AILA

WASHINGTON UPDATE

Volume 6, Number 5, April 22, 2002

Senate Passes Border Security Bill; AILA Testifies on Bill

 The Senate on April 19 passed the bipartisan Border Security and Visa Reform bill (H.R. 3525) by a 97–0 vote.  This measure tightens visa screening, border inspections, and tracking of foreigners. The House, which has strongly supported this measure (and has twice passed it), is expected to shortly take it up for a vote. The bill ensures that our immigration policies are in line with our goal of preventing terrorism.  The bill includes needed reforms that deter terrorism by developing layers of protection both outside and within the United States. 

 The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) commends Senators Kennedy (D-MA), Brownback (R-KS), Kyl (R-AZ), and Feinstein (D-CA) for their leadership on this important measure. Among other provisions, the bill will:

• Help provide people on the front line with the training, staff and funding they need to do the job.  The bill authorizes increased staffing and funding at the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the State Department.  It also provides necessary training for personnel at both agencies.

• Get timely, accurate information to the people who decide who can enter our country. The bill mandates the sharing of intelligence and law enforcement data with the INS and State Department on a real-time basis so the agencies can identify high-risk individuals who seek to enter our country.

• Enhance our security by working with Canada and Mexico to create a North American Security Perimeter.  A North American Security Perimeter would bolster security through law enforcement coordination and intelligence sharing, reducing the chance that someone wishing to do us harm would travel to a neighboring country and then cross by land into the U.S.

 Before this vote, the Senate bill sponsors agreed to changes that would take into account the concerns expressed by Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) who had held up its passage for months.   His amendments would:  further tighten the system for monitoring student visas: require visa waiver countries to report to U.S. government officials about any thefts of blank passports, with failure to do so resulting in termination from the program; increase from $300 to $1,000 the fine imposed against planes and passenger ships that fail to submit as required passenger manifest arrival lists; and extend to October 26, 2004 the deadline to install readers and scanners at ports of entry, the issuance of visas and travel document with biometric identifiers, and the requirement that visa waiver countries develop passports with biometric identifiers.

While the measure includes many long overdue changes, it also poses challenges to our country, the Congress, federal agencies, and the American people.  Given the bill’s ambitious deadlines, it is critical that the Administration and Congress provide the federal agencies with the staffing and funding levels they need to implement these new security measures.

 Prior to the floor vote, the Senate Immigration Committee held a hearing on border security and to provide Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) a chance to voice his concerns with the legislation, citing the need for "public scrutiny" and Congressional debate over the proposals before they could be brought to the floor.  AILA member Kathleen Campbell Walker also testified before the subcommittee in support of the border security bill. (Her testimony can be found on AILA InfoNet, Doc. No. 02041234, and on AILA’s public information site at www.aila.org, under the section entitled “Congressional Testimony”)  Ms. Campbell Walker, an AILA member from El Paso Texas, drew on her extensive experience on border issues generally, and the southern border specifically, to articulate AILA’s support for the bill.  In her testimony, Ms. Campbell Walker pointed out that the legislation takes a significant step in ensuring that our nation’s immigration policies are in line with our common goal of effectively deterring terrorism. The measure includes many needed reforms that will deter terrorism by developing layers of protection both outside of and within the U.S.   While enhancing our security, the measure also will maintain our tradition as a nation of immigrants and help to continue the free flow of people and commerce.

 In a direct and lively statement before the subcommittee, Senator Byrd made it clear that his objections to proceeding on the bill were driven in large part by what he saw as partisan maneuvering last year on appropriations for national security.  During his testimony, Senator Byrd, Chairman of the Senate appropriations committee, accused Republicans of playing partisan games on legislation to provide funding in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks.  Senators Brownback and Kyl attempted to convince Byrd that they all share the same goals and should work together, and Senator Kyl personally committed to support proper funding for the provisions in the Border Security bill.  Although Senator Byrd continued to express concerns for the legislation, he was pleased that his request for a hearing on the bill had been met and that he would no longer object to the bill moving to the floor of the Senate.  In fact, debate on the bill began immediately after the hearing. 

