ADVOCACY UPDATE  
Vol. 4, No. 1, February 2, 2000

Where Do We Go From Here?

As the second session of the 106^th Congress swings into action, a number of factors will determine whether pro-immigration advocates succeed in pushing our legislative agenda. Specifically, where we go from here depends on how we take advantage of the following:

1.  The Second Session of the 106^th Congress: It remains to be seen if each of the parties believe that overcoming partisan bickering by producing legislative results would be in each of their best interests.  In addition, demanding campaign schedules and a shortened legislative calendar dim the prospects of any major initiatives being passed.  However, immigration issues often move in such conditions, and we need to advocate to ensure that Congress deals positively with our top priority issues.

2.  The November Elections:  These will overshadow most congressional activities.  A lot is at stake, including the Presidency, control of the House of Representatives, and whether the Democrats can narrow or eliminate the current Republican majority in the Senate.  Other issues also will be decided by the 2000 elections. For example: will Representative Lamar Smith remain the Republican voice on immigration? Aside from the national campaigns, individual races also will affect this session of Congress and future Congresses. For instance, how will the Michigan race between incumbent Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI) and Representative Deborah Stabinow (D-MI) affect pro-immigration legislation? And what will the Senate Immigration Subcommittee look like if Senator Abraham or the Republicans lose? Will the Senate bid by Represenative Bill McCollum (R-FL) determine how far he is willing to go to address the harsh consequences of IIRAIRA?  How will leading restrictionists act this session of Congress, and how will they fair in the upcoming elections?  Will some find themselves out of office due to changing district and state demographics, like Represenative Robert Dornan (R-CA) did? 

What about the Presidential candidates’ positions on immigration? According to their responses on a recent survey, all candidates, except for Pat Buchanan, appear to support legal immigration.  (Gary Bauer calls for modifying the system to “better serve the needs of employers.”) However, they have yet to state their positions on reforming the 1996 immigration laws, restoration of Section 245(i),  providing equity of relief for Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Haitians and Hondurans – and other equally pressing issues that do not fit nicely into the “legal immigration” box.  (With regard to H-1B visas, Bush, McCain, and Forbes all support an increase.  Both Bradley and Gore have not addressed the issue, although as Vice President, Gore opposed last year’s increase.)  Finally, playing on every politician’s mind are the results of the 1996 elections. Republican defeats in California and victories in Florida and Texas and the Clinton win in Florida make the case convincingly about the importance of the immigrant vote.  It is our job to remind candidates and the parties about the power of this vote.

AILA, along with our coalition partners, will be sending out a questionnaire to candidates to probe their positions on a wide range of issues. We also will be producing a voters guide to help educate the pro-immigration community.

3.  The Role of Lamar Smith: If past sessions are a guide, Representative Smith will be busy as his restrictionist views lead him to (among other efforts) oppose many of our major initiatives, including reforming the 1996 laws, raising the H-1B cap, restoring Section 245(i), repealing Section 110, and providing equity of relief.  Immigration advocates will be pressing the Republican Party to demonstrate who speaks for the Republican Party on immigration: George W. Bush, John McCain or Lamar Smith.  If Representative Smith remains the spokesperson or if his views continue to dominate the Party, their surveys and ad spots that target Hispanic voters will not achieve the desired results of drawing Hispanics in to the Republican Party.  However,  Democrats cannot just assume immigrant support, with the current Administration expanding expedited removal and the Attorney General in Soriano determining that the 1996 AEDPA law applies retroactively.  Immigration advocates want both political parties to know that the coming legislative session will be the proving ground for each. The parties need to realize that immigrants and their allies are sophisticated voters and vote their interests. 

