The following is collected and archived by CND-US. If you have any questions regarding the following information/message, please contact the original sender(s) listed below. Thank You. China News Digest - US Regional Services (Bo Xiong) --------------- Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 03:30:10 -0500 Reply-To: acca-2@ACCAIC.ORG Sender: Newsletter on Chinese Community Comments: Originally-From: Miao Ye From: acca-2@ACCAIC.ORG Subject: National Committee on Immigration NewsRelease #9537 To: Multiple recipients of list CCNL Status: RO **************************************************************************** Association for Chinese Community Affairs(ACCA) Public Broadcasting System Made possible by generous support from http://www.superprism.net/ **************************************************************************** >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> National * Committee * on * Immigration <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< News Release #9537 Tuesday, December 5, 1995 ============================================================================ +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= The National Committee on Immigration is a coalition of Chinese Students, Scholars & Professionals who work against the anti-immigration bills +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= ============================================================================ SUMMARY OF THE "IMMIGRATION IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST ACT" [H.R. 2202] Prepared by National Immigration Forum ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I. LEGAL IMMIGRATION ................................................. 122 II. EMPLOYMENT RESTRICTIONS AND VERIFICATION .......................... 74 III. SUMMARY REMOVAL AND ASYLUM PROCEDURES ............................. 82 IV. RESTRICTIONS ON BENEFITS .......................................... 33 V. ENFORCEMENT MEASURES .............................................. 11 ============================================================================ OVERVIEW: On October 23, 1995, the House Judiciary Committee completed consideration of the "Immigration in the National Interest Act" (H.R. 2202), the most sweeping and restrictive immigration reform bill in 71 years. The chief issue of debate in the month-long mark-up of the bill is the bill's combined proposed reform of illegal immigration with major changes to legal immigration. From across the political spectrum, critics of H.R. 2202 agree on the need to curb illegal immigration, but charge that the bill's harsh treatment of legal immigrants and deserving refugees is misplaced, and will ultimately undermine the goal of reducing illegal immigration. Over 100 amendments were offered and, though several dozen were adopted by the Committee, the bill remains contentious. In the end, those concerned with preserving legal immigration and, in particular, the reunification of families, were afforded little relief. Calls to split the bill and advance a measure targeting only illegal immigration are likely to grow louder in the coming months. In sum, H.R. 2202's overhaul of legal immigration includes substantial reductions and restrictions on the ability of Americans to reunite with family members. Through a combination of decreases in family-based visas, and obstacles for citizens and legal residents seeking to bring in close family members, the bill guarantees that families will remain separated. The bill sets a cap on refugee admissions at less than one half of current levels, and imposes extraordinary burdens on those seeking asylum in this country. H.R. 2202's enforcement measures include the creation of a national database system for employers to verify the work eligibility of all potential employees. The proposed system would require that employers seek the federal government's permission before hiring new workers by calling in to receive confirmation of the workers' eligibility to work from a government database containing information on every American. The bill also places tough restrictions on immigrants' access to benefits, and compels hospital emergency rooms to investigate and report people suspected of being in the U.S. illegally. The summary below provides the highlights of H.R. 2202 as amended by the Judiciary Committee in the areas of legal immigration, employment restrictions and verification, asylum and summary removal procedures, and benefits eligibility. There are additional proposed changes in the bill which are not included in this summary of the bill's highlights. I. LEGAL IMMIGRATION Many of the amendments to H.R. 2202 during mark-up were to the legal immigration provisions of the bill. Though significant changes were adopted to the employment-based reforms (not discussed in this summary), and the diversity visa program was reinstated, the bulk of H.R. 2202's provisions targeting family-sponsored immigration and refugee admissions were left largely unaltered. Current U.S. policy on family-sponsored immigration is a highly regulated and controlled system that permits only close family relations to enter the country. U.S. citizens may only bring their spouse, minor and adult children, parents, and brothers and sisters. Lawful permanent residents may only bring their spouse, minor children, and unmarried adult children. H.R. 2202 eliminates, almost without exception, four categories of family relations from the list of people eligible to receive visas. It further imposes burdensome restrictions on immigrants seeking to bring even the closest of family members to the U.S. For example, U.S. citizens and legal residents will have to demonstrate an income at 200 percent of the poverty level before being permitted to reunite with any family membersincluding spouses and children. The family-and refugee-related provisions are explained below. Family-Sponsored Immigration Sharply Reduced Family-sponsored visas slashed by one third--H.R. 2202 would cap family-sponsored immigration at 335,000 visas per year. Currently, the cap is 465,000 for family-sponsored immigration. Majority of family immigration categories eliminated or eviscerated--H.R. 2202 would eliminate entirely visas for the brothers and sisters, and adult married children of U.S. citizens. The