WASHINGTON--The US Senate compromise on a comprehensive immigration reform bill that would shift national policy from family-based to skills-based system has elicited hopes and concerns in the Asian Pacific American community.

“It’s unacceptable,” was the bottom-line message from Karen Narasaki, president of the Asian American Justice Center (AAJC), a 15-year old advocacy clearinghouse that has been working with Congress on immigration issues and other concerns of the APA community. 

Jon Melegrito, National Federation of Filipino American Associations (NaFFAA) communications coordinator, while welcoming the Senate deal as a necessary step toward developing a reformed immigration system down the line, however views it as “a political document for liberal and conservative sectors with an eye on the 2008 national elections.”

            The immigration compromise reached after months of closed-door negotiations by Democratic and Republican leaders and the White House, was publicly announced on May 17. Debate leading to a vote was scheduled on May 21.

            But Senate leaders agreed that day to defer voting until this month. The House will have its version later this month. President George W. Bush, who on May 18 hailed the bipartisan compromise, still hopes to sign an immigration bill by this year.           

             Described as more potentially workable–albeit imperfect--than the immigration bill that was passed last year by the 109th Congress, the deal offers more features, such as virtually legalizing the country’s 12 million undocumented immigrants with a citizenship path to some, enforcing strict rules for employers who hire illegal workers, while also toughening up border security.

            A most heartening provision of the proposed legislation is cutting down the waiting period for immigration applicants to as short as eight years [from over 20 years for some categories], a concession that was not considered by the previous legislation.  This provision is most welcomed by many Asian Pacific Americans, especially those who have family members waiting in the pipeline to join them.

Nixing family-based immigration ‘unacceptable’

The deal also seeks to overhaul the country’s family-based immigration system and subject family members to a strictly employment-based, point system program emphasizing educational attainment and work skills over family ties.

            It would in effect limit the number for parents category and completely eliminate adult children and sibling categories – a radical change that Asian Pacific Americans find most worrisome, unfair and even outrageous.

            In a May 11 AAJC letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Democratic leaders Senators Ted Kennedy, Ken Salazar and Robert Menendez, she wrote, “While we have been and will continue to work with you on reasonable modifications to the family system, we will oppose any bill that does not provide relief for everyone in the current family backlog and that would significantly cut or effectively eliminate any of the current family categories. Anything else would be extremely unfair to those immigrants who have played by the rules, and would not be acceptable.”

            There are about 1.5 million undocumented individuals among the 14 million-strong Asian and Pacific population, and about 1 million of that figure are undocumented family members, according to estimates.

SAALT, NAFFAA reactions

Other organizations in the diverse APA community have also voiced pained reactions.

            “The immigration reform package that the Senate is now considering raises serious concerns for the South Asian community,” wrote the South Asian American Leaders of Tomorrow (SAALT).

            “While the package creates a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants, it severely undermines the current family-based immigration system by eliminating the adult children and sibling categories…While applications in the current backlog would be cleared within 8 years, anyone who applied after May 2005 would have to reapply. This will have tremendous impact on South Asians who have relied on the family-based system for decades to reunify families.”

            SAALT’s Executive Director Deepa Iyer elaborated on this concern in her testimony May 22 before the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law. Priya Murthy, SAALT Policy Consultant, also briefed congressional staff on the subject "Comprehensive Immigration Reform: What it Means to the Asian Indian Community."

            Speaking on behalf of the Filipino American community, Alma Quintan Kern, NaFFAA National Chair, said in a statement to Asian Fortune: “We are very concerned about the proposed changes that affect the ability of family members to reunite with their families who have become U.S. citizens. While we are pleased that the waiting period for those who are already in the pipeline will be reduced, we are however apprehensive about any draconian changes that would gut the basic family-based tradition that we rely on for reuniting our families.”

            Amando Heredia, NaFFAA Executive Director, has alerted regional members to continue to exert their influence on their senators and representatives for a compromise bill that would favor family-based immigration.

            NaFFAA regional leaders have made appeals to their own senators: Rozita Lee to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nevada), Jerry Clarito to Illinois Senators Richard J. Dubin (D) and Barack Obama (D), and others to Texas Senators John Cornyn (R) and Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R). 

NaFFAA’s Melegrito deplored trimming down the parents’ category and gutting out the adult children and sibling categories as sacrifices that he feels are being made to allow entry for immigrants who are perceived to be able to boost the economy.