With Senate passage of the bill, and House passage anticipated, next steps must include reforming our immigration systems through our bilateral discussions with Mexico. By encouraging and facilitating legal immigration, both countries will be able to focus their resources on those who would do us harm, rather than those who come to fill legitimate labor needs and to reunite with their families. (Please see article below on U.S./Mexico discussions.)

 House Government Reform Committee Weights in on Border Security

 In other legislative news relating to border security, the House Committee on Government Reform’s Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources held an April 10 hearing to investigate various proposals to enhance border security and law enforcement.  In his opening statement, Subcommittee Chairman Mark Souder (R-IN) noted that the subcommittee has been conducting a comprehensive study of the nation’s borders since last summer, considering ways to improve both security and the efficient flow of international commerce, travel and tourism.  Of the various significant changes suggested by policymakers who have examined the issue of border security, four proposals comprised the focus of this hearing, including: (1) the ramifications of moving our emphasis away from cargo inspections at the border towards inspections at the point of origin; (2) the issue of expediting the movement of travelers; (3) the modernization of the INS’s and Customs Service’s databases and automated systems; and (4) the proposals to consolidate the various agencies responsible for border management.

 Witnesses at the April 10 hearing included Bonni Tischler, Assistant Commissioner of the Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs Service; Larry C. Johnson, CEO and Founder of BERG Associates LLC, and a former counter-terrorism expert at the CIA and the Department of State; Colleen M. Kelley, National President of the National Treasury Employees Union, which represents Customs workers; T.J. Bonner, President of the National Border Patrol Council of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents INS employees; Christopher Koch, President of the World Shipping Council; John Simpson, President of the American Association of Exporters and Importers; and Steve Russell, Chairman and CEO of Celadon Trucking Services, representing the American Trucking Associations.

 Section 245(i) and the Border Security Bill

 The House in March passed a border security measure, H.R. 1885, that includes a very limited extension of INA Section 245(i).  The Senate-passed measure (reviewed above) did not include the restrictive Section 245(i) extension.  The Section 245(i) restoration that passed the House in March purports to extend the filing deadline to November 30, 2002, but contains restrictive language that would limit eligibility for the extension to family-based applicants whose relationship existed prior to August 15, 2001, and to employment-based applicants who had filed a labor certification prior to August 15, 2001.  However, these confusing deadlines are unnecessary because the law already requires applicants to prove they were physically present in the U.S. on December 21, 2001 and would thus only be available to those who were in the United States before this extension was passed.  During the Senate debate on the Border Security bill, several Senators expressed their support for an extension of Section 245(i), and indicated that they would support its passage in separate legislation.  AILA strongly supports an extension that does not include these confusing dates that severely limit eligibility.

 Prior to the vote in the Senate and House on the border security bill, anti-immigrant groups launched a campaign of misinformation about Section 245(i), alleging that it would amount to granting an “amnesty” to undocumented immigrants.  In fact Section 245(i), allows eligible individuals (based on their family or employment relationship) to adjust their status in this country.  Importantly, this provision would give the U.S. government a chance to thoroughly review the backgrounds of these people and decide whether they should continue to live here.  This screening process is rigorous, involving a lengthy application, criminal background checks, in-person interviews, and other hurdles.  But without Section 245(i) many would elect not to begin the process and make themselves known to the authorities.

 AILA strongly supports an extension of Section 245(i) that would give eligible individuals the time and opportunity to apply to adjust their status.

 House Judiciary Committee Approves INS Reorganization Proposal:  Floor Vote Expected Shortly

 On April 10, the House Judiciary Committee voted 32–2 to pass H.R. 3231, a measure that would reorganize the INS.  The full House is expected to vote on this bill the week of April 22.

