocumented persons who have resided continuously in the United States since an appropriate recent date such as the Bicentennial date, July 4, 1976, or January 1, 1977, should qualify for permanent resident status. These persons, as a class, have been gainfully employed in occupational pursuits important to this country's economic health (often in bottom strata jobs that might have gone unperformed absent their willingness to work), have faithfully paid state and federal taxes, and have committed portions of their income back to the American economy all basic marks of good citizenship in which these undocumented persons are indistinguishable from lawful residents of this country. In these circumstances, it would be totally arbitrary to adopt a registry date of January 1, 1970, and thereby turn our collective backs on persons who have thus proven their worth to our society. - Similarly, persons residing in this country who are the spouse, child, parent or sibling of a citizen or lawful resident (including persons qualifying for permanent resident status under the registry amendment discussed above) should qualify for permanent resident status. This fact, which was generally recognized in Secretary Marshall's Interdepartmental Task Force Study, appears to have been overlooked by the Administration. To disrupt the family unit by denying these persons permanent resident status would be unconscionable. Moreover, these family members should properly be credited with the equities in our society built up by their resident relatives. Finally, provision should be made for the person who, because of his or her exceptional circumstances, should be accorded permanent resident status. Other undocumented alien legislative proposals have recognized this fact, and we believe a provision specifically addressed to it would be appropriate. Accordingly, MALDEF would offer as an alternative to the Administration's adjustment of status proposal, that Section 249 of the INA be amended to allow the following undocumented persons to qualify for permanent resident status: (1) persons who have resided continuously in this country since an appropriate date such as July 4, 1976 or January 1, 1977; (2) persons who have resided continuously in this country since January 1, 1977 and who are the spouse, child, parent, or sibling of a U.S. citizen or legal resident (including those qualifying for legal resident status under (1) above); and (3) persons whose departure from this country would, in the opinion of the Attorney General, present an undue hardship. |