When senators return to work in mid-January one waiting task will be to decide what to do with the big, unwieldy Christmas present left for them by the House, labeled "immigration reform."

It's improbable that the Senate would pass as-is the Border Protection, Anti-Terrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act, which passed the House Dec. 16 by a vote of 239-182. The question is whether the Senate will try to amend and rework the House bill more to its tastes, or just chuck it onto a back shelf and then rally behind a different bill with a better chance of passing in the upper body of Congress.

The 257-page House legislation focuses entirely on enforcement. It includes provisions to criminalize violations of immigration law, including the act of providing aid to illegal immigrants; would make it harder for legal immigrants to become citizens; and would penalize state and local governments that do not pointedly enforce immigration laws, currently only a responsibility of federal agencies. It would eliminate a visa lottery program that allows up to 50,000 people a year from certain countries to enter the United States legally and would build 700 miles of new fence along the 2,000-mile border with Mexico.

The bill also would expand the employment authorization verification program, while not replacing the flawed database employers use for checking documents.

Not included in the bill were provisions encouraged by President George W. Bush to address U.S. demand for workers from other countries and to provide a way for the millions of people already in the country illegally to regularize their status.

Organizations that back a more comprehensive approach to immigration reform, including the Catholic Church, have thrown their support behind other bills, particularly one sponsored by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. That bill includes enforcement changes as well as a new worker visa program; improvements in legal immigration procedures so families can be reunited more quickly; and ways for immigrants already in the country illegally to pay a fine and adjust their status.

The Senate is expected to take up immigration legislation in February. Although the House bill passed by a large majority, few observers expect it to have much support in the Senate. Some predicted it wouldn't get past being assigned to a committee.

Still, as Washington got back to work after the holidays, opponents of H.R. 4437 were taking every opportunity to express their worries about its potential impact.

Washington Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick told reporters Jan. 5 that the U.S. bishops are "very concerned about this." One particular worry is that provisions to criminalize immigration violations would be applied to church workers who help needy people without regard for immigration status.

Under current law, being in the country illegally violates only civil law, not criminal codes. By making immigration violations a crime, those who even unknowingly assist people who are in the country illegally could be subject to prosecution.

"People who are trying to help immigrants will be finding themselves turned into criminals," Cardinal McCarrick said. "That's going to include people at churches."

For such church programs to screen out needy people based on their immigration status is not an option, he said, "if you want to do what the Lord told you to do."

In a statement, Don Kerwin, director of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, known as CLINIC, warned that the bill would overturn two Supreme Court rulings that mandate fair treatment and due process for immigrants who are detained indefinitely by the Department of Homeland Security because they cannot be deported to their home countries.

Those rulings led to a reversal of a previous policy of arbitrarily imprisoning people for years after they had served any criminal sentences when they could not be deported for a variety of reasons, such as a lack of diplomatic relations with the home country.

Kerwin said that under the House bill "we can expect, at minimum, an increase of thousands of indefinite detainees in U.S. detention facilities."

"This would be a huge step backwards," he added. "We should not expand a legal black hole that leaves migrants imprisoned in legal limbo."

During a telephone press conference held as the House debated the bill in mid-December, representatives from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Service Employees International Union, Americans for Tax Reform and the Manhattan Institute joined Bishop Thomas G. Wenski of Orlando, Fla., in criticizing the bill as inadequate and punitive.

Though the interest groups seemed to have common ground only in finding the House bill somehow inadequate, a criticism many shared was its failure to recognize that enforcement alone won't end illegal immigration.

Tamar Jacoby, of the Manhattan Institute, said the House bill takes an ostrichlike approach. Focusing only on enforcement fails to address the economic demand for foreign workers and will drive illegal immigrants further into the shadows of society, she said.

Bishop Wenski said among the House bill's failings is that it ignores the need to help legal immigrants reunite their families. The wait for family reunification visas is as long as 10 years, he pointed out, which adds to the pressure on people to enter the United States illegally.

Frank Sharry, director of the National Immigration Forum, which organized the press conference, said the bill also was supported because the House Republican leadership warned members they might be portrayed as opposed to border enforcement if they voted no.

"We're convinced there is bipartisan majority support for a centrist approach," Sharry said, adding that Senate Judiciary Committee leaders have indicated their interest in a more comprehensive bill.

---CNS