4.  Demographics and Population:  No longer are immigrants concentrated only in a selected number of states -- California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois.  Immigrants now reside in many districts nationwide, a fact which poses challenges (for instance, providing networks outside of the traditional areas) but also opportunities.  More than ever, immigrants are being viewed as this election’s “soccer moms.”  They will be the deciding votes in more elections nationwide, with state, local and national leaders who come from immigrant communities helping to set local agendas.  An equally important trend involves future population projections.  A recent Census Bureau report predicts that immigrants will become a majority in Texas within the next 14 years; five states will have a majority of non-White residents by 2025; and in the next 50 years, Latinos are expected to make up almost one quarter of the U.S. population.

5.  Economic Trends:  Our booming economy and its changing nature provide both opportunities and challenges for immigration advocates. A major opportunity springs from the Federal Reserve Board’s views on widespread labor shortages, and Alan Greenspan’s repeated remarks that relaxing U.S. immigration laws is necessary to maintain and expand our current strong economy.  However, this economy is not benefiting everyone and some predict a downturn, possibly raising the charge that immigrants displace American workers, and temporary immigration programs lead to indentured servitude. We specifically need to continue making the case that immigration strengthens our economy and benefits Americans. Generally, we must accept the challenge of presenting the opportunities globalization brings and frankly acknowledging and dealing with the fears generated by this unknown new world neighborhood.  We need to address the concerns globalization raises, including workers’ rights and equitable development, issues that were highlighted by the opposition during the Seattle WPO meeting.  Global corporate community leaders as well as labor leaders are being called on to change in response to new challenges.  Pro-immigration advocates need to understand these challenges and participate in the ensuing debates.

We need, as well, to be prepared to deal with the next recession, whenever that happens, and make sure that immigrants are not scapegoated and that immigration is not viewed as the source of the downturn, when, in fact, it will contribute to an upswing. We also must be ready to broaden our coalition and welcome new players such as service-sector employers (hotels, construction, restaurants, etc.) who are turning to immigration and immigrants because of severe labor shortages.  We also must be alert to changes in the labor movement.  The AFL-CIO currently is re-evaluating its positions on legalization and employer sanctions, given that parts of the labor movement view their opposition to the former and support for the later hampering their organizing efforts.

6.  Grassroots Advocacy:  All of the above factors point to the increasingly important role of grassroots advocacy.  It is incumbent that we increase our efforts in this area. Our opposition understands the importance of such advocacy and has been subsidizing  local immigration control groups nationwide.  Having failed through direct attacks to decrease the number of legal immigrants annually entering the country, restrictionists’  now attack immigration and immigrants seeking to connect both to society ills:  population sprawl and inadequate education, strained local social services,  and increased prison populations.   Immigration advocates need to redouble our grassroots advocacy efforts to create and deepen support in communities nationwide.  Such work is essential as well to our Washington advocacy efforts because the adage that “all politics are local” is fundamentally true.

7.  Media Advocacy:  Much of the public views about immigration are delivered by our nation’s media. Which  largely set the cognitive and emotional terms of the debate on specific immigration issues and immigration generally.  Both the general public and elected officials view our issues through the lens the media constructs. We need to work with print and broadcast media so that both immigrants and immigration are positively portrayed. (The power of specific case examples is helping us to make our case effectively in the media, especially dramatizing the harsh impacts of the 1996 immigration laws.) While a good “spin” helps to move an issue positively, the opposite also is true.  Our opposition knows this is true, and has put a lot of resources into their media advocacy.  The Federation for American Immigration Reform (misnamed FAIR) has begun a major media campaign, linking immigration, as noted above,  to most social ills, and has placed paid advertisements in major national publications (Fortune Magazine, etc).  One of their latest efforts backfired.  Attempting to insert their restrictionist message into the recent Iowa Caucus, their efforts generated calls to apologize from the Mayor of the small Iowa town targeted, Storm Lake,  and the Governor of the State.  While we are gratified by their missteps, we need to become more proactive with the media.  Thus our recent campaigns in which we encourage your involvement.  Please get involved!

8.  Turn of the Millennium:  Advocates need to take advantage of people’s tendency to use the dawn of a new century to step back and think in broader terms.  We need to send out the message at the national and local levels, though media, grassroots, and congressional advocacy, that immigration has been and will continue to be good for America.

