Washington Update--What's Going on in Congress?
(Provided by AILA)

February 21, 2003

In This Issue...

Update on Personnel Appointments and Further Reorganization at the DHS

Expanded PATRIOT Act Would Further Circumscribe Civil Liberties

Fee Surcharge and NSEERS Provisions in FY 2003 Omnibus Budget Bill

Immigration Funding Details Murky in FY 2004 Budget Proposal

Congressional Committees Take Shape

Special Registration Deadlines Extended but Program Still Deeply Flawed

Organizations Reiterate Concerns about Proposed B Nonimmigrant Rule

INS Publishes Notice Implementing District Court Order in Proyecto San Pablo v. INS

Refugee Admissions Down Dramatically

Mexican Consular Identification Cards are Needed in Today’s Environment

Visa and Passport Waiver Revoked for Certain Permanent Residents of Canada and Bermuda

Recently Introduced Legislation

MEDIA SPOTLIGHT: Members and Staff in the News

Did You Know?




Update on Personnel Appointments and Further Reorganization at the DHS

As reported in earlier Updates, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) came into being on January 24. Tom Ridge was confirmed on January 22 to head the department, Asa Hutchinson was confirmed the next day to be Undersecretary for Border and Transportation Security; and Eduardo Aguirre, in early February, was named to head the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. Mr. Aguirre is Director of the Export/Import Bank. As reported by the media, Mr. Aguirre was one of thousands of Cuban children who were sent to the United States by their parents between 1960 and 1962 as part of Operation Pedro Pan. He also has had close ties with the Bush family since the late 1970s. No date has been set for his confirmation hearing. 
 
On January 30, Homeland Security Secretary Ridge announced a reorganization of the immigration functions within the Office of Transportation and Border Security. The immigration enforcement functions are to be divided into two Bureaus: the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which will enforce customs and immigration laws within the U.S., including detention and removal, intelligence and investigations; and the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, which will include the inspections and border enforcement functions of the INS, Customs, and the Agricultural Quarantine Inspections Program. 
 
Michael Garcia has been appointed to head the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Mr. Garcia served briefly as Acting INS Commissioner. Prior to his work with the INS, he served as Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement, and as a federal prosecutor with the DOJ's Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Robert Bonner, formerly Customs Commissioner, was named to head the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection.

A nonprofit organization recently disseminated draft legislation leaked from the Department of Justice that would expand the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107–56). This draft has not yet been introduced as legislation. 
 
This proposal, entitled the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 (also dubbed Patriot II), would grant government authorities unprecedented enforcement and intelligence-gathering powers. It would authorize secret arrests, reduce or eliminate judicial oversight over surveillance, create a DNA database based on unchecked executive “suspicion,” and create new death penalty offenses. There is even a provision, Section 501, that would take American citizenship away from a person who belongs to, or supports, groups that the U.S. has designated as “terrorist organizations,” thus potentially consigning them to indefinite imprisonment as undocumented aliens in their native country. The draft provision would accomplish this by “inferring” intent to relinquish citizenship from the individual’s conduct. Such conduct could even include activities that currently are considered legal. 
 
The draft also includes immigration provisions that unfairly target immigrants under the pretext of fighting terrorism. Section 503 would eliminate due process entirely by allowing summary deportations without evidence of crime, criminal intent or terrorism for those immigrants (including lawful permanent residents) whom the Attorney General determines are a threat to national security. More specifically, this section would grant the AG this authority when he determines that the presence of these individuals is inconsistent with U.S. “national security.” “National security” is defined as the “national defense,” “foreign relations,” and “economic interests” of the United States. Based on case law, the authority of the Attorney General to make national security determinations is unreviewable.
 
Section 504 would create a retroactive “expedited removal” procedure that would abolish fair hearings for lawful permanent residents and prevent any court from reviewing the government’s actions by explicitly exempting these cases from habeas corpus review. More specifically, this section changes the title of INA § 238 to read “Expedited Removal of Criminal Aliens” from the current language, “Expedited Removal of Aliens Convicted of Committing Aggravated Felonies.” This dramatic expansion of the expedited removal process will affect even those long-time permanent residents who are potentially eligible for naturalization. Section 504 also amends INA § 238(b) by allowing the Attorney General, using a limited paper review and without hearing, to order the removal of an individual convicted of a covered offense. This removal can take place without regard to the severity of the crime, when it was committed, or what negative impact the removal would have on U.S. citizen family members. This section would disregard the Supreme Court’s ruling in St. Cyr by stripping the judiciary of its core functions in such cases.
 
Additionally, this draft includes other provisions that would: expand the Attorney General’s authority to designate a country to which an immigrant could be deported, and permitting such deportation even if there is no effective government in that country (Section 506); and permit the sharing of personal information (such as credit card information and educational records) without any connection to anti-terrorism efforts, with local and state law enforcement (Section 311).

After much delay (and in some cases, resignation by individual Members) Congress passed and sent to the President the FY 2003 Omnibus Budget bill, H.J. Res. 2, that includes one provision on the surcharge on application fees and another on NSEERS, the controversial National Security Entry-Exit Registration System.

Fee Surcharge: A provision of the Homeland Security Act (Section 457) would have required the INS by January 24 to remove from its processing fee structure the surcharge to cover asylum and refugee applications and fee waivers. The sponsors included this provision in the Act to force Congress to directly appropriate funds to cover those activities. However, the appropriation did not take place, and INS issued a regulation on January 24 that reduces fees and terminates fee waivers and exemptions.

