(2 of 3)
O'Neill's decision startled his own colleagues among the House leadership, who faulted him for failing to understand the substance of the bill and for buying the veto rumor without consulting them. Asked for an explanation, one leader simply rolled his eyes heavenward. Said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, an old ally of the Speaker's: "The Attorney General always stated that they'd go along with the Senate bill. I've always read into what they said that a compromise would be acceptable." Indeed, Rodino had already started to negotiate a deal with Senate Sponsor Simpson.
O'Neill dismissed the merits of the immigration bill with a simple political question: "Is there any real constituency for it?" There were enough supporters of the bill, including such diverse leaders as the president of the AFL-CIO and the chairman of Exxon, to win Senate passage twice, the last time by the overwhelming vote of 76 to 18. Ironically, a recent poll shows that even Hispanics favor tighter immigration laws, contrary to the position of their leaders. But support of organized business and labor for the bill has been lukewarm at best. The opposition of various special interests, on the other hand, remains hot.
The most important provision of the legislation is also the most controversial. Since it is the hope of a job that draws most aliens across the border, sponsors of the bill sought to diminish that lure by imposing civil and criminal penalties on employers who knowingly hire illegals.
This naturally displeased many farmers in the Southwest, who saw their pool of cheap labor drying up. Hispanic leaders were concerned that employers would fear the penalties so much that they would discriminate not only against illegal Hispanics, but against all Hispanics. The bill sought to distinguish between the two by requiring proof of citizenship—but civil libertarians immediately warned that a "national I.D. card" was a step toward Big Brother. O'Neill echoed these fears with grossly overblown rhetoric. Said he: "Hitler did this to the Jews. He made them wear dog tags."
To be sure, the Administration has qualms about the bill. The House version would cost $11.5 billion over five years, $8 billion more than the Senate bill and too much for the budget cutters at the White House. While the Senate would declare amnesty for illegals who arrived before 1980, the House sponsors wanted to move the cutoff date up to 1982, thereby making millions more immigrants eligible for Government programs.
Despite reservations, however, Administration officials were trying hard at week's end to salvage the bill. The immigration problem is getting steadily worse: in the year ending Sept. 30, border guards seized 2 million illegal aliens, a 40% — increase over the previous year. "There is a question about whether the bill is good politics," says a Reagan aide, "but there is no question that it is damn good policy."