AILA will continue advocacy efforts in support of the issues reviewed below and other targeted issues. But we need your help to succeed. Help us help you to help your clients and create better immigration law.  Let us take advantage of opportunities afforded by our excellent economy and the upcoming elections, work with our immigration allies in communities nationwide, and intensify our grassroots and media advocacy work. The media and elected officials need to hear from you.  Tell them your stories. Talk with people in your communities, and help them become advocates who contact Congress and the media.  Be a resource, articulating the way these issues are important to you and your communities. Our advocacy is essential for positive change to occur. 

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

All of the above factors will be central in our work next session on the following issues:

Reform the Harsh 1996 laws: These laws violate fundamental principles of law, justice and fairness. They deny people their day in court because immigrants are deported with no appeals, and courts cannot review INS decisions. The laws deny people a second chance by deporting them for minor offenses for which they have already paid. The laws change the rules mid-game by being retroactive. As a result, offenses that weren’t grounds for deportation now are. The laws tear families apart. Many people being deported have been in the U.S. since they were small children. Many have married American citizens and their children are citizens. Finally, the laws hit the wrong targets. They were meant to target criminals and terrorists, but law-abiding workers are being deported.   

AILA strongly supports H.R.1485, sponsored by Representatives Barney Frank (D-MA) and Martin Frost (D-TX).  The bill has 73 co-sponsors, and we urge AILA members to help generate more co-sponsors.  The Frank-Frost bill is an over-due first step, restoring common-sense, proportionality and a sense of fairness to our immigration laws.  It would provide Immigration Judges with discretion, available to them prior to 1996 to cancel deportation or waive a ground of deportability in the case of long-term legal residents.  It would restore traditional forms of relief available to immigrants, a critical element for those immigrants who had relied on the pre-1996 standards.  In large part, the proposed legislation mirrors legislation originally passed by the Senate and House in 1996 before drastic changes were made in a hasty, closed partisan conference.  AILA encourages its members to write to their Members of Congress and urge them to support H.R.1485.

Representative McCollum, head of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and a strong supporter of IIRAIRA in 1996, introduced an IIRAIRA bill, H.R. 2999.  He apparently has changed some of his views about the law since 1996, on the floor of the House admitted that the legislation has gone to far.  However, his bill, H.R. 2999, provides extremely limited relief, AILA is working with his staff to help improve the bill.  We eagerly await the introduction of IIRAIRA reform bills to be introduced in the Senate by Senators Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Bob Graham (D-FL) and in the House by Representative John Conyers (D-MI).  AILA applauds the leadership of these members of Congress, and will continue to advocate for comprehensive immigration reform. 

The media has been instrumental in helping us make the case that the law needs to be changed, with major stories in the national and local presses and CNN, Dateline, and Sixty Minutes producing stories for broadcast.  We continue to need examples of the harsh consequences of the 1996 laws, and urge you to contact AILA’s Advocacy Staff with your case examples that humanize and bring home the consequences of these harsh laws.

Restoration of Section 245(i): Section 245(i) was a vital provision of the law that allowed eligible immigrants on the brink of becoming permanent residents to apply for their green cards in the U.S., rather than return to their home countries to apply.  Congress allowed this provision to expire, grandfathering people who were eligible for permanent residence status under Section 245(i), and who had filed preliminary paperwork with INS and/or the Department of Labor before January 14, 1998.  Without Section 245(i), people who have to leave the country can be barred from returning to the U.S. for three to ten years. The issue is not whether Section 245(i) individuals are eligible to become permanent residents, but rather from where they could apply.  AILA strongly supports H.R. 1841, which would restore Section 245(i), and urges AILA members to help garner more co-sponsors and send examples to the AILA Advocacy Staff of people who need this provision of the law restored.  

