WASHINGTON — Gov. Pete Wilson's recurrent request that the federal government compensate California for its spending on illegal immigrants is certainly appealing. But immigration is rarely so simple, and before Congress con siders reimbursing California, it should analyze the role various Californians have played in mitigating, or exacerbating, the local effects of immigration.
The state's recent record begins with an amendment to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 that was sponsored by Wilson when he was a U.S. senator. The provision enabled immigrant agricultural workers to apply for legalization if they had entered the United States as late as 1986. By contrast, amnesty was granted to other foreign-born nationals only if they had resided continuously in the United States since 1982. More than one million "special agricultural workers" took advantage of the amendment's offer; the overwhelming majority of them now reside in California.
Other California congressional members have supported measures to ensure that their state benefits from immigrants. In March, 1990, several House members, including Reps. Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City), Don Edwards (D-San Jose) and Norman Y. Mineta (D-San Jose), participated in a meeting in the office of Rep. Thomas C. Sawyer (D-Ohio), during which Gene McNary, then commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, was asked to suspend enforcement activities while the 1990 census was under way. This would strengthen the possibility of a "full and accurate" count, the congressmen contended. At the time, it should be noted, legislation passed by the Senate and pending before the House would have instructed the Census Bureau to count only people legally in the United States. The inclusion of illegal immigrants in the 1990 census contributed to California's gain of seven congressional seats.
Washington is not the only place where Californians' actions affect the state's appeal for immigrants. San Francisco, for example, enacted city and county resolutions that prohibited spending to assist immigration enforcement. These provisions were part of "sanctuary" ordinances passed, at least in part, to protest U.S. foreign policies. Los Angeles and San Diego also adopted resolutions restricting cooperation with immigration-law enforcement until the Legislature repealed all such measures last fall. Although some dispute the constitutionally of the local resolutions, their symbolic message for immigrants seemed clear: "welcome."
