Recently I participated in a press briefing held by the National Immigration Forum (NIF) concerning the prospect of comprehensive immigration reform in the United States.

The briefing was called for two reasons: it had been one year since the House of Representatives passed James Sensenbrenner’s bill against illegal immigrants and several days since U.S. immigration authorities had carried out raids at meat processing plants employing many illegal immigrants.

Public figures speaking at the briefing were planning to summarize the changes that have taken place on the immigration front over the past year and to share their predictions for the future, but the dramatic events at the meat processing plants forced them to change their focus from the past and future to the present.

A week before, more than 1,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents descended without warning upon six Swift &Company meat processing plants in six states – Texas, Colorado, Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa and Utah. The purpose of the raids was to uncover illegal immigrants who were using not just fake Social Security numbers to work, but Social Security numbers stolen from U.S. citizens. So, the federal agents were looking more for people using stolen documents than for undocumented immigrants. Almost 1,300 people were arrested, amounting to 10 percent of Swift &Company’s workforce. Sixty-five of them were arrested for identity theft, while the rest will most likely face deportation.

The raids were part of a large-scale operation that the Department of Homeland Security intends to expand to uncover illegal immigrants who have managed to steal confidential data from hundreds of Americans. Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff believes that these raids will not only purge the country of people using stolen documents, but also discourage other illegal immigrants from following their example. Furthermore, he believes the raids will decrease the flow of new illegal immigrants into the United States and force businesses to review the documents of potential workers carefully. Chertoff warned that the operation could have a negative economic effect on businesses using the labor of illegal immigrants, but that it would be worth the trouble.

Executives at Swift &Company objected to the raids, stating that they were unwarranted. Since 1997, the company has participated in the Basic Pilot program, which gives businesses access to federal databases to verify its workers’ documents. Swift &Company organized purges itself and fired suspicious workers, but the company resolved not to dig too deeply into workers’ biographies. The reason for this is that, in 2001, the company went on trial for discriminating against immigrant workers. The case was brought not by unions or human rights activists, but by the Justice Department!

America’s ambiguous, paradoxical immigration policy received special attention at the National Immigration Forum briefing.

“Our president is like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde,” said Marshall Fritz, who represented the American Immigration Association. “He wants to create a working program for foreigners, but at the same time he allows these workers to be hunted down and deported. There is a double standard in our country: we use the labor of undocumented workers, but we let them know that we can throw them overboard whenever we want.”

Kevin Applebee, director of Migration and Refugee Policy at the U.S. Coalition of Catholic Bishops, believes that this double standard exists because presidents have to cater to different segments of the population.

“Every president – even Bill Clinton – permitted raids on illegal immigrants, temporarily playing the tough guy and gaining the approval of certain circles, but then everything would quiet down. This is exactly why we need to pass a comprehensive and rational immigration law that will not permit the authorities to play these games.”

John Gay, president of the National Restaurant Association, also supported the idea of immigration reform.

“There are people who assert that current immigration law is fine, but 'bad' illegal immigrants break it,” he said. “And there are people who believe that the law is bad and that 'good' illegal immigrants suffer from it. The problem is really much more complicated. We need a law that will clear the way for 'good' foreign workers, but close the door on 'bad' foreign drug dealers and human traffickers.”

Cecilia Muñoz, vice-president of the National Council of La Raza, an organization that champions the rights of Spanish-speaking immigrants, is confident that "a place for comprehensive immigration reform has finally appeared on the political landscape."

Democrats are in control of Congress, and the majority of the population has spoken in favor of reform. There are not enough opponents of reform for their voices to be heard loudly.

Other speakers also expressed optimism, although they noted that the immigration problem is complicated and contradictory and that it cannot be solved in the blink of an eye.

I posed the following question: "Will the Democratic Congress pass the liberal McCain - Kennedy bill or will the Democrats waver, fearing that amnesty for illegal immigrants might block the road to the White House in 2008?"

Marshall Fritz replied: "Congress will most likely pass this bill, but we should not forget that President Bush has the last word."

Does this mean that there will not be any changes on the immigration front over the next two years and that U.S. policy regarding people without documents (those using stolen documents) will remain ambiguous?