H-1B Relief:  Climbing on the H-1B bandwagon, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and former Republican Presidential Candidate, and Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI), Chairman of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee,  will shortly  introduce a bill to increase the number of H-1B visas in FY2002.  Although the details of their plan are not yet known, both offices say they hope to move the legislation quickly through their committees and to the Senate floor for a vote early in the session.  Such a move would put pressure on House leaders to move legislation as well.

Staffers for Senators Hatch and Abraham have been in consultation with the office of Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX), the first Member of the Senate to introduce H-1B legislation last summer.  Senator Gramm’s bill, S. 1440, which Senator Abraham co-sponsored, would increase the H-1B cap to 200,000 for the next two fiscal years and would exempt from the cap individuals who held advanced degrees and earned $60,000 and individuals employed at higher educational institutions, included the House companion to S.1440, H.R.2698 introduced by Representative David Drier (R-CA).  Representative Drier currently is in consultation with key House members about changes that could move his bill forward. 

Meanwhile, presidential hopeful Senator John McCain (R-AZ) is planning to hold hearings in the Commerce Committee on his bill, S.1804.  Although the bill is focused primarily on education and training opportunities in high-tech, the bill also would suspend the H-1B cap through FY2006. 

House and the Senate Democrats continue to state that their primary concern is increasing education and training opportunities for U.S. workers, particularly in the booming high-tech fields.  It remains unclear whether an H-1B increase would be the vehicle for new education and training programs, beyond the $500 fee instituted by the 1998 H-1B bill, the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act (ACWIA).  Other current discussions involve merging into an H-1B bill ideas from the “T” visa bills proposed in the House by Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and in the Senate by Senator Charles Robb (D-VA).  These bills would create a new nonimmigrant category for graduates of U.S. colleges and universities in science and technology fields.

Both House and Senate leadership have indicated that the H-1B cap is an important issue for this legislative session.  While it is unclear how the issue will move forward, business immigration advocates should continue to urge Congress to move as soon as possible with legislation positively addressing this issue.

AILA believes that the H-1B cap is a cap on U.S. economic expansion.  Given the shortage of skilled professionals, which Alan Greenspan has commented on numerous times, we view H-1B visas as part of the solution.  AILA Advocacy staff urges members to contact us with profiles of H-1B employees that we can send to Congress and the media. We also need information about companies’ education and training programs.  This material is a vital component in our current campaign, and we urge you to respond.

INS Reorganization and Adequate Funding: Everyone who deals with the INS thinks the agency does not operate well. We all want change so that backlogs in adjustments and naturalization are eliminated, and immigration laws are applied consistently and professionally. Any reorganization plan must provide for a single person in charge with clout that sets and supervises national immigration policy; separation, but coordination, of enforcement and adjudications; and adequate funding for adjudications that includes direct appropriated funds to supplement user fees.  Right now, adjudications are funded through user fees. However, Congress, during the past two fiscal years, has diverted about $300 million of user fees to other projects. (For example, part of the fees people pay to be naturalized is used for unrelated purposes). This multi-million-dollar diversion is one reason the INS has huge backlogs.  AILA supports S.1563, introduced by Senators Abraham and Kennedy, and H.R.2680, introduced by Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX). We strongly oppose H.R.2528, introduced by Representatives Smith, Hal Rogers (R-KY), and Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) because it provides for neither a person in charge to be accountable for immigration policy, coordination between the adjudications and enforcement functions, nor an adequate funding mechanism.  This would further weaken adjudications and make enforcement even less effective. 

Equity of Relief for Central Americans: Recent changes in U.S. immigration law provided substantial relief from deportation for people from certain countries, but left others out in the cold.  U.S. immigration law should provide fair and equitable relief for people from all countries without favoring certain foreign nationals, whose political and economic situations aren’t that different from that of their neighbors.  AILA strongly supports H.R.2722, H.R.36 and other legislation and regulations that would provide for just and equitable relief for immigrants from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Haiti.  