 The Committee-approved bill amends a bill originally introduced by Representatives James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI), Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, and George Gekas (R-PA), chair of the House Immigration Subcommittee.  Renamed the “Barbara Jordan Immigration Reform and Accountability Act,” the bill represents a compromise reached between Representatives Sensenbrenner, George Gekas (R-PA), Chair of the Immigration Subcommittee, with Representatives John Conyers (D-MI), the senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, and Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), the senior Democrat on the Immigration Subcommittee.  While the bill is a step forward, AILA still has serious concerns because the bill’s provisions do not include a leader in charge with clout and coordination of the separated adjudications and enforcement functions.  

The bill would abolish the INS and replace it with an Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs, who would preside over two bureaus, one for Citizenship and Immigration Services and the other for Immigration Enforcement.

 The vote on this bill followed on the heels of a hearing that had been held the day before to hear from various experts, including INS Commissioner James Ziglar, on the need for INS reform.  There has long been a consensus that the service and enforcement functions of the INS should be separated, and that the current structure of the INS needs reform.  However, AILA and other immigration advocates have consistently argued that it is not enough to simply divide the agency into two parts.  Another key component to an effective reorganization of the INS is a strong leadership position that would be responsible and accountable for the coordination of immigration policy, legal opinions, and the flow of information throughout the agency.  The House bill does not achieve these important goals. Although the amendments to H.R. 3231 elevate the immigration executive by moving the General Counsel within the Associate Attorney General's office, there are still core offices that exist only in the service and enforcement bureaus, leading to duplicity within the overall agency and the lack of a single focus for these functions.  For example, each bureau is to have an Office of Policy and Strategy; each bureau is to have a Chief Budget Officer; and each bureau is to have an Office of Congressional, Intergovernmental, and Public Affairs. 

 During the markup of H.R. 3525, some amendments were made to the bill.  An amendment offered by Representative Howard Berman (D-CA) authorized appropriations for asylum and refugee adjudications to be funded separately.  Currently, no fee is charged for adjudicating asylum and refugee applications, but these functions are funded out of fees collected for other immigration benefits applications, effectively a tax on immigrants applying for naturalization, permanent residence, or other statuses.  This amendment is a positive development, as the Examinations Fee Account has been plagued over the years with congressional mandates over and above recovering the cost of applications adjudications. Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) offered two amendments that were accepted, one having to do with consistent interpretation of the policies of the central office, and one requiring a study of how INS might meet emerging needs. 

 Several amendments are anticipated during the upcoming floor debate on the bill.  One amendment, proposed by Representative Jim Kolbe (R-AZ), would dismantle the INS and transfer its functions elsewhere (see “Recently Introduced Legislation” below for details).  AILA opposes this amendment because it would lead to several problems with both adjudications and enforcement and does not conform to AILA’s criteria for effective reform.

 INS Announces Restructuring Changes

 On Wednesday, April 17, INS announced that the agency was implementing major restructuring changes.  These changes reflect several of the recommendations included in the restructuring plan the Administration unveiled in November 2001.  The changes, effective immediately, include creating a direct chain of command for the Border Patrol, consolidating detentions functions under Headquarters control, establishing an Office of Juvenile Affairs, filling the two new positions of Chief Financial Officer and Chief Information Officer, and establishing a Field Advisory Board to act as liaison between the Headquarters Office of Restructuring and the field.

 At the press conference held to announce the changes, Attorney General Ashcroft noted that the Administration supports separating the functions of enforcement and services but keeping them under a single agency head.  The Attorney General said that the initiatives the agency is undertaking are intended to make it “a stronger deterrent to our enemies, and a better servant to our friends.”

 INS Commissioner Ziglar fleshed out some of the details of the announced changes. Consolidating the detentions functions involves transferring the control of the Service Processing Centers from District and Regional Directors to Headquarters.  The El Paso District will serve as the first site to use the new reporting structure, beginning later this month.  The transfer is the first step in a plan to shift control of all District detention functions to the Headquarters Detention and Removal Program. INS tapped Steve Farquharson, the District Director in Boston, to serve as interim head of the Office of Juvenile Affairs.  The office will oversee national programs that address the needs of unaccompanied minors in INS custody. Finally a Field Advisory Board was established to guide the agency’s restructuring effort.  Eleven senior field and regional managers serve on the board.

