The 1996 Immigration Reform bill is slated for presidential approval this week. The bill (H.R. 2202) was mulled over at a conference attended by both House and Senate participants, where a bipartisan effort was utilized to fashion legislation that would m eet presidential approval. During the conference, the controversial Gallegly amendment to the bill, giving states the authority to deny public education to illegal alien children, was removed after threat of presidential veto.

Opponents, including law enforcement officials, jeered at the possibility that the provision would result in children being put out in the streets - at least in school, the children could be supervised. Once the Gallegly amendment was removed, other adjus tments were made and backers saw no reason for delay. Final approval was voted upon and the bill was forwarded for presidential signature.

However, the bill still contains a number of provisions that, in my opinion, are "anti-immigrant." As a sovereign nation, the United States has every right to control the influx of non-citizens. It is part of the American persona, which expands the globe, that this country is the land of the free. In this country all people can be all things; governance is by the people and for the people. Thus, where limited resources are apparent, a nation's impulse to control its borders is nominally prudent.

Yet, when a nation decides on protectionist policies that discourage the importation of foreign products or people, an "anti-immigration" stance emerges. Such policies snub the rich international resources for domestic assets on the assumption that home g rown is better. Such policies ignore the potential of foreign resources and the possible backlash that may result when other countries reciprocate in kind.

However, the immigration reform bill appears "anti-immigrant." It increases penalties upon employers who knowingly or unknowingly hire illegal immigrants. The bill has a national verification system, but such a system has been neither perfected, nor imple mented, leaving employers to fend for themselves. The obvious consequence is that employers will play it safe and not hire, and even fire, anyone they "assume" to be an illegal alien. If media depictions are any measure (a skewed one at that), these assum ptions will plague the Hispanic community the most.

The bill gives discretionary judgment to border patrol agents who encounter entering vessels. Should any immigrants request asylum, the agent may judge the validity of the request, grant asylum on the spot, or choose to deport, all without referral. On to p of all this, should an immigrant protest a deportation, judicial review is no longer available. In other words, there is no where to turn once a decision is made.

Those who are legally here and use more than one year of government services (including housing, child care, or student loans) during the first seven years of residency, can be deported. Additionally, the bill denies public treatment for HIV positive alie ns (legal or not) or for those who have AIDS. Those entering the country who are HIV positive can be excluded or deported.

Job scarcity, downsizing, international competition, educational inadequacies, and all-around fear for the future has manifested itself in blaming immigrants. With pictures of immigrants jumping fences, standing in unemployment lines, crowding emergency r ooms, and taking their children to schools, while at the same time demanding bilingual education, the backlash was inevitable. When the union job is eliminated and jobseekers, seeking comparable salaries are turned away and are forced to scrounge for lowe r paying jobs, only to find immigrants already there, who is to blame? It is easier to blame the person who has the job you want than to inquire how he or she got there in the first place.

So, lets pick on the immigrant. They cannot fight back. If they can, take away their right to do so. This is a democracy - for the people (we choose) and by the people (we like). The problem is not immigration! The problem is that people can be easily tri cked into believing such a charade. The problem is that people never questioned the source of corporate downsizing. The problem is that we are quickly realizing that this country is not prepared for world-wide competition. Well, whose fault is that? - Of course, the immigrants! To blame anyone but ourselves is to admit we do not know what the problem is; it is to lose sight of the enemy, and the enemy is within.

David H. Benton is a third-year law student, member of the ASUA President's cabinet and Arizona Student Association board member. His column, 'Another Perspective,' appears Tuesdays.

---

Daily Wildcat News Opinions Sports PoliceBeat Comics