News Home

Advocates hope bombings don’t derail immigration reform
Bertrand M. Gutierrez/Winston-Salem Journal

History shows that immigration reform knows no enemy like an act of terrorism.

Supporters of an immigration overhaul say they hope they don’t see any parallels develop between the chaos of the Boston bombings and the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which erased an immigration-reform plan that had been in the works shortly before four commercial planes crashed into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania.

In the aftermath of the 2001 terrorist attacks, illegal immigration became intertwined with security-related issues, including border security, admissions policy and the tracking of foreign nationals in the U.S. The reform plan died.

On Tuesday, a group of eight U.S. senators decided to forgo the media blitz they had planned to accompany a sweeping immigration-reform proposal. President Barack Obama referred Tuesday to the bombings as an act of terrorism, though he noted that no suspects have been identified.

Peter Siavelis, a political science professor at Wake Forest University, recalled how the 2001 attacks derailed that year’s immigration-reform efforts and wondered what will come of the latest efforts.

“What it all hinges on, for me, is what happens over the next coming days,” Siavelis said. “If this is a Timothy McVeigh-type of thing, a homegrown attack, then I think, OK, immigration reform will probably not be affected at all. But if it does turn out to be a foreigner and the immigration status of the foreigner is somehow questioned, this could throw a wrench in the entire thing.”

Reform derailed

Before the 2001 attacks, President George W. Bush’s administration had considered plans that would have given more than 3 million Mexicans living illegally in the U.S. a chance to earn permanent legal residency.

Separately, in Congress during the early months of 2001, bipartisan groups had introduced the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors, or DREAM Act, which would legalize certain unauthorized youth who had been brought into the U.S. as children.

Moises Serrano, an organizer for the immigrant advocacy group El Cambio in Yadkin County, said Tuesday he thought about the Sept. 11 attacks right after the bombings in Boston.

“After Sept. 11, we were seen as terrorists, just because of a lack of immigration status. We hope these attacks in Boston, which were devastating — we are convinced that they are not going to change the course of immigration reform,” he said.

Advocates such as Serrano have networks now, he said. They’re organized. They’re more educated, and they’re not afraid to tell their stories. “We think we are more organized to try to quiet any possible parallels between immigrants and terrorists,” he said.

Mark Atkinson, an immigration lawyer in Winston-Salem, said that although some might try to make the connection between immigrants and terrorists, it does not exist, and there isn’t any realistic way for many people to get into the U.S.

“You think they (immigrants) are saying, ‘You know, I think I’ll ignore getting a visa process and pay thousands of dollars to cross a desert and risk my life?’ ”

Nilda Cardenas de Lara said she sees the similarities, too. She is a senior paralegal in Winston-Salem who in 2001 was the head immigration counselor at Casa Guadalupe, an immigrant-relief nonprofit.

“When they said it (Sept. 11) was someone with a student visa, I thought it was going to be decades before Americans thought that not all immigrants are the same, are terrorists,” she said. “I’m amazed that it (immigration reform) is being proposed now. I thought it would be another 10 years. … I’m hopeful it goes through.”

The proposal

Under the bill, immigrants in the U.S. illegally could gain provisional legal status six months after the bill is enacted as long as they meet certain criteria and if the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has moved ahead on plans to secure the border. They would remain in that provisional status for 10 years, able to work legally but barred from such federal benefits as welfare or health care. After 10 years they could seek green cards conferring permanent legal status, and three years after that they could petition for citizenship.

They would have to pay a total of $2,000 in fines along the way, and at least hundreds more in fees, though that number has not been determined. Immigrants would be barred from seeking citizenship if they had been convicted of a felony or three or more misdemeanors, and no one who arrived in the country after Dec. 31, 2011, would be eligible.

People brought to the U.S. as youths would have a faster path: They could get green cards in five years and would become eligible for citizenship immediately thereafter.

Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., could not comment on the bill because it had not been introduced yet and he had been working on the Senate Intelligence Committee on the bombings in Boston, spokesman Robert Reid said.

Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., said in an email that she wants to see how the proposal might affect North Carolina.

“Bipartisanship is important to accomplish anything in Washington, and while a group of senators from both parties have come to an agreement on principles and are prepared to introduce legislation, there remain important details to review. I will be taking a careful look at the bill once it is introduced to make sure it works for North Carolina and our economy,” Hagan said.

U.S. Reps. Virginia Foxx, a Republican who represents the 5 th Congressional District, and Mel Watt, a Democrat representing the 12 th District, said they would reserve judgment until a proposal hits the U.S. House. Both districts are in parts of Winston-Salem.

“It is my hope to see common-sense immigration reform accomplished through bipartisan collaboration that rewards those who, for years, have been obeying the rule of law as they wait for a shot at the American dream,” Foxx has said previously.