 AILA Testifies on U.S./Mexico Relations; Hoffman Plastic Highlighted During Hearing

AILA President Steven M. Ladik testified on April 16 before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps, and Narcotics Affairs on the subject of “U.S.-Mexico Relations: Unfinished Agenda.”  The hearing focused on the U.S./Mexican bilateral agenda, including immigration policy, border security, trade and investment.  According to Subcommittee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT), the hearing was the first in a series of Subcommittee hearings intended to look at the challenges confronting countries throughout the Western Hemisphere in the 21st Century, assess whether United States policymakers are sufficiently engaged in regional issues post September 11, and determine whether U.S. policies are responsive to those challenges. 

While any one of various urgent topics could have been the focus of this first hearing on the state of the Hemisphere, said Chairman Dodd, “it seemed…that it was most appropriate to begin our review by focusing on the most important and promising of our hemispheric relationships—our relations with Mexico and the Fox Administration.”  The U.S./Mexico bilateral relationship, he continued, “is an important cornerstone in fashioning a successful partnership with countries throughout the Americas—it is so important that we work at that relationship—until we get it right.”

The first witness to testify was Representative Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), Chairman of the Hispanic Caucus and a former U.S. Border Patrol Regional Chief in the El Paso, Texas Sector.  Next, several witnesses from the Bush Administration, including Alan P. Larson, State Department Undersecretary for Economic, Business, and Agricultural Affairs; John Taylor, Undersecretary for International Affairs at the Department of the Treasury; and James W. Ziglar, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, testified on the bilateral agenda since the recent Monterrey Summit and legislative priorities in furtherance of U.S. policy.  Finally, additional witnesses from the public sector focused on the importance of the U.S./Mexico relationship and why making progress on the bilateral agenda is in the economic and security interests of the United States.  These included Barbara Shailor, Director of the AFL-CIO’s International Affairs Department; Gregori Lebedev, Chief Operating Officer and Executive Vice President for International Policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; M. Delal Baer, Senior Fellow and Director of the Mexico Project and Deputy Director of the Americas Program Center for Strategic and International Studies; and AILA’s President Ladik.

 In his testimony, Mr. Ladik stressed that any reforms agreed upon by the two countries must be comprehensive in nature, aligning our immigration policies with our national security needs while recognizing market forces and family reunification goals.  “It is only through such comprehensive reform,” he continued, “that we can change our immigration policies in ways that enhance our security and make legality the norm.”  The outline of such comprehensive reform would include:

•  A “smart border agreement” that would enhance the security of both nations and include joint enforcement efforts to reduce illegal immigration.

• An increase in the number of temporary and permanent visas for workers and their families coming to the U.S. so that our legal immigration system, by more closely tracking economic needs and family dynamics, will be more easily and effectively enforced.

• Earned legal status for hardworking immigrants already here so that these valued workers are properly documented, can participate fully in their communities, and are eventually made eligible for permanent residence and U.S. citizenship.

 Past efforts at reform were partially successful at best, said Mr. Ladik, because they were not comprehensive.  For example, the 1986 amnesty, while addressing one issue—legalizing the status of people already here—failed to address systemic problems such as the backlogs in family-based immigrant visas, and the absence of temporary and permanent business-based visa programs. 

 Commissioner Ziglar discussed President Bush’s March 22 meeting with Mexican President Fox, and the agreement the two reached toward the creation of a “smart border” that would “embrace technology and enhanced bilateral cooperation to ensure humane, efficient, and modernized management of the border that joins or peoples and our economies.”  As described by Mr. Ziglar, the action plan that the two nations agreed upon advances three major goals: (1) creation of infrastructure that keeps pace with travel and commerce; (2) the secure flow of people; and (3) the secure flow of goods.  The border that we share with Mexico is “more than a line drawn on a map,” he said.  “It is a way of life for our populations residing in border communities…[and] a gateway to expanded markets, tourism, and educational opportunities.”