The omnibus remedies this situation with a provision that restores the surcharge (by deleting Section 457 of the Homeland Security Act) but the restoration is not retroactive. As a practical matter, the new fees that took effect on January 24 remain in effect until the President signs the legislation and a new federal register notice is published.

NSEERS: The Senate-passed omnibus bill included a provision that would suspend funding for NSEERS, which includes the special registration initiative. This provision also would require the Attorney General to provide Congress by March 1 with documents and other information on the creation, operation and effectiveness of NSEERS.

The final omnibus does not defund NSEERS, but preserves, in Section 112 of the Conference Report, the reporting requirements. The Attorney General is directed to provide to the Appropriation Committees documents and materials by March 1. However, there are no consequences if the March 1 date is not honored. The required documents and materials are those: (1) used in the creation of the NSEERS program, including any predecessor programs; (2) assessing the effectiveness of the NSEERS program as a tool to enhance national security; (3) used to determine the scope of the NSEERS program, including countries selected for the program, and the gender, age, and immigration status of the persons required to register under the program; (4) regarding future plans to expand the NSEERS program to additional countries, age groups, women, and persons holding other immigration statuses not already covered; (5) explaining of whether the Department of Justice consulted with other federal agencies in the development of the NSEERS programs, and if so, all documents and materials relating to those consultations; (6) concerning policy directives or guidance issued to officials about implementation of NSEERS, including the role of the FBI in conducting national security background checks of registrants; (7) explaining why certain INS District Offices detained persons with pending status-adjustment applications; and (8) explaining how information gathered during interviews of registrants will be stored, used, or transmitted to other Federal, State, or local agencies.

President Bush on February 3 submitted his FY 2004 budget proposal that includes funding for the new Department of Homeland Security. This submission begins the budget process for FY 2004. This process has not worked well or predictably in recent years, with the FY 2003 budget signifying the difficulties now inherent in the process. It now is the job of the House and Senate Appropriation Committees to introduce their FY 2004 bills in Congress. (The FY 2003 fiscal year began last October and will end with FY 2004 officially beginning on October 1, 2003.) 
 
It is difficult to determine the funding levels this proposed budget allocates to immigration because of the lack of specificity in funding allocations and the fact that this is the first budget that combines 22 agencies within the new department. It is thus unclear whether immigration is adequately funded, or how the budget proposal overview, which contains specific figures for immigration applications backlog reduction and the new entry-exit system, meshes with the actual line item proposals. 
 
The FY 2004 budget proposal reflects how our immigration functions are organized within the Homeland Security Department. The budget is divided between three bureaus: the Bureau of Customs and Border Protections, the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. The budget authorities for those departments are listed below: 
 
Bureau of Customs and Border Protections. The Bureau of Customs and Border Protections deals with immigration enforcement and related functions at the borders and ports of entry. The proposed budget authority for this bureau, which consists of about 42,000 former INS inspectors, Border Patrol agents, and Customs and Agricultural inspectors, is $6.7 billion, with $5.64 billion of the budget being directly appropriated as discretionary funds and about $1 billion coming from immigration fees and fines. 
 
While this bureau will include the entry-exit system, the budget proposal does not specify the amount of funding dedicated to developing the system. Yet the accompanying text to the budget states that $1.1 billion of the bureau’s $5.6 billion discretionary funding will be dedicated to certain initiatives, including the entry-exit system, and the budget “highlights” note that $480 million is earmarked for entry-exit, in comparison to $362 million in the FY 2003 omnibus bill. Even if the $480 million is correct, preliminary assessments indicate that this figure would be woefully short of the billions of dollars needed to develop a functional and efficient entry-exit system. In fact, the INS’s own workforce analysis model indicates that the agency currently needs 3,500 new inspectors and $424 million to properly staff inspector positions at ports of entry. This figure does not take into account the extremely high rate of attrition among INS personnel or the extra personnel needed to man the entry-exit system. Other funding demands include the acquisition of appropriate technology for document readers, the development of facilities at the ports of entry and infrastructure for the dedicated commuter lanes, and conversion of existing roadways into dedicated commuter lanes. The estimated cost of conversion of one lane is $760,000 to $800,000. 
 
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement is responsible for handling the interior enforcement of immigration and customs laws. The Administration’s proposed budget allocates to this 14,000-employee bureau $2.78 billion to carry out its functions that include locating, detaining, and deporting undocumented aliens, monitoring foreign students, and investigating alien smuggling. This limited budget authority is of concern given the extent to which the INS relied in the past on local prisons to house detained aliens.
 
Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. The Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services is responsible for processing petitions for immigration benefits and naturalization applications. The proposed budget authority for this bureau is $1.8 billion. This total is made up of direct appropriations of $235 million (less than the amount directly appropriated in fiscal year 2002) and $1.56 billion in anticipated funding from immigration application and examination fees.
 
In its budget “highlights,” the Administration notes that the FY 2004 proposal would continue the President’s five-year, $500 million commitment to reduce processing backlogs and establish a universal six-month processing time for all immigration applications. However, this budget includes no details on this funding. (In the FY 02 budget proposal, the $100 million for backlog reduction included only $45 million in newly appropriated funding.) It is thus unclear if the Administration’s budget funds backlog reduction by direct Congressional appropriations or through user fees.
 
Other Notable Areas: The FY 2004 budget proposal includes $736 million for the State Department to collect and process biometric data at visa centers (as mandated by the Border Security Bill); and $195 million for the Executive Office for Immigration Review within the Department of Justice.