House and Senate Hearings on Canadian Border Security

Notwithstanding a January blizzard that closed down most of Washington, DC, including the Federal Government, Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX), Chairman of the House Immigration Subcommittee, held a January 26^th hearing titled “Terrorist Threats to the U.S.”  Intended to focus on security issues on the Northern Border following the December arrest of suspected Algerian Terrorist Ahmad Ressam in Washington State, the hearing was colloquially referred to by one attendee as “Bash Canada Day.”

Witnesses included Canadian security officials and various self-described terrorism experts and private security consultants.  Some witnesses testified that lax Canadian immigration laws and internal security allow the country to harbor terrorist organizations that pose a threat to the United States.  Most witnesses emphasized that the U.S. needs to address this issue by closely cooperating  with Canadian law enforcement and security officials.  One witness recommended the creation of a Binational Commission on North American Security to develop joint responses to the enemies that threaten both free nations. 

Because neither the INS, Customs Service, nor any U.S. law enforcement agency testified, there was little information about the U.S. response to any real or perceived threat from Canada.  Although in his opening statement Chairman Smith commented that an entry-exit control system would be a deterrent against terrorism, and a few witnesses agreed, at least one witness dismissed this idea.  He stated that there is no evidence that a system such as Section 110 would have any substantial impact on the ability of terrorists to gain entry to this country.  Representative Smith declined to respond when questioned by a reporter after the hearing about whether he would push for faster implementation of Section 110.

Senator Spencer Abraham, Chairman Smith’s Senate counterpart, postponed a hearing on the same topic on the same day.  Scheduled to testify at that hearing were representatives from the Customs Service, the INS, border inspectors and border patrol agents. The  White House shortly will announce an increase in resources and personnel for the Northern Border, possibly in conjunction with the rescheduled Senate hearing.

Grassroots Update – “Project Grassroots”

The AILA Advocacy Department unveiled a new advocacy campaign Project Grassroots, in late December.  Staff has developed a suggested three-level toolbox for your advocacy efforts, so you can base your advocacy activities on your availability.  First, choose the issue(s) you would like to work on: H-1B visas, IIRAIRA reform, or restoration of Section 245(i).  Second, choose your level of participation: Promoter, Partner, or Activist.  The toolboxes offer a wide array of activities for you to undertake; feel free to chose activities from any level or undertake activities that are not noted.  To get involved please contact abrennan@aila.org or fax to 202-371-9449, attention Ann Brennan with:

·  Your Name

·  The issue(s) you would like to work on

·  Your level of participation

·  Address

·  Phone number

·  Email

There has been a steady interest in the project since it was launched.  The AILA Advocacy Department would like to thank all those who already have shown an interest in this project. It is not too late to get involved!  We initiated the project in December to get a jump on the congressional session.  Now that Congress is back in session it is even more important to increase our advocacy efforts.  Elected representatives listen to you, their constituents.  This project gives you and your clients a unique opportunity to influence the legislative process.  When you sign-up for Project Grassroots you also will receive up-to-date emails on the issues that matter to you.  We hope these tools will make your advocacy efforts more targeted and therefore more effective. 

As the congressional session progresses, we will continue to work on these issues and target others as needed.  The AILA Advocacy Department also will continue to develop tools to assist you in your advocacy efforts.

MEDIA UPDATE

Restrictionist Ads Flop

A strategy by the Federation for American Immigration Reform to galvanize anti-immigrant sentiment in Iowa has backfired. The Federation ran a series of television and print ads at the site of the nation’s first presidential caucus. The advertisements claimed immigrants had trashed the city of Storm Lake, and called on Iowa voters to demand that presidential candidates take a stand restricting immigration.

But the only thing the ads accomplished was to have national and local politicians and business leaders support immigration and denounce the Federation. For example, leading Republican presidential contender and Texas governor George W. Bush said the ads showed “the xenophobic, dark side of American politics.” Vice President Gore also blasted the ads. Tom Vilsack, Iowa’s governor, and Jon Krause, Storm Lake’s mayor, held a press conference blasting both the ads and the Federation, which included leading Iowa business men and women. The state’s largest newspaper also published an op-ed attacking the ads and the ideas behind them. Similarly, key citizens were quoted in the newspapers saying the venomous ads did not represent the true feelings of Iowans.