A racial subtext?

“Preferring the higher educated and more skilled immigrants over family members has an inevitable racial subtext, as the less educated and less skilled are generally coming from Latin America, Africa and Asia.”

            These concerns from the APA and other minority communities were also reflected in the mainstream media.

            The New York Times, in a withering May 4 editorial “Family Values, Betrayed,” wrote that this proposal “would eliminate or severely restrict whole categories of family-based immigration in favor of a system that would assign potential immigrants points based on age, skills, education, income and other factors… Citizens would no longer be able to sponsor siblings and children over 21, and their ability to bring in parents would be severely limited.”

            The editorial added:  “Unattached workers with advanced degrees and corporate sponsors could do all right, but not families, not the moms, pops, sons and daughters who open groceries and restaurants, who rebuild desolate neighborhoods and inspire America with their work ethic and commitment to one another. The plan would also shut out hundreds of thousands of people who have applied for family visas under current rules and are patiently waiting because of long backlogs.

            “Closing the door to families would be unjust and unworkable, and a mockery of the values that conservatives profess. It would only encourage illegality by forcing people to choose between their loved ones and the law.”

            The Washington Post, in an article May 19 by staff writers Pamela Constable and N.G. Aizenman, reports about how immigrants, in particular a local immigrant from the Philippines, feel about the proposal.

            The Post reported “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.”

More Questions than Answers

Since the release of the deal and up to the floor debate on May 22, the attempt for compromise by party leaders on both sides has raised more questions than answers not only from the Congress Members but also from the private sector.

The deal is seen at the extreme end as a deceptive strategy to have illegal immigrants who have gained entry by breaking the law be summarily deported, and at the moderate end, as an “amnesty” solution that reward lawbreakers.

On the other hand, the deal seems to have split, rather than beef up, positions by sectors who share common interests and objectives, such as the business sector, labor unions, and religious/socio groups. 

This is to be expected, in the view of Frank Sharry, Executive Director of National Immigration Forum, who regards the deal as a positive development from “inaction to action.”

Labor, La Raza, Catholic Bishops Speak Out

In a telephonne briefing held May 18, with spokespersons from labor, religious and Hispanic sectors, he summed up the bill “as a starting point” to be happy about.  He points out the positive features to debate about, such as the legalization of 12 million illegal immigrants, the reduction of family backlog to eight years for those who have already applied by 2005, the inclusion as components pro-immigrant legislation such as Agjobs (agricultural jobs) and the Dream Act, that give immigrants rights and a fair shot in the workplace.

            “Can you imagine a more bipartisan grouping of [Republican Senators] John Kyl and [Saxby] Chambliss with [Democrat Senator] Ted Kennedy?  Wow…!”

            He also sees the debate as an opportunity to organize a more cogent and cohesive campaign to preserve family reunification as a cornerstone of the immigration system. “So, we are optimistic that this is going public, has bipartisan support for a beginning position that makes us hopeful that we’ll end up with a workable bill,” he said in an upbeat tone.

            Kevin Appleby, speaking for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, of which he is Director for Migration, Refugees and Policy, pointed out, “The Church has a vested interest in the legalization program that is truly fair and workable.”

            “Shifting the family-based system to an employment-based system need not be a zero-sum game,” he said, adding that the point system that tilts toward the higher educated and more skilled immigrants should be equitably balanced by the country’s need for those who have less education but would work in the agricultural and construction sectors of the economy.

            “Meeting the economic needs of the future while honoring the family-based immigration system is the battleground.  The bishops say we can do both, and it is in our political and national interest to do so.”

Concerned about the limiting aspect of the proposed temporary workers proposal, and its impracticality, Tom Synder, National Political Director, UNITE-HERE, said, “No [labor] union, UNITE included, would accept that ‘temporary’ means temporary…this would create permanent second class workers with no rights.”

The proposal limits the number of years a “temporary worker” would be allowed to three years, after which the worker has to go back and reapply for another temporary three-year work limit. 

“We intend to work very hard to change that on the floor of the Senate and the House; that will be the focus of our work,” he stressed.

Cecilia Munoz, Vice President, Office of Research, Advocacy and Legislation of the National Council of La Raza, is certain where the buck stops. She said, “Honoring the family-based system while working on a compromise with other provisions is where we stand, and where we can only comfortably work on.”