Providing a way for illegal immigrants to regularize their status is not "amnesty," a roomful of immigration advocates was told April 18.

And when one is confronted by people who argue that the Catholic Church has no business trying to influence legislation on behalf of immigrants, quotations from Scripture about welcoming the stranger and protecting those in need of protection can be helpful, they were advised.

In preparation sessions preceding a day of lobbying on Capitol Hill as part of a Justice for Immigrants national gathering, participants from 66 dioceses got a crash course in how to effectively present the church's position about what a comprehensive immigration reform bill ought to include and why.

"Be clear that you are inviting and informing, not forcing," said Joan Rosenhauer, special projects coordinator for the Department of Social Development and World Peace of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

"It's not like accepting the divinity of Christ or the existence of the Trinity," she said. "You can be Catholic and not support the latest bill the bishops are backing in Congress." Sometimes, failing to acknowledge that "will turn off people who know better," she added.

Start by explaining Catholic teaching and tradition about migrants, Rosenhauer suggested. "What does it mean to love our neighbor? To support a preferential option for the poor?"

Kevin Appleby, director of migration and refugee policy for the USCCB, explained the recent history of immigration legislation; the numerical realities of legal and illegal immigration; and how to answer critics.

The coalition of religious, ethnic, business, agriculture and union groups that has been pushing for comprehensive immigration reform actually was relieved that a bill did not pass out of Congress last year, he said.

The only immigration legislation to become law in the 109th Congress dealt with some expansion of the Border Patrol and approval of the construction of 700 miles of a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border, which Appleby said "will not be built." Essentially no funding was approved for it in last year's budget and it is unlikely to get funded this time either, he said.

He added that it is worth explaining that there are only 5,000 visas available for the 500,000 people who enter or stay in the United States illegally every year, 90 percent of whom find work within six months.

Appleby cautioned the group about the language they use to discuss the issue and what they allow others to use. For instance, providing a way for some of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States to regularize their status and eventually become citizens is not amnesty, he said.

The nation's 1986 legalization program might accurately be described as an amnesty --- which Webster's Dictionary defines as "a giveaway," he said. But financial penalties and other requirements in current proposals for legalization make what is on the table this year quite different, according to Appleby.

Doug Rivlin, communications director of the National Immigration Forum, said groups such as the forum and the USCCB "have a solution" to immigration problems, while those who most vocally resist a comprehensive approach only "have sound bites" about the problems.

Recent immigration workplace raids and rapid deportations that split apart families play into the hands of immigration restrictionists who argue that illegal immigrants should be driven out of the country, he said.

"They want to ramp up enforcement so that people become so miserable that walking back to Chiapas (in Mexico) sounds like a good idea," Rivlin said.

"We're trying to get it so people come in with a visa instead of a smuggler," he said, and so that people aren't pitted against each other in society and in the workplace on the basis of their immigration status.

Frank Sharry, director of the National Immigration Forum, illustrated a strategy recommended by Rosenhauer: Tell stories about real people and situations to illustrate the need for change.

He told of visiting a town in the state of Guerrero, Mexico, where nearly the entire population of adults and older teens had emigrated to Chicago. The effects on the town were obvious, from the dearth of adults to the fancy new basketball court, with a logo of the Chicago Bulls on the floor, paid for with remittances sent from relatives in the United States.

The town had effectively become "a bedroom community for Chicago," Sharry said, albeit one where "the commute is deadly," costing thousands of dollars and covering thousands of miles.

"How much better would it be if those workers could just get on a plane with a visa," instead of risking their lives crossing the desert illegally, he asked.

"The status quo is a bad guest worker program," Sharry said. "The workers have no rights, face huge dangers and assume all the risks."

Sharry recalled watching a client at the Massachusetts immigration assistance agency he worked for in the late 1980s come into the office to show off her new legal residency permit, one of the first issued after the 1986 legalization program.

Her pride and joy at declaring she would no longer have to be at the mercy of people who knew she wasn't a legal resident is a scene he expects to see repeated again and again soon, he said.

"We are on the verge of 12 million moments like that," Sharry said, "where people don't have to be afraid to leave the house, where they can stand up to their bosses and feel free to join a union."

---CNS