visa categories for the adult unmarried children of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents would also be effectively eliminated, with only two narrow exceptions allowedsone for children between the ages of 21 and 25 who have never previously married, who have no children, and who were claimed by their U.S. parents as dependents on their federal tax forms. However, this exception would accommodate few, if any, since U.S. tax law forbids taxpayers from claiming foreign residents as dependents unless they are residents of Mexico or Canada, and either earn less than $2,450 annually or are full-time students under the age of 24. This exception would be further limited by the imposition of a three year conditional residence requirement on the children who manage to qualify, such that no child would receive permanent residence unless he or she still met the above requirements after three years. The other limited exception, also limited by a host of restrictive requirements, is for the adult disabled children of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. Backlog visas for spouses and children of lawful permanent residents--H.R. 2202 would provide a minimum of 50,000 visas, in addition to those immigrant visas otherwise available, in each year from 1997 to 2001 for the spouses and minor children of legal residents with backlogged petitions. The exact number of backlog visas would be determined annually by a formula that calculates 20 percent of that portion of the remaining total backlog specifically attributable to the spouses and children of immigrants who became lawful permanent residents through the amnesty program of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), with the proviso that the number could not be less than 50,000. It is estimated that, on average, approximately 120,000 visas will be allocated each year. Parents removed from immediate relative category; face stiff new hurdles--Under H.R. 2202 the parents of U.S. citizens seeking to come to the U.S. would be subject to a numerical limit for the first time. After it became clear that, as introduced, H.R. 2202 would not leave any visas for parents within two years of passage, an amendment was offered setting a floor of 25,000 visas for them. In practice, however, the 25,000 minimum would also be a maximum because of the visa demand from US. citizen spouses and minor children who take priority. In addition, parents would only be admitted if their U.S. citizen petitioner could first prove that they already carried health insurance and long-term health care policies sufficient to cover any foreseeable health care need. The insurance requirement is beyond the reach of most, if not all, American families, and even the availability of such insurance policies is uncertain. Visas for spouses and children of permanent residents cut by 25 percent--Spouses and minor unmarried children of lawful permanent residents would have a floor of 85,000 visas set aside for them under H.R. 2202. This number would also effectively be a ceiling since the expected demand for visas by U.S. citizens for their spouses and children is expected to use up the remainder of the available visas. This level of 85,000 visas would represent a 25 percent reduction from current levels. Income requirements will separate families--H.R. 2202 would require that before any family member may enter the U.S. (including the spouse or child of a U.S. citizen) the immigrant's sponsor must have an annual income level equal to at least 200% of the poverty level. An amendment to the bill permits a co-sponsor to join the U.S. citizen or legal resident in assuming the financial responsibility for the immigrant as long as the co-sponsor's income meets the 200% requirement. Even with the option of securing a co-sponsor, this requirement is likely to shut the door on many families seeking to reunite. Today, according to data from the recent Current Population Survey of the U.S. Census, approximately 46 percent of the total U.S. population, representing over 118 million people, would fall below this 200 percent-of-poverty level requirement if they were to attempt to sponsor a family member. Cap On Annual Refugee Admissions Survives New cap slashes refugee admissions--H.R. 2202 would limit refugee admissions to 50,000 per year, a 55 percent reduction from recent annual admission levels. The major concern of critics with this proposal is that the cap could be exceeded only if Congress managed to pass a special law for that purpose, or if the President were to use emergency procedures which are particularly difficult to invoke. In addition, many argue that the cap not only limits America's flexibility to respond to emergencies, but also sends a negative message about a weakened U.S. commitment to human rights and refugee protection. Diversity Visa Program Restored Number of diversity visas decreased, and selection criteria added--The diversity visa program permits applicants from countries with low levels of immigration to immigrate to the U.S. As introduced, H.R. 2202 would have eliminated the diversity visa program. The Judiciary Committee, however, reinstated the program, though with a decrease to 27,000 visas per year from the current 55,000. During the mark-up of the bill, members of the Judiciary Committee noted the irony in restoring a program that permits immigrants to enter who have neither family ties to the U.S. nor particular skills in demand by U.S. employers, while at the same time making it harder or impossible for those who do have family members in the U.S. to reunite with them. II. EMPLOYMENT RESTRICTIONS AND VERIFICATION The national verification system proposed in H.R. 2202 received considerable attention at the Judiciary Committee mark-up due to its controversial impact on American citizens and employers. In theory, the system would confirm the employment eligibility of all new hires, relying on existing government databases to check the name, social security number, and alien number of potential employees. In practice, the Social Security System and INS databases that will be relied upon have proven to be significantly inaccurate in pilot projects to date. Critics also note that unscrupulous employers will not stop hiring undocumented workers despite the