Immigration Around the Nation

Note: This section reports on stories mentioning AILA Members & Staff in the News that were aired or published since November 19, 1999.

Members & Staff in the News: Jeanne Butterfield and Socheat Chea appeared on a January 16 “CNN-Time” in a segment about a woman being deported for pulling someone’s hair. Jeanne Butterfield and Socheat Chea also were interviewed about the same case by NBC’s “Dateline,” which is expected to air the piece on February 1. The Miami Herald cited Ira Kurzban in a January 30 article about the Elian Gonzalez case.  The Columbus Dispatch ran an article about a Tamil teenager facing deportation in which Dennis Muchnicki was quoted. Julie London was quoted in a January 26 Los Angeles Times article about H-1B visas. Carl Schusterman was quoted by the San Francisco Examiner in a January 23 article about H-1B visas. Carlos Nolla’s campaign against Representative Tiahrt (R-KS) was the subject of a January 20 article in The Wichita Eagle. Tilman Hasche was quoted in a January 20 dispatch by The Associated Press about a teenager being deported because of his mother’s drug conviction. Cheryl Little was quoted in three articles focusing on the disparate treatment between Haitians and Cubans (The Washington Post, January 20; Miami Herald, January 14; and Sun-Sentinel, January 4). Jose Pertierra was quoted about the Elian Gonzalez case in a January 16 article published by the BBC OnLine. Ira Kurzban was quoted by the Philadelphia News-Inquirer in a January 12 article also about the Elian Gonzalez case. Roger Bernstein, one of the Miami Gonzalez family’s attorney was quoted in numerous articles on the same topic (Washington Post, January 12; The Washington Times, December 21; Miami Herald, December 18; Naples News, December 12; and Washington Times, December 10). The Boston Globe quoted Victor Maldonado in a January 20 article about Latinos in a Boston suburb. Kathy Goudy was cited by the Glenwood (CO) Post in a January 9 article about INS enforcement efforts in Colorado.

During December, Jose Pertierra was interviewed by “The Today Show,” “ABC World News Tonight,” National Public Radio, ABC News, News Hour With Jim Lehrer, and Fox News Channel discussing the case of Elian Gonzalez; also in December, Greg Boos was interviewed by the Canadian Broadcasting Company about Section 110. The Arizona Star quoted Lucas Guttentag on December 28 about a circuit court decision allowing some immigrants to appeal deportation orders. An article by Paul Parsons was published by Texas Lone Star Forum on Christmas Eve. Antoinette Belonogoff was quoted by the San Francisco Examiner in a December 22 article on a Salvadoran woman being deported under IIRAIRA. Regis Fernandez was quoted by The American Prospect in a December 20 article about the case of Hany Kiareldeen, a client who had been held for 18 months on secret evidence. The Associated Press quoted Margaret Catillaz in a December 26 article about a woman being deported for shoplifting. Dan Korenberg was quoted in a December 23 article in the Los Angeles Times about a detainee freed by a circuit court decision. The obituary of Antonio Martinez ran in The New York Times on December 23. Texas Lawyer ran a column by Steve Ladik on December 17. Mark Potter was quoted by The Associated Press in a December 14 article about a Chinese teenager freed from INS detention. The Bergen County Record cited Belkis Cervantes Muldoon in a December 13 article on H-1B visas. An article by William Dance on the subject of secret evidence was published in the December 13 issue of Detroit Legal News. Magda Montiel Davis was quoted by the Orange County Register on December 8 commenting on the case of Elian Gonzalez. Jeanne Butterfield, Judy Golub, Phillip Durst, and Jean Padberg were quoted by the San Antonio Star-Telegram in a December 5 article about INS backlogs. David Wenger was quoted in a December 1 article about a teenager deported under IIRAIRA in the Detroit Free Press.