Several of the key Senate and House committees (and subcommittees) with jurisdiction over immigration are now taking shape. These committees include Judiciary, Appropriations, and (in the House) Homeland Security. Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), chair of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, has indicated that while her committee will play a close role in the oversight of the Department of Homeland Security, the Senate Judiciary Committee will maintain jurisdiction over all immigration laws. Thus, jurisdiction over immigration issues remains with the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the Senate to date has not created a Homeland Security Committee, but rather has tasked the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee with overseeing the new department. In contrast, the House has created a Homeland Security Committee and, while that committee is charged with coordinating the work of many house committees, the jurisdiction of the House Judiciary Committee is unclear. Later editions of Update will report on this jurisdictional issue and other committee assignments that impact on immigration. 
 
Senate Judiciary Committee Line-Up: The Senate Judiciary Committee consists of: Republican Senators Orrin Hatch (UT, Chair), Charles Grassley (IA), Arlen Specter (PA), Jon Kyl (AZ), Mike DeWine (OH), Jeff Sessions (AL), Lindsay Graham (SC), Larry Craig (ID), Saxby Chambliss (GA), and John Cornyn (TX).
 
Democratic Members of the Committee are: Senators Patrick Leahy (VT, Ranking Member), Edward Kennedy (MA), Joseph Biden (DE), Herbert Kohl (WI), Dianne Feinstein (CA), Russell Feingold (WI), Charles Schumer (NY), Richard Durbin (IL), and John Edwards (NC).
 
While Senate Immigration Subcommittee members have yet to be named, Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss (GA) has been named to chair the subcommittee. 
 
The House Judiciary Committee Line-Up: Republican Representatives James Sensenbrenner (WI, Chair), Henry Hyde (IL), Howard Coble (NC), Lamar Smith (TX), Elton Gallegly (CA), Bob Goodlatte (VA), Steve Chabot (OH), William Jenkins (TN), Chris Cannon (UT), Lindsey Graham (SC), Spencer Bachus (AL), John Hostettler (IN), Mark Green (WI), Ric Keller (FL), Melissa Hart (PA), Jeff Flake (AZ), Mike Pence (IN), Randy Forbes (VA), Steve King (IA), John Carter (TX), Tom Feeney (FL), and Marsha Blackburn (TN).
 
Democratic Members of the House Judiciary Committee are: Representatives John Conyers (MI, Ranking Member), Howard Berman (CA), Rick Boucher (VA), Jerrold Nadler (NY), Bobby Scott (VA), Mel Watt (NC), Zoe Lofgren (CA), Sheila Jackson Lee (TX), Maxine Waters (CA), Marty Meehan (MA), William Delahunt (MA), Robert Wexler (FL), Tammy Baldwin (WI), Anthony Weiner (NY), Adam Schiff (CA), Linda Sanchez (CA).
 
The Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims (formerly the Immigration and Claims Subcommittee) is chaired by Republican Representative John Hostettler (IN) Republican subcommittee members reportedly will be: Chris Cannon (UT), Lamar Smith (TX), Jeff Flake (AZ), Marsha Blackburn (TN), Elton Gallegly (CA), and Steve King (IA). Democratic members of the Subcommittee are: Representatives Sheila Jackson Lee (TX), Linda Sanchez (CA), Zoe Lofgren (CA), Howard Berman (CA), and John Conyers (MI)—also the Ranking Member of the full Judiciary Committee. 
 
The House Homeland Security Committee Line-Up: 50 Members of the House Homeland Security Committee have been named. Unlike the Senate, the jurisdiction of this committee over immigration appears to be unclear. Along with Committee Chair Christopher Cox (R-CA), and Ranking Democratic Member Jim Turner (D-TX), the members of this new committee are:
 
Republican Representatives Bill Young (FL), David Dreier (CA), Don Young (AK), Duncan Hunter (CA), James Sensenbrenner (WI), Bob Goodlatte (VA), Sherwood Boehlert (NY), Billy Tauzin (LA), Christopher Shays (CT), Curt Weldon (PA), Dave Camp (MI), Ernest Istook (OK), Harold Rogers (KY), Jennifer Dunn (WA), Jim Gibbons (NV), John Linder (GA), John Shadegg (AZ), John Sweeney (NY), Kay Granger (TX), Lamar Smith (TX), Lincoln Diaz-Balart (FL), Mac Thornberry (TX), Mark Souder (IN), Pete Sessions (TX), Peter King (NY), and Porter Goss (FL).
 
Democrats members of the Committee are: Representatives Robert Andrews (NJ), Benjamin Cardin (MD), Peter DeFazio (OR), Norman Dicks (WA), Bob Etheridge (NC), Barney Frank (MA), Charles Gonzalez (TX), Jane Harman (CA), Sheila Jackson Lee (TX), James Langevin (RI), Zoe Lofgren (CA), Nita Lowey (NY), Ken Lucas (KY), Edward Markey (MA), Karen McCarthy (MO), Kendrick Meek (FL), Bill Pascrell (NJ), Loretta Sanchez (CA), Louise Slaughter (NY), Bennie Thompson (MS), and Dels. Donna Christensen (VI) and Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC).
 
Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee: Unlike the Senate, the House has created a new appropriations subcommittee to deal with the new Department of Homeland Security. Representative Hal Rogers (R-KY), who in past Congresses had chaired the House Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Subcommittee (that had jurisdiction over funding for the INS) will chair this new subcommittee. Appropriations Committee Chair Bill Young (R-FL) will be the Vice Chair of this subcommittee.