During the question and answer sessions following each of the three panels of witnesses, Senator Dodd made several inquiries related to the March 27 Supreme Court decision in the case of Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, No. 00–1595, 2002 WL 459438 (Mar. 27, 2002), wherein the Court, by a vote of 5–4, held that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is precluded from awarding back pay to undocumented alien who had never been legally authorized to work in United States.  Noting that the dissent in Hoffman argued that the denial of the back pay award will actually encourage illegal immigration (by increasing an employer’s incentive to hire undocumented workers), Senator Dodd asked Commissioner Ziglar what, if anything, the Administration intends to do in light of such potential ramifications.  “I…think,” said Mr. Ziglar…“without having read the opinion, that it probably makes a pretty good argument for our dealing with the situation of undocumented aliens in this country.  Maybe you don’t deal with it legislatively and back into it.  Maybe you deal with it from the top down instead of the bottom up.”

For more on Hoffman, see Washington Update, Vol. 6, No. 4, at p. 8 (Apr. 5, 2002).  To read Mr. Ladik’s full testimony, see AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 28ts2003, or go to AILA’s public information site at www.aila.org, under the section entitled “Congressional Testimony”.

Senate Subcommittee Considers Rules for Driver’s Licenses

 The Senate Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring, and the District of Columbia, chaired by Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL), held a hearing on April 16 on setting national standards for state-issued driver’s licenses.  Groups who oppose a national ID card system are leading the opposition to such national standards because such national standards on driver’s licenses would pave the way for the creation of a national ID card, even though Senator Durbin has indicated that this was not his intention.  The Senator is in the process of drafting legislation that would leave the authority over driver’s licenses to the states.  “This is about state-issued driver’s licenses, not a national ID,” stated the Senator.

 Witnesses at the hearing included Richard J. Varn, Chief Information Officer from Iowa, testifying on behalf of the National Governors Association; Betty L. Serian, from the American Association of Motor Vehicles Administrators; and Barry Goleman, Vice President of AMS State and Local Solutions. Immigrants’ rights advocates were not included in the witness panel.

 Ms. Serian presented the results of a survey conducted by the polling firm Public Opinion Strategies among 800 license holders. The survey revealed that only 88 percent of those surveyed favor changes in the license issuance policies. They also supported the sharing of driver’s identities and driving records among states.  “We have a system that is broken, and a product that is not very reliable,” Serian said.

 In his testimony, Richard Varn noted that the National Governors Association does not have an official position on the issue although it believes the system is broken. “Our driver identity systems, cards, and issuance processes are not adequately coordinated to ensure transportation safety or the security of the myriad of their other uses on which we have come to depend,” said Varn.

RECENTLY INTRODUCED LEGISLATION 

The introduction of new legislation slowed these past few weeks as lawmakers recessed for the Easter holidays.  The following is a brief description, in chronological order, of recently introduced bills:

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D–CA) introduced a bill on March 20 (H.R. 4058) that would amend § 642(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRAIRA) to require the INS to verify whether an alien has an immigration status rendering him or her eligible for service in the U.S. armed forces.  Under the bill, an alien who is verified as eligible for such service would not be considered ineligible to be hired by the U.S. for a position as an airport security screener as a result of his or her immigration status.  The legislation would also amend INA § 329 to expand the specified military operations, the active duty participation in which render an alien eligible for naturalization, to include “Operation Joint Endeavor” in Bosnia, “Operation Allied Force” in Kosovo, and Operation Enduring Freedom” in Southwest Asia.

