Lobby Congress on Pending Immigration Issues!
Posted Sep 16, 2000

As mentioned in the August 25, 2000 edition of the MurthyBulletin article entitled Final Push to Pass Important Legislation this Congressional Session, the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) has designated this week, September 11 – 15, 2000, as "Call-In Week" to lobby Congress, the White House, and the presidential campaign committees on important pending immigration issues. We highlight below some key bills pending in the U.S. Congress and the issues outlined in these bills that need your support. Continued support is needed, from now right up through October and beyond.

Restoring Justice and Fairness to the Immigration Laws

As we have described before, the overly harsh legislation passed in 1996, including the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA) deprives many long-term residents of their basic rights. People who have lived most of their lives in the U.S. with their U.S. citizen family members and who were convicted long ago of the most minor crimes are now facing deportation. Before these laws were passed in 1996, a permanent resident convicted of a crime could ask an Immigration Judge to consider such factors as his/her length of time in the U.S., contributions to the community, family and work ties, military service, and evidence of rehabilitation. In deserving cases, judges were able to give a second chance and stop the deportation. Such relief was fairly difficult to obtain even before 1996, but at least a person had the opportunity to present his or her case to a judge for consideration. Now the law is so restricted that almost no one is able to even apply.

The rules were also changed in mid-stream and the law was applied retroactively. There are constitutional concerns about the retroactivity of the law. Many offenses that were not grounds for deportation at the time they were committed now are. People who paid their debt to society long ago by serving the sentence or paying the fine are now being taken back into custody and put into removal proceedings so that they and their families are being punished all over again.

People affected by these harsh laws include many who were here since they were children. They may not know anyone in their native country or even speak the language. They have family members who are permanent residents and U.S. citizens. This is not simply a mechanism to deport people who pose a danger to our society : the current laws are too broad and affect many harmless people.

Key bills to support on this issue are :

H.R. 5062, introduced by Representative Bill McCollum (R-FL) is a good start. This bill is not a comprehensive solution to the problem, but does include a repeal of some of the harshest provisions of the 1996 laws.

Rep. McCollum was originally one of the strongest proponents of the 1996 laws and is Chair of the House Subcommittee on Crime. Now even he feels that IIRAIRA "went too far."

H.R. 4966, The Restoration of Fairness in Immigration Act, introduced by Representative John Conyers (D-MI), includes provisions to reform IIRAIRA, as well as restoring Section 245(i) (see below), updating the "registry" date, and providing help to immigrant victims of domestic abuse.

H.R. 1485, introduced by Representatives Barney Frank (D-MA), Martin Frost (D-TX) and Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), restores the ability of long-term permanent residents to plead their cases for a second chance.

H.R. 3272, introduced by Representative Bob Filner (D-CA), would directly repeal certain provisions of the 1996 laws that expanded the range of deportable offenses and restricted the ability to seek relief. The bill would also restore the ability to appeal a case to a federal court.

Restoration of Section 245(i) 

This section of the immigration law enabled persons to file for the adjustment of status (i.e. Form I-485, the final stage of the Green Card process) in the U.S., despite problems with their immigration status. A person who reaches the final stage of Green Card processing and turns out to be ineligible for adjustment is now required to “consular process” for his or her permanent residency by undergoing an interview at a U.S. consulate abroad. For persons with status problems, consular processing has significant risks imposed by the 1996 immigration law, mainly the prospect of being barred for three or ten years from re-entering the United States.

It is important to keep in mind that Section 245(i) does not give a person the permission to remain in the U.S. in expired status; however, for those who have not been apprehended by INS in the meantime, 245(i) provides the opportunity, at the time of filing for adjustment of status, to apply a retroactive remedy for the out-of-status problem. Also, it is not an amnesty; it just allows the final paperwork for the normal Green Card procedure to be submitted within the U.S. instead of abroad. Restoration of Section 245(i) relief makes sense because requiring a person to go abroad only resulted in the airlines and travel agencies making money and deprived the INS of much-needed revenue for the processing of cases.

Section 245(i) has expired, but a "grandfather clause" continues 245(i) benefits for those out-of-status persons who had employment or family-based petitions or labor certifications filed on or before January 14, 1998. Even if the case under which the person ultimately obtains the Green Card involves a completely different petition from the one that was filed earlier, the applicant can still benefit from that earlier filing. Restoration of 245(i) would remove that time limitation, enabling people who began their cases later to still qualify for 245(i) and complete their Green Card process from within the U.S.

In summary, restoration of 245(i) makes sense because :

• it applies only to people who have already gone though the employer- or family-sponsored process to qualify for the Green Card;

• it keeps families together and enables businesses to retain key employees;

• at no cost to taxpayers, it generates much-needed revenues to reduce INS backlogs.