The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register on February 19 extending by four additional weeks the registration deadlines for special registrants from Groups 3 and 4. The Group 3 deadline (for males from Pakistan or Saudi Arabia who otherwise meet the registration requirements) has been extended to March 21, 2003. The Group 4 registration period (for males from Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan or Kuwait who otherwise meet the registration requirements) is now effective from February 24, 2003 until April 25, 2003.

A February 14 Justice Department press release announcing the extension also noted that, “Prosecutorial discretion will be considered if a registrant has a currently-filed request for application for a benefit, appears to be immediately and prima facie eligible for the benefit sought, and if no adverse or disqualifying information is developed through indices checks or other sources.” (See AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 03021450).

This extension follows another deadline extension for persons subject to the December 16, 2002 and January 10, 2003 deadlines. These persons were given an additional period (from January 27 to February 7) in which to register. The DOJ published notice of this extension after receiving much criticism from both Congress and the general public for failing to produce adequate notice of the program requirements, not putting in place the necessary resources to handle casework generated by the program, and failing to adequately publicize (through outreach and other initiatives) program requirements to the effected communities.

It does not appear that the DOJ has changed its deeply flawed implementation of this controversial program that is of questionable worth in enhancing our security. On February 5, Democratic Representatives Conyers (MI), Delahunt (MA), Watt (NC), Baldwin (WI), Linda Sanchez (CA), Honda (CA), Schakowsky (IL), and Woolsey (CA) sent a letter to the Chair and Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Committee (Representatives C.W. Bill Young (CA) and David Obey (WI), respectively) and the Chair and Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary (Representatives Frank Wolf (VA) and Jose Serrano (NY), respectively). In the letter, the Representatives urged the appropriators to support a Senate-passed provision that would have suspended funding for NSEERS (that includes special registration). (See article #3 in this Update for further details on this issue.) They also criticized special registration for the lack of Congressional consultations or oversight, and noted their fiscal concerns and the serious consequences both at home and abroad for both domestic and foreign policy: “Rather than helping to protect our citizens, the registration rules will only serve to further alienate the American Arab and Muslim community and our allies abroad, who are so crucial to our fight against terrorism.”

AILA continues to believe that special registration is deeply flawed as a program and in its implementation. The program has been roundly criticized for targeting people based on race, religion, and national origin rather than on intelligence. Program implementation has been deeply flawed. People who have a claim to legal status are being detained; the DOJ/INS has neither adequately publicized program requirements nor clarified confusing requirements; have not held harmless those who did not register because they did not understand these requirements or did not know about the program; and INS district offices continue to adopt widely disparate practices to implement special registration.

America needs a program that balances our national security, civil liberties, and common sense. Special registration fails to achieve this balance.

AILA, along with the American Hotel and Lodging Association, the National Association of Home Builders, the National Association of Realtors, the Travel Industry Association of America, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, sent a letter on February 14 to Acting INS Commissioner Michael Garcia expressing concerns about the INS’s proposed rule for B Nonimmigrant Aliens. The groups expressed their concern that the proposed rule would: deter international travel to the U.S by creating uncertainty about the actual admission period; increase the likelihood that travelers would overstay their admission; render the U.S. less attractive to potential investors; negatively impact the residential real estate industry; negatively impact or deter Canadian visitors; and severely circumscribe the ability of multinational employers to use the B-1 for longer-term business trips.

The organizations signing this letter urged the INS to keep the current visa rules in place. However, if the proposed rule moves forward, the following was recommended:

• Maintain a minimum period of admission so as not to deter international travel and tourism.
   
• Maintain current law with regard to extensions of stay.
   
• Maintain the current maximum period of stay.
   
• Provide a specific exemption for “seasonal or occasional” homeowners and renters.

AILA is trying to determine the status of this proposed rule and will post information on InfoNet as soon as it becomes available.

The INS recently announced publication of procedures to implement the federal court’s order in Proyecto San Pablo v. INS, No. Civ 89-456-TUC-WBD (D. Ariz.), a class-action lawsuit filed by certain applicants for legalization in the late 1980s whose applications were denied or whose temporary residence was terminated. Under the terms of the court’s order, such applicants may request that the INS reopen their case and render a new decision. Applicants may be protected against deportation and may be eligible for work authorization until the new decision is reached.

According to a February 4 INS press release, the federal court’s order applies to persons who meet all of the following requirements:

• Filed an application for legalization under INA § 245A between May 5, 1987, and May 4, 1988;
   
• Filed an application for legalization under INA § 245A between May 5, 1987, and May 4, 1988 in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, or Wyoming, and;
   
• INS denied the application or terminated temporary residence under section 245A(g)(2)(B)(i) of the Act because, at some time during the period beginning before January 1, 1982, and ending on the date the application was filed, the applicant was outside the United States as a result of a departure under an order of deportation.

The INS published a notice in the Federal Register on January 29, 2003, implementing the class action judgment with instructions on how to obtain a new decision on the legalization application and how to apply for work authorization or other rights and responsibilities (see AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 03020545).