Rep. Jim Kolbe (R–AZ), on April 9, 2002, introduced legislation that would dismantle the INS and transfer its functions elsewhere.  Specifically, the “Immigration and Naturalization Service Reorganization Act of 2002” (H.R. 4108) would abolish the INS and consolidate border patrol, inspections, investigations, and removal and related enforcement functions within a Bureau of Immigration Enforcement, the Director of which would report to the Attorney General.  In addition, the legislation would transfer immigration benefits related functions such as admissions, refugees, asylum affairs and citizenship to the Department of State.  The legislation currently has four cosponsors, all of whom are Republican.  AILA opposes this legislation.

Several newly introduced public benefits-related pieces of legislation also have immigration components.  These include: the “Access to Affordable Health Care Act” (S. 2042), Subtitle D of which would give states the option of providing coverage to legal immigrants under the Medicaid program and the State Children’s Health Insurance (SCHIP) program; S. 2052, the “Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act Amendments of 2002,” which would provide states a similar option to that contained in S. 2042; the “Welfare Reform and Housing Act” (S. 2116), Section 6 of which would conform immigrant eligibility for housing assistance with the rules applicable to other federal needs-based assistance; and H.R. 4090, the “Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2002,” Section 307 of which contains language that would render inadmissible aliens whose required child support payments are in arrears exceeding $2,500 and would authorize the service of process in child support cases on certain arriving aliens.

We will report further on these bills as they move through the legislative process.

  MEDIA SPOTLIGHT

  Due Process Prevails; The Administration Responds

 The media has featured stories about immigration and civil rights lawyers who have triumphed recently with due process suits.  The suits challenge the secrecy surrounding the detention of people on minor immigration violations after September 11.

 In late March, a New Jersey state court judge ruled that two county jails could not keep secret the names of detainees held on immigration charges.  Superior Court Judge Arthur D’Italia said that the public has a right to county jail records and no matter how awful the events of September 11, nor how pressing the government’s investigation of the attacks, the federal government is still required to obey the law, reported The Recorder.  D’Italia cited a D.C. circuit court ruling that says secret arrests are “a concept odious to a democratic society,” noted a National Law Journal article.

 Though the ruling was immediately appealed and stayed, the news media widely cited it as a victory for civil rights and immigration advocates.  The National Law Journal called the ruling a “strongly worded victor[y] for the [ACLU] and other advocates who have filed [suit] to get information about who was arrested.”

 A week later, a Detroit federal judge ruled that the closed hearings for a man detained after the September 11 attacks were unconstitutional.  U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmunds said that the government wrongly barred the public from hearings for the founder of an Islamic charity detained after Sept. 11 for overstaying his visa, according to an article by The Associated Press.

 These suits follow an initial effort by a coalition of organizations, including AILA, to determine the names, charges, and locations for all the detainees.  The coalition brought a suit against the federal government under the Freedom of Information Act last December.  The plaintiffs received a list of people in January, but the names were blacked out and no information was provided as to where the people listed were being held.  The list did give the charges, date of arrest, and nationalities of the detainees. (National Law Journal)

 Recent events suggest that such efforts will continue.  Just last week, a civil rights group filed a class-action lawsuit charging the government with “biased and unconstitutional” treatment of the detainees, reported The New York Times, The Washington Post, and others.

 The Administration responded by issuing a rule on April 22, 2002, barring the public release of information on INS detainees by non-federal providers of detention services and clarifying that all such requests for information be directed to the INS (to view the rule, go to http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2002_register&docid=02-9863-filed).

 A Department of Justice press release preceding the rule’s release stated that the need for such a rule was “highlighted by a New Jersey court order requiring county officials to release information regarding federal detainees pursuant to state law.”  The press release further stated, “As recent events have made clear, information regarding certain federal detainees is extremely sensitive; disclosure of that information could provide terrorist organizations important information that could threaten the national security and the lives of American citizens.  Disclosure of the identities or related personal information about certain detainees could reveal intelligence and investigative methods, sources, and witnesses as well as the direction, progress, and scope of an investigation, and thereby assist terrorist organizations in counteracting investigative efforts by the United States government. Further, the detainee could be subjected to intimidation or harm, thereby discouraging him or her from supplying valuable information or investigative leads in the future.”