existence of the system, leaving honest employers stuck with the burden of compliance. Furthermore, an amendment added to the bill would significantly weaken the ability of employees to protect themselves from discrimination. H.R. 2202 Establishes A National Verification System Reliance on faulty data creates likelihood of widespread errors --H.R. 2202 will necessitate the creation of a system to confirm the employment eligibility of all new hires, relying on existing government databases to check the employee's information against records of the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the INS. All employers with four or more employees would be required to use the system for all new hires. In previous pilot projects, the INS database slated for use in this system was shown to have missing or incorrect information 28% of the time, while the error rate for the SSA database was 17%. Over 50% of those people who the systems could not verify were, in fact, legally authorized workers. With approximately 65 million people changing jobs or entering the job market each year, an impossibly low 3% error rate would still mean that nearly two million American workers could be wrongly denied or delayed in starting work each year. American workers would shoulder the burden of errors --Under H.R. 2202, if a prospective employee does encounter an error, and is denied a job as a result, the bill gives the employee just 10 days to straighten his or her record with the Social Security Administration. No mechanism is created by the bill, however, to address a glaring enforcement gap in the proposed systemsemployers intent on circumventing the law in order to hire and exploit unauthorized workers will simply not use it. Also conspicuously missing from the bill is a mechanism to compensate employees who are wrongly denied or delayed work due to inevitable errors in the verification system. Protections For American Workers Are Rolled Back Discrimination against employees made tougher to prove--Current law contains employer sanctions provisions which protect employees from discrimination in hiring. An amendment to H.R. 2202 will now require that a person alleging discrimination under the existing employer sanctions provisions must show that the employer intended to discriminate, a burden of proof that is extremely difficult to satisfy. Also under provisions in the current law designed to prevent discrimination, employers are not allowed to demand documents beyond those included on an approved list in order for someone to prove they are eligible to work. H.R. 2202 was amended to allow employers to demand additional documents from people in a variety of loosely defined cases. Honest American businesses disadvantaged by shortcuts in enforcement guarantees--H.R. 2202 would authorize the Department of Labor to hire 150 new Wage and Hour Inspectors. Ironically, however, the bill would not authorize appropriations to pay for those new workers, nor would it give the Department of Labor new mechanisms to help it enforce employer sanctions provisions or labor laws in cases where employers are found in violation. Enforcing these laws would remove the incentive for employers to hire undocumented workers who can be forced to accept substandard wages and working conditions. That would benefit law-abiding employers by leveling the playing field so that employers who are breaking the law will not have a competitive advantage. Since amendments to accomplish those goals failed, however, the bill presents an ironic mix of tough provisions to punish illegal immigrants who are attracted by the "magnet of jobs," but a kid-glove treatment for those who actually operate that magnet. III. SUMMARY REMOVAL AND ASYLUM PROCEDURES The U.S. currently has strict procedures for the inspection and removal of people who are found in or are caught attempting to enter this country without proper documentation. An integral part of those procedures involves a careful process, known as the asylum process, for adjudicating the cases of people who claim to be fleeing religious or political persecution in their home country. People can apply for asylum in two ways s 1) affirmatively by making their presence in this country known to the INS for the express purpose of receiving protection, or 2) defensively by claiming that they fear persecution after the government has notified them that they are going to be deported. The end result of the asylum process, which currently allows for careful review of an asylum seeker's claim and an opportunity to appeal a wrongful denial, is to provide protection to those people found to be legitimately fleeing persecution, while ordering the deportation of those whose claims are found to be without merit. The proposed summary proceedings for asylum seekers in H.R. 2202 would threaten the return of legitimate refugees to their persecutors. In addition, H.R. 2202 would place tough obstacles in the path of would-be asylum seekers, making it hard for them to even apply for protection. Expedited Removal Procedures For Asylum Seekers H.R. 2202 proposes a summary exclusion proceeding that would expedite the removal of asylum seekers who enter, or are found in, the U.S. without proper documentation. Under the proceeding, asylum seekers with either false or no documents who claim to be fleeing religious or political persecution would be compelled to prove their case to an immigration officer at an on-the-spot interview in order to avoid immediate removal from the country. In order to successfully prove their case, asylum seekers would have to overcome an onerous burden of proof, referred to as the "credible fear" standard, without the benefit of assistance from valuable sources such as attorneys, translators, or family members who could help them to better articulate and present their case. If the immigration officer does not accept the asylum seeker's claim, he or she would be immediately removed from the country. The only administrative review of a negative decision available would be another on-the-spot interview conducted right away by that immigration officer's supervisor. The cursory nature of this proceeding, and the stringent level of the screening conducted, leaves open the risk that persons legitimately fleeing religious or political