In the first four months of this fiscal year, only 5,140 refugees were admitted to the U.S. (This small number stands in contrast to the 12 million people the United Nations currently has designated as refugees.) If this pace continues, 2003 will see the fewest number of refugees admitted into the United States since the inception of the current U.S. refugee program which brought the U.S. into compliance with the United Nations protocols on refugees. This pace also questions the Bush Administration’s ability to reach its stated target of admitting 70,000 refugees in FY 2003. At the current rate, the Administration would fall short by about 55,000. In 2002, 27,000 refugees were admitted into the U.S., down from 68,000 in 2001, and 72,000 in 2000. 
 
Many explain this dramatic reduction in admissions as the result of a modified refugee screening process the Bush Administration has in place, even though refugees already go through one of the most thorough and rigorous screening processes of any admitted individuals. This process includes pre-interview State Department database name checks, fingerprints, photographs, interviews with specially trained INS officers, FBI and CIA security reviews, and State Department reviews.

In the past few weeks, the media has focused on the Consular Identification Cards authorized by the Mexican Government (matriculas). Issued as legal proof of finishing the Mexican consular registration process, these identification cards allow Mexican consular officers to offer their citizens access to consular protection and services. (This is the same type of registration service that the U.S. State Department offers its citizens abroad.) Mexican citizens use these cards as a secure form of identification to, for instance, open bank accounts and apply for driver’s licenses. People other than undocumented immigrants need these cards. Many people lawfully in the U.S. may not have a passport or other form of picture ID and need a document to prove identity.

In a security-conscious environment, these cards facilitate proving identify and help to minimize fraud. Currently, 13 states accept these identification cards for the purpose of obtaining driver’s licenses, and over 74 banks and 800 local law enforcement agencies also accept them, having found that these cards help them do their job. However, the need for these cards reinforces the importance of immigration reform that recognizes the contributions of hardworking people who have no way in the current system to become legal.

Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) on January 29 introduced legislation (H.R. 502) that would prohibit the federal government from accepting any foreign ID, including foreign passports, for use in providing benefits or services. Representative Elton Gallegly (R-CA) on February 11 introduced a bill (H.R. 687) that would prohibit the federal government from accepting any foreign ID other than a passport. Both H.R. 502 and H.R. 687 would prohibit the Federal Government from accepting the Mexican Consular ID card as proof of identification. AILA opposes these bills because they offer no security benefits and act only to drive immigrants further underground. Consular Identification Cards are not only a useful tool to help immigrants prove their identity, but they also act as secure identification documents to ensure that law enforcement officials know who they are dealing with and where these individuals reside.

The INS and State Department, on January 31, published interim rules to eliminate the current passport and visa waiver for aliens who are nationals of Ireland or the British Commonwealth countries listed in the rules, who reside in either Canada or Bermuda and are not citizens of Canada or the British Overseas Territory of Bermuda. Beginning on March 17, such individuals will be required to present a valid passport and visa when applying for admission to the United States. The agencies state that they are taking this action due to the heightened border security concerns following the events of September 11.
 
As background, INA § 212(d)(4)(B) permits the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, acting jointly, to waive the passport and visa requirements of INA § 212(a)(7)(B)(i) for admission to the United States in nonimmigrant status. This waiver may be granted on the basis of reciprocity with respect to nationals of foreign contiguous territories or adjacent islands or for residents of those territories or islands who have a common nationality with those nationals. INS regulations at 8 CFR § 212.1(a) implement this waiver authority for Canadian citizens, British subjects in Bermuda and certain aliens from other islands. In addition, the current regulations provide a waiver of the passport and visa requirements for residents of Canada or Bermuda who have a common nationality with citizens of Canada or with British subjects in Bermuda. This latter waiver includes citizens of British Commonwealth countries as well as citizens of Ireland. Nationals of 54 countries who reside in Canada or Bermuda currently benefit from this waiver.
 
The preamble to the INS rule notes that residents of Canada or Bermuda who are nationals of a designated Visa Waiver country listed in INA § 217.2(a), who present a valid passport issued by that country, may continue to be admitted without a visa if they are entering the United States for less than 90 days for business or pleasure.
 
The INS interim rule contains a useful chart setting forth the current and new documentary requirements for individuals affected by the rule. In addition, the U.S. Embassy in Canada recently published an announcement on its website that details how the embassy will handle visa applications for Canadian landed immigrants wishing to enter the United States. (To view the INS rule See AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 03020443. To view the announcement from the U.S. Embassy in Canada, see AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 03022041).

With the 108th Congress up and running, lawmakers from both parties recently have introduced a variety of immigration-related bills. AILA will report further on these bills as they move through the legislative process. The following briefly describes, in reverse chronological order and by chamber, these recently introduced bills.

House Legislation

H.R. 775, introduced on February 13 by Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), would amend the INA to eliminate the diversity immigrant program.

H.R. 723, introduced by Representative Randy Cunningham (R-CA) on February 12, would exempt the spouses and children of Philippine servicemen in the United States Navy from bars to admission and relief under the INA.

H.R. 687, the Identification Integrity Act of 2003, introduced on February 11 by Representative Elton Gallegly (R-CA), would prohibit the federal government from accepting any form of identification issued by a foreign government with the exception of a passport.

H.R. 609, the Terrorist Victim Citizenship Relief Act of 2003, introduced by Representative Frank Pallone (D-NJ) on February 5, would accord honorary citizenship to the alien victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and would provide for the granting of permanent resident status to the alien spouses and children of certain victims of the attacks.

H.R. 604, the Worker Amnesty and Opportunity Act of 2003, introduced by Representative Major Owens (D-NY) on February 5, would amend the INA to provide for legal permanent resident status for certain undocumented or nonimmigrant aliens.