Laura Reiff was profiled in the November 29 edition of The Washington Times. That same day, a William Dance article about IIRAIRA retroactivity was published in the Detroit Legal News. A letter to the editor from Regelio Quesada was published in the November 29 Los Angeles Times. Jeanne Butterfield was quoted by the San Diego Tribune in a November 27 article about INS reorganization. Daryl Buffenstein and his horse, Kate, were the subjects of a profile in the Atlanta Business Chronicle on November 26. Margaret Stock was quoted in a November 24 Anchorage Daily News article about a woman threatened with deportation under IIRAIRA.

IIRAIRA in the News

As the following recent articles demonstrate, the press is documenting the harsh consequences of IIRAIRA using case examples. This coverage is important because it puts a human face on the overly harsh law, thereby helping AILA’s advocacy efforts. We need to hear from you. Please either send us information about your clients hurt by IIRAIRA, or call the Advocacy Department at (202) 216-2400.

 “CNN-Time” ran a January 23 piece about a woman being deported due to a decade-old conviction for pulling another woman’s hair during a dispute in a bar (The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ran articles about the same case.  “Dateline,” an NBC news magazine is expected to air a piece about the case on February 1). A January 20 article in The Associated Press reported on the case of Jefferson Carranza, who faces removal after the INS began deportation proceedings against his mother for a 1995 drug conviction. Carranza’s mother is petitioning the INS to grant him a green card. The Birmingham News ran an article on January 20 about Juan Carlos Chan Tizol, a 14-year-old Guatemalan orphan, who was detained by the INS for more than a year. On January 19, the Naples Daily News reported on Arnel Belizaire, a Haitian immigrant, who is on a hunger strike protesting his yearlong detention for entering the U.S. illegally. The New York Times ran a January 16 article saying that the INS denies detainees basic rights. On January 15, the Des Moines Register reported on the plight of immigrants held in indefinite detention. The Birmingham News ran a January 9 article about indefinite detainees. On January 6, The Detroit News profiled John DeBruyn, who is being deported for a single drunk driving conviction. The San Francisco Examiner ran an article about Becir Gasi, a Bosnian immigrant whose pregnant wife is being deported for entering the U.S. without proper documents.

On December 28, 1999, the Arizona Daily Star reported on a 9^th Circuit decision allowing certain immigrants to challenge in court IIRAIRA’s applicability to some convictions. The Associated Press ran a December 26 dispatch about Maria Wigent, who is being deported for shoplifting $25 worth of merchandise (The Associated Press ran a December 14 dispatch on Ms. Wigent). On December 23, The Los Angeles Times ran an article about Hermogenes Canales, whose aggravated felony conviction was vacated by a local criminal court. In a front-page story, The New York Times ran a December 21 article noting numerous deportations based on prior criminal convictions. One day earlier, on December 20, The American Prospect reported on the case of Hany Kiareldeen, a Palestinian immigrant who the INS had held for 18 months based on secret evidence. Anthony Lewis, in his December 14 column in The New York Times, profiled Ana Flores, who is being deported for a domestic assault conviction stemming from her attempts to protect herself from an abusive husband. The Associated Press reported December 14 on a 15-year-old Chinese refugee who has been detained by the INS for 8 months (AP ran a similar story on the same teenager four days earlier).  On December 1, the El Paso Times ran an article about Crispin Salazar, a 64-year-old Mexican immigrant, who is being deported for drunk driving despite having lived in the U.S. for 46 years and now caring for his 71-year-old paralyzed wife.

The Anchorage Daily News reported November 23 on Hawa Said, a 20-year-old pregnant woman who the INS had held for 6 months pending her deportation for a drug conviction. On November 18, the New York Daily News carried an article outlining numerous cases of immigrants being deported for such offenses as misdemeanor drug possessions and making two free long-distance calls. On November 15, The Minneapolis Star-Tribune profiled Manuela Barraza-Omana, a former entrepreneur of the year, who is being deported for entering the U.S. illegally more than a decade ago.

AU – Vol.4, No. 1, February 2, 2000