 The rule took effect retroactive to April 17 and covers all pending and future requests for detainee information, and all INS detainees being housed temporarily at facilities on behalf of the Service.

 Members and Staff in the News

 Amanda Petersen (Texas) wrote an article published April 16 in the Health Forum Journal on the need for foreign health care workers. Lynn Neugebauer (New York) and Jaqueline Baronian (New York) were quoted April 14 in Newsday’s immigration Q&A.  The (Bergen County) Record quoted Sohail Mohammed (New Jersey) in an April 13 article on a state judge’s ruling that information on immigration detainees in New Jersey must be released within 10 days.

 Kathleen Walker (Texas) was quoted April 12 in a National Journal’s Technology Daily article regarding border security.  On April 11, Gannett News Service quoted Jeanne Butterfield (National) in a story about the tracking of noncitizens.  The New York Times quoted Judy Golub (National) in an April 10 article on INS reorganization.

 Jeanne Butterfield (National) appeared April 9 on BET News to discuss new INS restrictions on student and tourist visas.  The Washington Times quoted Judy Golub (National) and Greg Siskind (Mid-South) in an April 9 article about Section 245(i).  Tammy Fox-Isicoff (Southern Florida) and Ira Kurzban (South Florida) were quoted April 8 in a Miami Herald article on the INS’s plan to limit foreign tourist visas to 30 days.

 Reuters quoted Theodore Ruthizer (New York) on April 7 on the negative impact on businesses and families of stricter visa policies.  The Miami Herald quoted Elliott Lichtman (Washington D.C.) in an April 6 article about the citizenship status of Yasser Esam Hamdi.  David Leopold (Ohio) was quoted April 5 in a Boston Globe article regarding the limited resources of the INS. 

 The (Bergen County) Record quoted Ben Johnson (National) in an April 5 article about the functions of the INS. The New York Times quoted Roxana Bacon (Arizona) in an April 4 story on the administration’s proposal to enlist local police in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

 Judy Golub (National), Cheryl Little (Southern Florida) and Antonio Garcia-Crews (Central Florida) were quoted April 4 in an Orlando Sentinel article on the administration’s move to have local police enforce immigration law. On April 4, Cox News Service quoted Robert Degen (Philadelphia) in a story on Yasser Esam Hamdi, the detainee who claimed U.S. citizenship.

 Muzaffar Chishti (New York) appeared on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer on April 3 to discuss the impact of Justice Department’s “absconder” program.  Stanley Cohen (New York) appeared April 3 on CNN’s “The Point” to talk about airport sweeps focusing on undocumented immigrants.

 On April 1, Laura Lichter (Colorado) was quoted by the Denver Post on the impact of the Supreme Court ruling denying back pay to wrongfully fired undocumented immigrants. The April edition of Washingtonian featured Michael Maggio (Washington D.C.) as one of Washington’s best lawyers.

 Hans Christian Linnartz (Carolinas) wrote a guest column, published on March 29 in The (Durham, N.C.) Herald Sun, lampooning the INS for bureaucratic bungling.

 Did You Know?

 Senator Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT), Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps, and Narcotics Affairs, at an April 16 hearing on the subject of “U.S.-Mexico Relations: Unfinished Agenda,” called the United States’ relations with Mexico and the Fox Administration “the most important and promising of our hemispheric relations….[and] an important cornerstone in fashioning a successful partnership with countries throughout the Americas.”  “It is so important that we work at that relationship—until we get it right,” he stated.

 CONTRIBUTORS
Judith Golub, Senior Director of Advocacy and Public Affairs

Ben Johnson, Associate Director of Advocacy

Danielle Polen, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Associate

Amanda Carufel, Public Affairs Manager

Hugo Romero, Advocacy Associate

Kris Benjamin, Legislative Assistant

 American Immigration Lawyers Association

918 F Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20004

202-216-2403

28au2002

back to top

Copyright © 2002, American Immigration Lawyers Association