H.R. 603, also introduced by Representative Owens on February 5, would provide for the adjustment to permanent resident status for certain aliens granted temporary protected status (TPS) in the United States due to conditions in Montserrat. Montserrat was first designated under the TPS program on August 28, 1997, after a severe volcanic eruption destroyed much of the West Indian island’s infrastructure.

H.R. 539, introduced by Representative Robert Andrews (D-NJ) on February 5, would provide for the admission to the United States for permanent residence without numerical limitation of spouses of permanent resident aliens.

H.R. 502, introduced on January 29 by Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO), would prohibit the federal government from accepting any foreign identification document, including passports, for use in connection with the provision of federal benefits or services.

H.R. 488, the Terror Immigration Elimination Act of 2003, introduced by Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) on January 29, would limit the issuance of student and diversity immigrant visas to aliens who are nationals of Saudi Arabia, or of countries that support terrorism, or countries not cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism efforts.

H.R. 440, the Unity, Security, Accountability, and Family Act (USA Family Act), introduced by Representative Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) on January 29, would: (1) provide legal permanent residence to immigrants who have been living in the United States for five years or more; (2) grant conditional legal status and work authorization to all law-abiding immigrants living in the United States for less than five years; (3) repeal the three- and 10-year bars to admissibility and the provisions that render aliens removable from the United States for having committed certain minor nonviolent offenses; and (4) create an improved system of accountability that allows critical resources and manpower to be redirected to fight the war on terror.

H.R. 184, the Fairness to Immigrant Veterans Act of 2003, introduced on January 7 by Representative José Serrano (D-NY), would amend the INA to ensure that veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces are eligible for discretionary relief from detention, deportation, exclusion, and removal. To be eligible for the relief provided under this measure, the alien must have been honorably discharged (and not discharged on account of alienage), or must be on active duty other than active duty for training purposes.

H.R. 152, the Immigration Adjustment Act of 2003, introduced on January 7 by Representative Ed Pastor (D-AZ), would provide for the adjustment of status of certain aliens with longstanding ties to the United States. To be eligible, aliens would have to establish that they entered the United States before January 1, 2001, and have resided continuously here immediately preceding the five-year period ending on the date on which they become eligible for adjustment under the bill.

H.R. 137, the Rural America Job Assistance and Creation Act, introduced by Representative John McHugh on January 7, would provide job creation and assistance. While not an immigration bill, § 6 of H.R. 137 would amend INA § 212(n)(1) to require prospective employers of H–1B aliens to submit the labor condition application at the same time they file the I–129 petition for classification as an H–1B nonimmigrant.

Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) introduced a series of bills on January 7, many of which are similar to bills she introduced in the 107th Congress. They include:

• H.R. 88, the Father’s Equity Act, would modify the requirements for a child born abroad and out of wedlock to acquire citizenship based on the citizenship of the child’s father.
• H.R. 87, the Rural and Urban Health Care Act of 2003, would modify the requirements applicable to the admission into the United States of H-1C nonimmigrant registered nurses, while
• H.R. 86, the Traffic Stops Along the Border Statistics Study Act of 2003, would provide for the nationwide collection of data on traffic stops by law enforcement personnel, including the number of stops conducted within 25 miles of the U.S. border with Mexico compared with the number of stops conducted within 25 miles of the U.S. border with Canada.
• H.R. 85 would expand the class of beneficiaries who may apply for adjustment of status under INA § 245(i) by extending the deadline for classification petition and labor certification filings from April 30, 2001, to April 30, 2002.
• H.R. 84, the Preserving Educational Opportunities for Immigrant Children Act of 2003,would assist aliens who were brought to the United States as children to continue their education and otherwise integrate into American society. Specifically, the bill would: (1) provide for the cancellation of removal and adjustment of status of certain alien children; (2) restore to states the flexibility to provide in-state tuition for college-age alien children; and (3) render certain alien children eligible for public benefits.
• H.R. 83, the Date of Registry and Legal Amnesty Restoration Act of 2003, would update the statutory eligibility date for the registry program of INA § 249 from January 1, 1972, to January 1, 1986. Aliens who have lived continuously in the United States since 1986 and are able to demonstrate good moral character can apply for permanent resident status. H.R. 82 also would put in place a rolling registry system that would automatically update the statutory eligibility date for registry each year, beginning in 2004 and ending in 2008.
• H.R. 82, the Increase in Numerical Limitation for Asylees Adjustment Act of 2003, would amend INA § 209(b) to increase from 10,000 to 25,000 the number of asylees who may adjust their status to that of a lawful permanent resident in any given year.

Senate Legislation

S. 215, the Guaranteeing a United and Resolute Defense (GUARD) Act of 2003, introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) on January 23, would authorize funding assistance for the states for the discharge of homeland security activities by the National Guard. While not an immigration bill, S. 215 does contain language to provide for the use of National Guard personnel and equipment to assist the Homeland Security Department’s Directorate of Immigration Affairs in the transport of noncitizens accused of violating a federal or state law prohibiting terrorist acts.

S. 205, the Iraqi Scientists Immigration Act of 2003, introduced on January 23 by Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE), would authorize the issuance of immigrant visas to, and the admission to the United States for permanent residence of, certain scientists, engineers, and technicians who have worked in the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved this measure on January 30.