persecution, but who are too afraid or unsophisticated to successfully present their claim, will be turned away. Efforts to soften the stringent burden of proof, and provide a more meaningful opportunity for review were defeated at the mark-up. Tough deadlines For People Seeking Asylum When introduced, H.R. 2202 required a strict 60-day filing deadline for people in the U.S. seeking to apply for political asylum. The deadline could only be waived if an applicant's country conditions changed after the individual had been in the U.S. for longer than 60 days. Those proposals were sharply criticized by members of the Judiciary Committee during mark-up because they were viewed as an almost insurmountable hurdle to legitimate refugees who may require more time to learn of the U.S. asylum system, and then prepare and file an actual application. The Judiciary Committee made two important changes to these provisions. First, the filing deadline was shortened from 60 days to 30 days, inspiring even greater objection from those committee members concerned about protection for people fleeing persecution. Also, an additional waiver was added for those individuals in the U.S. beyond the 30 day limit who experience changed personal circumstances that would require them to apply for asy lum. The example most often cited justifying the additional waiver is that of the Chinese couple studying in the U.S. who already have one child when the woman becomes pregnant. China's "one family-one child" policy would require an abortion were the couple to return. This change in personal circumstances would permit the family to seek asylum, even if they had been in the U.S. longer than 30 days. Critics of the 30 day deadline argue that, as a practical matter, it is almost impossible for an asylum applicant to file that quickly. Applying for asylum is a cumbersome and emotionally laden process requiring substantial time. Most people entering the U.S. are simply unfamiliar with the details of U.S. asylum policy and procedure making it hard to meet a rigid 30 day deadline. Those people legitimately fleeing religious or political persecution who do not manage to file an asylum application within the 30 day deadline would have no further opportunity to seek protection. IV. RESTRICTIONS ON BENEFITS H.R. 2202 would seriously restrict immigrants' access to a wide array of public benefits provided through federal means-tested programs such as child care, Maternal and Child Health Care Programs, and the Head Start Program by extending the process of "deeming," whereby the resources of the immigrant are deemed to include the resources of his or her sponsor. The bill would also impose a requirement that, in order to prove that an immigrant is not likely to become a "public charge," anyone attempting to sponsor an immigrant family member must earn an income at least 200 percent of the poverty level for a family unit including the immigrantsa level of income that, as mentioned above, 46 percent of the American population today would fail to meet. Under H.R. 2202, undocumented parents would no longer be eligible to receive federal funds, such as food stamps or AFDC, on behalf of their U.S. citizen children who are entitled to those benefits. The effect will be to endanger the health and welfare of U.S. citizen children by preventing them from receiving those crucial benefits which they rely on their parents to deliver. The bill would also require entities, such as homeless shelters or churches, providing any benefits under a federal means-tested program to verify applicants' proof of identity. Critics argue that, rather than saving money for the programs, this requirement would actually be a drain on resources by creating a heavy and costly administrative burden. H.R. 2202 also proposes to reimburse hospitals that provide emergency services to undocumented immigrants only if the hospital turns in the names of the undocumented people it serves, thus creating an atmosphere that could discourage sick people from seeking needed help, and placing an administrative burden on health care providers. V. ENFORCEMENT MEASURES H.R. 2202 includes significant increases in border security measures including the addition of 1,000 border patrol agents per year through the year 2000; the construction of a three-tiered series of multiple fences along the border; and the creation of a new border crossing card with a biometric identifier such as a fingerprint or retina scan. The bill would also augment the INS' existing effort to repatriate people who enter the U.S. illegally to the interior of their home country or to a third country. Other provisions of the bill would create a number of new criminal offenses, and would dramatically increase the penalties for document fraud, alien smuggling, and passport or visa misuse offenses. ============================================================================ **************************************************************************** Editor of this issue: Miao Ye **************************************************************************** ============================================================================ To (un)subscribe our acca-l mails, please write to acca-2-request@accaic.org with "sub" or "unsub" in the "Subject:" field, from your individual or local network redistribution account. You may also send your local redistribution address to hr1915@math.luc.edu. Committee on Immigration needs everyone of your support to protect our community and rights. ACCA's HR1915 infor-center is at http://www.superprism.net/~acca or ftp://wabbit.superprism.net/pub/acca or gopher://wabbit.superprism.net:70/11/acca National Chair of ACCA, Mr. Lin Huang ============================================================================ In Germany, they came first for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist; then they came for the Jews and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew; then they came for the Trade-Unionists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Trade-Unionist; then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I am a Protestant; then they came for me, and by that time no-one was left to speak up. --- Martin Niemoller --- ============================================================================