S. 153, the Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act, introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) on January 14, includes several immigration-related provisions. Namely, the bill would provide penalties for any individual convicted of committing one of the following crimes while using the identity of another person: stealing another’s identity in order to obtain citizenship in the United States; stealing another’s identity to obtain a passport or visa; or using another’s identity to remain in the United States without authorization after a visa has expired or an individual has been ordered deported. The Senate Judiciary Committee also approved this bill on January 30.

S. 145, the North Korea Democracy Act of 2003, introduced on January 13 by Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), would, among other provisions, authorize asylum for North Korean refugees.

S. 100, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act, introduced by Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) on January 7, would give states the option of covering legal immigrants under the Medicaid and SCHIP programs, similar to S. 10 discussed below.

S. 22, the Justice Enhancement and Domestic Security Act of 2003, introduced on January 7 by Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD), is a massive domestic security measure that contains provisions that would: authorize funds for additional immigration personnel and technology; provide statutory authority for the President to use military tribunals to try suspected terrorists in certain circumstances; and close existing loopholes in the U.S. immigration system that have allowed war criminals and human rights abusers to enter and remain in this country.

S. 10, the Health Care Coverage Expansion and Quality Improvement Act of 2003, also introduced by Senator Daschle on January 7, contains a provision at § 504 that provides for the optional coverage of legal immigrants under the Medicaid Program and Title XXI.

S. 8, the Educational Excellence for All Learners Act of 2003, also introduced by Senator Daschle on January 7, contains an immigration-related provision tucked into its Title III, Subtitle D. Specifically, § 341 of the bill would restore to the states the option to determine residency for purposes of higher education benefits, while § 342 would provide for the cancellation of removal and adjustment of status of certain alien high school graduates who are long-term residents of the United States.

Indu Liladhar-Hathi (Santa Clara) was quoted in an immigration Q&A in the February 19 edition of the San Jose Mercury News. The Los Angeles Times quoted Crystal Williams (National) in a February 18 story on how border restrictions negatively impact trade. On February 17, Harvey Kaplan (New England) was quoted in a Boston Globe story on how immigrants’ fear of deportation prevents them from seeking much-needed medical treatment. Sohail Mohammed (New Jersey) and Melinda Basaran (New Jersey) were quoted February 17 in The Record (Bergen County, NJ) on special registration.
 
The News and Observer (Raleigh, NC) quoted Ann Robertson (Carolinas) in a February 16 story on special registration. Mark Koestler (New York) and Cyrus Mehta (New York) were quoted in an immigration Q&A in the February 16 edition of Newsday. On February 14, Richard Gump (Texas) appeared on PBS’s “The Record” to discuss special registration. Blake Chisam (Atlanta) was quoted in a February 15 Atlanta Journal-Constitution article on deportation procedures. The National Journal quoted Michael Maggio (Washington, D.C.) in a February 15 story on special registration.
 
Judy Golub (National) was quoted in a February 15 Associated Press article on the restoration of the surcharge to cover asylum and refugee applications and fee waivers. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution quoted Linda French (Atlanta) in a February 14 story on her clients, Mexican nationals who overstayed their visas. On February 14, The Broward Daily Business Review, Palm Beach Daily Business Review, and Miami Daily Business Review quoted Jeanne Butterfield (National) in a story about the increase in the Justice Department’s litigation budget, including increased funding to handle immigration-related appeals. The Chicago Tribune quoted Judy Golub (National) in a February 14 story on INS fees. Judy Golub (National) was quoted in a February 14 CQ Today article on special registration. 
 
Karen Pennington (Texas) was quoted in a February 13 Dallas Morning News article on same-sex immigration rights. The Charleston Gazette quoted Ira Kurzban (Southern Florida) in a February 12 article on the INS’s deportation of human rights violators. The Recorder and the Legal Times quoted Jeanne Butterfield (National) in a February 11 story on the increase in the Justice Department’s litigation budget, including increased funding to handle immigration-related appeals. Ira Kurzban (Southern Florida) was quoted in a February 11 article on circumstances surrounding the detention of Adham Hassoun.
 
Julia Stommes (Texas) was quoted in a February 10 (Ft. Worth) Star Telegram article on the H-1B visa program. On February 9, Manuel Vargas (New York) was quoted in a Newsday article on a campaign to promote immigrants’ due process rights. The Chicago Tribune quoted Crystal Williams (National) and Taher Kameli (Greater Chicago) in a February 8 article on the possible deportation of an eight-year-old girl with cerebral palsy and her family to their native Pakistan. 
 
Carl Shusterman (Southern California) was quoted in a February 7 article in the California State Health Care Association Newsletter on the subject of immigration reform and its effect on public health in rural areas. The Contra Costa Times quoted Shahpour Matloob (Northern California) in a February 7 article on special registration. Emilia C. Banuelos (Arizona) was quoted in a February 6 Associated Press article on a bill (HB 2316) introduced in the Arizona State Legislature that would prohibit the acceptance of the Mexican consular identification card. 
 
Benjamin Johnson (AILF) was quoted in a February 6 Christian Science Monitor article on special registration. The Courier-Journal (Louisville, Kentucky) quoted Ron Russell (Louisiana/Mid-South) in a February 6 article about a series of INS raids resulting in the arrest of more than 100 undocumented Hispanic immigrants. 
 
On February 5, Kelly McCown (Northern California) was quoted in an immigration Q&A in the San Jose Mercury News. The Tampa Tribune quoted Ellen Gorman (Central Florida) in a February 5 article on special registration. Carlos J. Nolla-Corretjer (Missouri/Kansas) was quoted in a Wichita Eagle February 5 article on special registration. 
 
On February 3, Anis Saleh (Southern Florida) and Cheryl Little (Southern Florida) were quoted in a Miami Herald article on special registration. Jacqueline Baronian (New York) and Mathew Wilch (Washington, D.C.) were quoted in the February 2 edition of Newsday’s immigration Q&A. On February 2, Cheryl Mason (Iowa/Nebraska) was quoted in an Iowa City Press-Citizen article on special registration. On February 1, Susan J. Cohen (New England) was quoted in the India New England News on homeland security issues.
 
On January 31, the Associated Press quoted Bob Donaldson (Oregon) in a story about a restaurant chain that used threats of deportation against its foreign workers to enforce the restaurant’s stringent non-competition agreement. Tammy Fox-Isicoff (Southern Florida) and Randolph McGrorty (Southern Florida) were quoted in a January 31 Miami Herald article on the Department of Homeland Security’s plan to take over 22 federal agencies, including the INS. 
 
Kathryn Terry (Southern California) and Angello Paparelli (Southern California) were quoted in a January 31 Orange County Register on the indictment of two INS workers for shredding visa applications. Bob Donaldson (Oregon), Steve Yale-Loehr (Upstate New York) and Baolin Chen (Oregon) were quoted in a January 30 Oregonian story on a restaurant’s harsh treatment of foreign workers who quit the restaurant to work for a competitor. 
 
Paul Ford (Atlanta) was quoted in a January 30 Atlanta Journal-Constitution article on special registration. On January 30, the Bradenton Herald quoted Michael Bander (Southern Florida) in a story on Venezuelan nationals here on tourist visas, who enrolled their kids in public school. 
 
Jeanne Butterfield (National) was quoted in a January 29 Atlanta Journal-Constitution article on the possible deportation of an Iranian national who reported for special registration. The Miami Herald quoted Ira Kurzban (Southern Florida) in a January 29 story on a suit he filed against the INS that argues that the I-551 passport stamp given to an individual approved for permanent residency pending receipt of the actual green card amounts to permanent residence that may not be summarily revoked.
 
Andre Pierre (Southern Florida) was featured in a January 27 Sun-Sentinel article on his involvement in a minority law student’s mentorship program. The Bellingham Herald quoted Greg Boos (Washington State) in a January 27 article on the impact of border security on trade.
 
Cynthia Lange (Southern California), Ronald Oye (Santa Clara) and Banafsheh Akhlaghi (Northern California) were quoted in the January 26 Contra Costa Times and January 25 San Jose Mercury News in articles on their clients, men who registered late under the INS’s special registration program. Patrick Young (New York) was quoted in a January 25 Newsday article on the suspension of funding to asylum seekers. La Prensa (San Diego) quoted Judy Golub (National) in a January 22 article on suspending funding for asylum seekers.
 
Lucy Fong (Northern California) was quoted in a January 22 Mercury News article on immigration consultants and “notarios.” Judy Golub (National) was quoted in a January 22 Associated Press article on the lack of funding to process asylum claims. The Daily Press quoted Debra Dowd (Washington, D.C.) in a January 22 article on the undocumented Mexican population in the United States. On January 21, the CA Argus and the San Jose Mercury News quoted Randall Caudle (Northern California) on special registration. 
 
The Bakersfield Californian quoted Carl Shusterman (Southern California) in a January 18 article on the recent announcement by the Department of Health and Human Services that it will serve as an interested government agency with respect to J-1 home residency requirement waivers for physicians. On January 17, William Vela (Northern California) appeared on KPFA’s “Flash Point” to discuss special registration.
 
Susan B. Henner (New York) was interviewed on January 16 on WVOX radio in “The White Plains Watch” about helping an ill client obtain a visa for his kidney donor. Glorily A. Lopez (Wisconsin) appeared January 10 on WISC-TV Channel 3 to discuss special registration. Priscilla Labovitz (Washington, D.C.) had an Op-Ed published in The Journal (Northern Virginia) on December 23 concerning a directive by the Attorney General of Virginia that would prevent undocumented high school graduates from enrolling in the state’s public colleges and would turn students without visas over to the INS. Aileen Josephs (Southern Florida) had an Op-Ed published in the Sun-Sentinel in November 2002 concerning a Maya child that is being charged with first-degree murder.
 
Note: Please submit all articles, letters-to-the-editor, etc. for inclusion in “Members in the News” to Judy Golub of the AILA Advocacy Department (jgolub@aila.org).

Immigration to the United States began to swell in the 1980s. By the 1990s, it contributed a larger share of the growth in the nation’s labor force than at any other time since the end of World War II. Much of it came from Latin America and Asia.

By the late 1990s, Hispanics and Asians were starting businesses at four times the rate of the general population

--Dallas Morning News, February 11, 2003


CONTRIBUTORS

Judith Golub, Senior Director of Advocacy and Public Affairs
Marshall Fitz, Associate Director of Advocacy
Danielle Polen, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Associate
Joanna Carson, Business Immigration Associate
John Estrella, Advocacy Associate
Kris Benjamin, Legislative Assistant

American Immigration Lawyers Association
918 F Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
202-216-2403

ImmigrationLinks.com is a trademark of
ImmigrationLinks.com, Inc.
All other products mentioned are registered trademarks
or trademarks of their respective companies.
Questions or problems regarding this web site should be directed to
info@immigrationlinks.com
Copyright (C) 2000-2005 ImmigrationLinks.com, Inc. All rights reserved.
Legal Information
Last modified: