\S\yirV ' -w •/ wy*-t -w »

IMMIGRATION EMERGENCY POWERS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PMEGO"

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

THE JUDICIARY

UNITED STATES SENATE

NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

OVERSIGHT HEARING TO REVIEW PRESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY POWERS

WITH RESPECT TO IMMIGRATION

SEPTEMBER 30, 1982

Serial No. J-97-147

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON \ 1983
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

STROM THURMOND, South Carolina, Chairman

CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, JR., Maryland JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware

PAUL LAXALT, Nevada EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia

ROBERT DOLE, Kansas HOWARD M. METZENBAUM, Ohio

ALAN K. SIMPSON, Wyoming DENNIS DECONCINI, Arizona

JOHN P. EAST, North Carolina PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa MAX BAUCUS, Montana

JEREMIAH DENTON, Alabama HOWELL HEFLIN, Alabama

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania

VINTON DEVANE LIDE, Chief Counsel

MARK H. GITENSTEIN, Minority Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE POLICY

ALAN K. SIMPSON, Wyoming, Chairman

STROM THURMOND, South Carolina EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa DENNIS DECONCINI, Arizona

RICHARD W. DAY, Chief Counsel and Staff Director

ARNOLD H. LEIBOWITZ, Special Counsel

DONNA ALVARADO, Counsel

VALENTINE S. JONES, Research Assistant

(II)

%-}>-eoiw
1<*%* +¥$>

CONTENTS

OPENING STATEMENT

Simpson, Hon. Alan K., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming, chairman, Page

Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Policy 1

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Chiles, Hon. Lawton, a U.S. Senator from the State of Florida 2

Nelson, Hon. Alan C, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S. Department of Justice, accompanied by David Hiller, Associate

Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, and Renee L. Szybala,

Deputy Associate Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice 14

Hawkins, Hon. Paula, a U.S. Senator from the State of Florida 37

Douglas, Hon. H. Eugene, U.S. Coordinator for Refugee Affairs 42

Enders, Hon. Thomas, Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs, Department of State 43

Miller, Mark J., University of Delaware, Newark, Del 48

Maier, Harold, professor of law and director, transnational legal studies,

Vanderbilt University Law School, Nashville, Tenn 59

Torres, Arnoldo S., national executive director, League of United Latin

American Citizens 71

Helton, Arthur C, director, political asylum project, Lawyers Committee for

International Human Rights 79

Henderson, Wade, deputy director, Washington Office, American Civil Liberties Union 92

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND MATERIALS SUBMITTED

Chiles, Hon. Lawton:

Testimony 2

Justice Department Listing of Authority 3

Prepared statement 7

Douglas, Hon. H. Eugene: Testimony 42

Enders, Hon. Thomas: Testimony 43

Hawkins, Hon. Paula: Testimony 37

Helton, Arthur C:

Testimony 79

Prepared statement 81

Henderson, Wade: Testimony 92

Maier, Harold:

Testimony 59

Prepared statement 62

Miller, Mark J.:

Testimony 48

Prepared statement 50

Nelson, Hon. Alan C:

Testimony 14

Prepared statement 18

Torres, Arnoldo, S.:

Testimony 71

Prepared statement 74

IMMIGRATION EMERGENCY POWERS

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1982

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE POLICY,

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:43 p.m., in room

2228, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Alan K. Simpson (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senator Grassley.

Staff present: Richard W. Day, chief counsel; Donna Alvarado,

counsel: Arnold Leibowitz, special counsel; and Valentine S. Jones,

research assistant.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ALAN K. SIMPSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE POLICY

Senator SIMPSON. Good afternoon. Today, we will hear testimony

on the statute proposed by the administration, entitled the Immigration Emergency Act. It is designed to permit the United States

to respond to a threatened mass migration of undocumented aliens

to this country. It was the inability of the U.S. Government to respond effectively in the 1980 Mariel boatlift that resulted in confusion and embarrassment to the United States.

It is important that we be prepared to meet such an occurrence

if it should again occur. A grant of any extraordinary powers to the

Executive is always a very sensitive issue; it has been throughout

the history of all countries. We must be most cautious to assure

that the need exists and that the exercise of those powers is related

to that need. These emergency powers provisions presented to us

are intended to meet that demand and that standard.

So, today we will have with us representatives of the Government, experts from the academic community, and persons concerned with the rights of all persons in the United States. That

should assist us in assuring a most careful review of this delicate

area of emergency powers.

At this time, I would recognize my good colleague from Florida,

who has been most alert and responsive and patient with regard to

the emergency powers provisions. I appreciate deeply his assistance

and the assistance of Senator Hawkins in awaiting the opportunity

to deal with this separately from the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1982, and I appreciate that.

(l)
STATEMENT OF HON. LAWTON CHILES, A U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Senator CHILES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to commend you and the subcommittee for calling the hearing. You have

certainly worked hard and successfully to correct the problems of

our present immigration laws. The Senate has approved S. 2222,

the immigration reform proposal that you put together, and hopefully we will see the House move on counterpart legislation before

we finally adjourn.

I commend you for a job well done, and if that final passage

comes about, I think you can take comfort in the knowledge that

our Government is going to be in better control of its borders with

respect to undocumented aliens. I certainly tip my hat to you for

being able to put together the bill and being able to shepherd that

bill to passage. You asked us at that time to be patient in regard to

these emergency powers. We were.

Senator SIMPSON. Thank you.

Senator CHILES. I share your relief that a major part of the effort

has been taken care of with Senate passage of legislation addressed

to the problems of illegal immigration. By controlling the magnet

of illegal jobs and by streamlining the immigration appeals procedures, our Senate bill is going to help, certainly, the steady flow of

immigration.

There is still work to be done on another important immigration

issue, and that is insuring that the United States has the ability to

prevent any future flood of aliens, subject to what happened in the

1980 Mariel boatlift. I was outraged over the illegal immigration

crisis that was triggered by Castro. It has disrupted south Florida. I

saw my State struggle to bring some kind of makeshift order out of

the chaos that was foisted upon us.

Education and public health services were strained beyond their

capacity. State, local, and city budgets were drained. Stories of

human suffering, tragedy, fear, and crime became everyday topics

of conversation in Florida. Business declined; our people lost jobs.

Tourists were discouraged by the acts of violence and the news of

that, and neighbors began to distrust neighbors. Many were afraid

to leave their homes, and many are armed today. As a consequence, the Miami area is known as the gun belt.

Needless to say, Floridians were disgusted not only with the situation itself, but more important with the Federal Government's

sluggish response. Florida worked here in Congress and on the

State and local level with Democrats and Republicans with two administrations just to get the Federal Government to acknowledge

its responsibilities. We had some successes, but not all successes

even there, and the job is certainly not over.

Mr. Chairman, I know you are familiar with the effects of the

Mariel boatlift. I know you went to Dade County; I know you have

talked and listened to the frustrations that are out there with the

people themselves. You have seen what the boatlift and the undocumented Haitians have done to south Florida.

In a sense, the boatlift was similar to a war. It was a war that

Castro fought, with unwitting people who wanted to be reunited

with their families in Florida. Using those people, he emptied his
3

jails and some of his asylums, and forced all of those people onto

boats and into our State. It really was a deliberate and premeditated act of invasion, literally, by a foreign country.

Our Government did not have the ability to respond to this form

of war, and instead of a contingency plan in place that could be

used to respond to those events and to take control of the situation,

all we really had was confusion. Estimates of the cost to the United

States taxpayer for what happened in south Florida run as high as

$700 million. I do not know that we will ever know exactly what

the costs were.

But I think it is essential that we prevent such an invasion from

taking place again, and that invasion might not just be Miami this

next time, Mr. Chairman. It could be any point that can be reached

in the United States.

Since the Mariel crisis, I have joined with other Floridians to get

the Federal Government to respond and to make sure that another

Mariel could not happen. We have had some successes on the first

front, but on the second front it becomes increasingly clear to me

that unless the U.S. Government makes it clear that it has both

the tools and the determination to prevent another Mariel-type situation from happening in the future, we would end up by encouraging the Castros of this world to wage that kind of war on us

again.

Accordingly, I was prepared to offer the administration's proposal on emergencies as an amendment to S. 2222, but you convinced

me not to do that at this time. And, of course, at that time, we

were able to get the Justice Department to put on the record the

powers that they now have, and those powers I do reiterate in my

full statement and I would like to have that included as a part of

the record. But in trying to save some time, I will not read those

powers again.

Senator SIMPSON. They will be entered in the record, without objection.

[The following was received for the record:]

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT LISTING OF AUTHORITY

Sec. 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes the President by

proclamation to suspend the entry of all aliens or a class of aliens if he finds that

their entry would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.

Under 50 U.S.C. 191, upon a Presidential proclamation a national emergency

exists by reason of an actual or threatened disturbance of the international relations of the United States, the Secretary of the Treasury may make rules and regulations governing the anchorage and movement of any vessel, foreign or domestic, in

the territorial waters of the United States; may inspect such vessels at any time and

may in some cases, if necessary, take possession and control of such vessels.

8 U.S.C. 1324(b) provides for the forfeiture and seizure of any vehicle or vessel

used to bring illegal aliens into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1324(aXD

or used to transport aliens within the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C.

1324(aX2).

50 U.S.C. App. 16 authorizes the forfeiture of any vessel used in violation of the

provisions of the Trading of the Enemy Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 1 et sea. This provision

was invoked in the recent Mariel boatlift and the District Court for the Southern

District of Florida has held that vessels used in the Mariel boatlift are subject to

forfeiture under this provision. While this provision would be available if there were

another mass migration from Cuba, it would not be available if the migration were

from a country other than one covered by the Trading of the Enemy Act.

19 U.S.C. 1581(e) authorizes the seizure of a vessel or vehicle which is subject to

forfeiture or to secure any fine or penalty. It has been the government's position
that a vessel or vehicle used to bring illegal aliens into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1323 is subject to seizure in order to secure any fines levied.

Under general non-statutory authority, land traffic check points could be set up

at reasonable locations for the purpose of stopping, warning and questioning vehicles that could be involved in facilitating the migration.

8 U.S.C. 1182(f), as noted, authorizes the President to suspend the entry of aliens

or classes of aliens if it finds their entry would be detrimental to the interests of the

United States. Pursuant to this provision, the President could authorize the stopping of United States flag vessels, stateless vessels, or with the permission of a foreign government, a foreign flag vessel carrying illegal aliens to the United States.

8 U.S.C. 1323 provides for civil penalties for bringing to the United States aliens

without valid visas.

8 U.S.C. 1324 provides for criminal penalties for bringing into the United States

aliens who have not been duly admitted by an immigration officer. However, in

United States v. Anaya, the Court held that the provision does not prevent the mere

bringing of undocumented aliens to this country's borders, but only the surreptitious landing of aliens.

50 U.S.C. App. 16 provides criminal penalties for persons violating its provisions

and implementing regulations. Under 31 C.F.R. 515.415, the bringing of a Cuban national who does not have a valid immigrant or non-immigrant visa into the United

States is prohibited.

Sec. 235(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides for the detention

until further examination can be conducted, of every alien who does not appear to

the examining officer to be "clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to land."

Senator CHILES. I think it is important to note that there are

powers that have been placed on the record. Another provision of

the current law establishes penalties to anyone who tries to secretly bring illegal aliens into the country. But by listing those authorities, I do not want to suggest that there are no other provisions in

current law which could be used by the Government, because I

think there are others, in addition to those powers that I am listing

now, within the powers of the President.

However, I agree with the administration that it makes sense for

Congress to establish additional powers which could be triggered by

an emergency situation. By doing so, I think we accomplish several

important objectives.

First, we make sure that a single body of authority, approved by

the Congress, is in place. Second, we eliminate any inconsistencies

in the existing law and clarify any provisions that seem vague or

obsolete. Third, by taking action, we put the Congress and the Federal Government on record of our determination to control immigration emergencies. By doing so, I think we send a clear signal

both to the American people and to those of other countries that

the Federal Government is not going to sit by idly in the future.

The proposal before us today is a revision of the earlier administration proposal, and I would like to have a few comments on the

proposal. I think that the Attorney General does reassure me that

there is sufficient authority at present to support a contingency

plan. The proposed authority would be less cumbersome, though,

and less likely to lend itself to abuse than the broader, sweeping

powers of the current National Emergency Act.

I am delighted with the promise that an immigration emergency

will allow the President to respond immediately to immigration

crises, and it provides the President with the necessary tools to protect this Nation's borders.

The administration's new draft appears to be tightly drawn and

better tailored to do the work than that that was first proposed. It

sets standards by which the President can declare a national emer-

• -^-wv^j" •
gency, requires prompt and reasonable notice to the Congress,

mandates a timely sunset of the declaration, and gives flexibility in

those Federal facilities that could be used for unforeseen circumstances. It cuts a lot of the redtape.

It acknowledges due process rights and minimizes as much as

possible the devastating effects that governmental interference can

have on innocent people going about their particular business. It

seems to clarify the existing authority and to bring in sharper

focus just what we in the Congress, who constitutionally wield the

power to regulate immigration, wish to delegate to the executive

branch in addition to the inherent powers that the Executive already holds.

I think that the proposal will complement and supplement what

we have now. I would like to point out a few problems I see in the

draft. It is not so much what the draft has in it, but what I think

has been left out. I am concerned with provisions for financial assistance to impacted communities•a burden that we are still carrying in Florida. I think it should be clearly stated that such places

deserve at least disaster area-type funding. Never again should a

city or a State budget have to endure 2 years of shouldering a Federal burden without Federal help.

As I understand it, the bill allows the President to renew certain

powers which are triggered by his declaration that an immigration

emergency exists without any sort of notice to the Congress. This

blanket extension of the broad authorities for what could be an indefinite period of time without any sort of review by the Congress

could present problems.

For instance, the bill allows for environmental and historical

preservation laws to be waived. I think that might be fine during

the emergency. I also think that we need to set forth the waiver

that is going to be for a limited period of time, and we may need to

tighten up on that.

As I said earlier, these are my preliminary reactions to the proposal. I plan to look further at the different provisions, and hope to

be able to share some of those reactions with you in the future. I

also hope that we can get the views of our State and local officials

on this proposal, because I think their cooperation is going to be

essential.

But at the same time, I want to say that I certainly support this

proposal. I think everything that is good in it far outweighs anything else. I applaud the administration's dedication to resolving

the complex problems that are presented by mass migrations.

Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to note that 100 years and 1

month ago, Congress passed the first general immigration act. The

Senators sat, as you and I do today, discussing the weighty problems that this issue presents. It is hard to close the door on the

American dream to those who wish to embrace it, but it was their

duty then, as it is our duty today, to weigh the welfare of the

Nation against the prospective immigrant.

The courts upheld the power to regulate immigration several

times after that first bill passed, and our Supreme Court has declared,

It is an accepted maxim of international law that every sovereign nation has the

power, as inherent in sovereignty and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the en-
trance of foreigners within its dominions, or to admit them only in such cases and

upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe.

International agreements which we have entered into, such as

the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, confirm that 90-year-old Supreme Court declaration. In fact, one article of that agreement specifically allows or justifies interference

with foreign vessels within the 12-mile belt of high seas to prevent

infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary regulations within its territory or territorial sea, and to punish infringement of the above regulations committed within its territory.

I am pleased that the administration has adopted a contingency

plan. It is important that we move promptly. I again applaud you

for your quick response, and the subcommittee for setting these

hearings. I pledge to you my help in every way in trying to protect

our shores.

Mr. Chairman, I would just ask that the rest of my statement be

included in the record.

[The prepared statement of Senator Chiles follows:]
ft«PARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAWTON CHILES

Mr. Chairman, I commend you ard the Subcommittee for calling

this hearing. You have worked hard and successfully to correct the

problems in our present immigration laws. The Senate has approved

S. 2222, the immigration reform proposal you put together. Hopefully,

we will see the House move on counterpart legislation before we finally

adjourn. I commend you for a job well done; and, if final passage

comes about, you can take comfort in the knowledge that our government

will be in better control of our borders with respect to undocumented

aliens.

I share your relief that a major part of the effort has been

taken care of with the Senate passage of legislation which addressed

the problems of illegal immigration. By controlling the magnet of

illegal jobs and by streamlining immigration appeals procedures,

S. 2222 will help stop the steady flow of illegal immigration. But

there is still work to be done on another important immigration

issue, and that is insuring that the United States has the ability

to prevent any future flood of aliens, similar to what happened

during the 1980 Mariel boatlift.

I was outraged over the illegal immigration crisis, triggered

by Castro, that has disrupted South Florida. I saw my state struggle

to bring some kind of make-shift order out of the chaos visited upon

us. Education and public health services were strained beyond their

capacity. State, county, and city budgets were drained. Stories

of human suffering, tragedy, fear and crime became everyday topics

of conversation in Florida. Business declined, our people lost jobs,

tourists were discouraged by the news of violence, neighbors began

to distrust neighbors, many were afraid to leave their homes, and many

more armed themselves to do so. As a consequence, the Miami area is

now known as a "gun belt".

Needless to say, Floridians were disgusted.... not only with

the situation itself, but even more with the Federal government's

sluggish response. Florida worked here in Congress, on the state

and local level, with democrats and republicans, with two administrations just to get the Federal government to acknowledge its

responsibilities. We had some successes, but the job's not over.
Mr. Chairman, I know that you are familiar with the effects

that the Mariel hoatlift and the influx of undocumented Haitians

had on south Florida. In a sense, the Mariel boatlift was similar

to a war. It was a war which Castro fought by using people who

simply wanted to be reunited with their families in America. Castro

used those people as unwitting pawns, and used their desire for

freedom as a way to empty his jails and his asylums. His cynical

actions were in fact the deliberate and premeditated act of invasion

by a foreign country. Our government did not have the ability to

respond to his form of war. Instead of a contingency plan in place

which could be used to respond to events and take control if the

situation, all we had was confusion. Estimates as to the costs to

the United States taxpayer for what happened in South Florida run

to at least $700 million. It is essential that we prevent such an

invasion from ever taking place again.

Since the Mariel crisis, I have joined with other Floridians

to get the Federal government to respond to the crisis which its

lack of policies created, and to make sure that another Mariel would

never occur. We have had some successes on the first front, although

not as many as we would like to have seen. On the second front,

it became increasingly clear to me that unless the United States

government made it clear that it had both the tools and the determination to prevent another Mariel type situation from happening in the

future, we would end up encouraging the Castros of this world to wage

war on us once again.

Accordingly, during the Senate's consideration of S. 2222, I

was prepared to offer the Administration's proposal on immigration

emergencies as an amendment to the bill. However, after talks with

the Justice and State Departments, and with you, Mr. Chairman, I

agreed to defer my amendment so that S. 2222 could move along.

In the course of those discussions, we were able to get the

Justice Department to set out on the record those provisions in

existing law which would enable the United States government to take

the steps necessary to prevent another Mariel. I would like to

submit that listing of authority which the Justice Department provided
to us as part of the legislative record we are building today.

I also think that it is worth spending a few moments mentioning

some of those provisions.

* A provision in Title 50, United States Code, enables the

Treasury Secretary, pursuant to a declaration of a disturbance in our foreign relations by the President, to inspect

and even take possession of any ships, foreign or domestic,

in our territorial waters.

* A provision in Title 8, United States Code, for the forfeiture and seizure of any vehicle or vessel used to bring

illegal aliens into the country.

* Another provision enables the President to suspend the entry

of aliens or classes of aliens into the United States if their

entry would be detrimental to the interests of the United

States. This could be used to stop any vessel carrying illegal

aliens.

* Yet another provision of current law establishes penalties for

anyone who tries to secretly bring illegal aliens into the

country.

However, I agree witht the Administration that it makes sense

for Congress to establish additional powers which could be triggered

in an immigration emergency situation. By doing so, we accomplish

several important objectives. First, we make sure that a single

body of authority, approved by the Congress, is in place. Second,

we can eliminate any inconsistencies in existing law, and clarify

any provisions which seem vague or obsolete. Third, by taking action,

we put the Congress and the Federal government on record in its

determination to be in control of any immigration emergencies. By

doing so, we send a signal both to the American people and to those

in other countries that the Federal government will not stand idly

by in the future.
10

Mr. Chairman, by listing these authorities, I do not want to

suggest that there are no other provisions in current law which

could be used by the government to respond to immigration emergencies.

I believe that it is important, however, that we make it clear on

the record at this point that there is authority to respond to

immigration emergencies and that the Administration has developed

a contingency plan based on-current law to deal with such emergencies.

The proposals before us today is a revision of the earlier

Administration proposal which I had planned in connection with S. 2222.

Let me offer some comments on the new proposal. Just as before, I

think it is imperative that we strengthen our present authority and

so, again, I will be more than willing to support the Administration's

proposal in its revised form.

The accompanying letter by the Attorney General reassures me

that, though there is sufficient authority at present to support a

contingency plan of decisive action by the President in the event of

another mass influx of immigrants, the proposed new authority would

be less cumbersome and less likely to lend itself to abuse than the

broader-sweeping powers of the current National Emergency Act.

I am also delighted with the promise that "The Immigration

Emergency Act will allow the President to repond immediately to

immigration crises" and that it provides the President with the

necessary tools to protect this nation's borders.

The Administration's new draft appears to be tightly drawn

and better tailored to do the work of controlling our borders in

times of threatened mass entries than what was first proposed as

an amendment to S. 2222. It carefully sets standards by which the

President may declare an immigration emergency. It rightfully requires

prompt and reasonable notice to the congress once such an emergency

is declared. It mandates a timely sunset of the declaration. It

gives a flexibility in those Federal facilities and agencies to be

used as need be for unforseeable circumstances. It cuts through the

usual red tape and across the territories of bureaucracies. It

acknowledges due process rights and minimizes as much as possible the

devestating effects that governmental interference can have on

innocent people going about their everyday business.
11

The proposal seems to clarify existing authority and to bring

into sharper focus just what we the Congress, who constitutionally

wield the power to regulate immigration, wish to delegate to the

executive branch in addition to the inherent powers the executive

already holds in that area. Generally speaking, and based upon a

brief study of the draft, I think the new proposal will complement

and supplement that which we have now; however, I would like to

point to some possible problems in some sections of the draft.

I worry not so much with what the draft has in it, but what

has been left out. I am concerned basically with provisions for

financial assistance to impacted communities, a burden we are still

carrying in Florida. It should be clearly stated that such places

deserve, at least, "disaster area" type funding. Never again should

a state or city budget have to endure two years of shouldering a

Federal burden without Federal help.

As I understand it, the bill allows the President to renew

certain powers which are triggered by his declaration that an

immigration emergency exists without any sort of notice to the Congres

This blanket extension of the broad authorities for what could be an

indefinite period of time, without any sort of review by the Congress,

could present problems. For instance, the draft bill allows for all

environmental and historical preservation laws to be waived during a

declared immigration crisis. This is consistent with the need to

make sure that emergency efforts during a crisis are not delayed.

However, we need to make it clear that such waivers would be related

to the need to respond to the special conditions created by the crisis

Notice to Congress is required by the bill each time the President

extends a declaration of emergency. So too should notice be required

when the President extends exemptions to environmental protection

laws. Such notice will guard against abuse by allowing timely

inquiries and intervention by Congress.

As I said earlier, these are my preliminary reactions to this

proposal, I plan to look further into the different provisions in

the proposal, and would hope to be able to share some of my reactions

with you in the future. I also hope that we can get the views of our

state and local government officials on this proposal.
12

Cooperation among Federal, state and local governments will be

essential in any immigration emergency, and consultation at this

early stage will help promote cooperation during a time of crisis.

By these few concerns of mine, I do not want to leave the

impression that the proposal does not have my support. It does.

All who have worked on the bill should be very proud of it. I

heartily support it and applaud the Administration's dedication

to resolving the complex problems presented by mass migrations.

Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to note that one hundred

years and one month ago, Congress passed the first general immigration

act. Senators sat as you and I do today discussing the weighty

problems that this issue presents. It is hard to close the doors

of the American dream on those who wish to embrace it. But it was

their duty, as it is our duty today, to weigh the welfare of the

nation against that of the prospective immigrant. the courts upheld

the power to regulate immigration several times after that first

bill passed and our Supreme Court has declared:

"It is an accepted maxim of international law, that every

sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty,

essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of

foreigners within its dominions, or to admit them only in

such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to

prescribe."

International agreements which we have entered into...such as

the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone... confirm

that ninety year old Supreme Court declaration. In fact, one article

of that agreement specifically allows or justifies interference with

foreign vessels within the twelve mile belt of high seas next to

territorial seas to:

(a) Prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration

or sanitary regulations within its territory or territorial

sea;

and

(b) Punish infringement of the above regulations committed

within its territory or territorial sea.

*_ -r- * jy t
13

I am pleased that the Administration has developed a

contingency plan under existing law as well as draw the draft

which is before us today. It is important that we move promptly

and in concert on this important legislation. The quick response

that you, Mr. Chairman, and the Subcommittee have shown in setting

these hearings assures me of your commitment to this goal. I pledge

my help in any way possible to strengthen our resolve and our existing

authority to protect our shores from future wars - like the one

Castro waged against us during Mariel. We must assure the people of

Florida that they will not be made to suffer such an invasion again.

We must assure our country that we have a plan, that we are again

in control of our borders, and that we are ready no matter what the

crisis. Above all, we must let the rest of the world know that we

will never sanction a loss of control of our sovereignty.

Thomas Enders, our Assistant Secretary of State, underscored

the importance of the notion of deterrence when he testified earlier

to the Judiciary Committee in support of a contingency plan. He said,

and I quote:

"Castro, and the Cuban people, must be in no doubt or

uncertainty about the nature of our response to a new

Mariel. If they believe we are unprepared to handle an

illegal immgration emergency; if they believe we will

waver between attempting to stop the migration and

welcoming it; if they believe we will in the end welcome

the arrivals and resettle them in American communities,

then the temptation to deal us another blow will be

very great."

Mr. Chairman, I agree with Secretary Enders that it is

absolutely essential that the United States government make it

clear that we have both the determination and the tools to prevent

another Mariel from occuring in the future.

Thank you.

16-948 0-83
14

Senator SIMPSON. We have a rollcall vote; it is the vote on the

criminal package. And with your lapel pin today, I think we should

go over. I see you have handcuffs there. What is the symbolism of

that?

Senator CHILES. Well, I thought maybe today was going to be

crime day in the Senate, Mr. Chairman. It is a day that I have

been waiting on for about 4 months now.

Senator SIMPSON. I believe you are a cosponsor of this measure

coming up. Is that correct?

Senator CHILES. Yes, I am.

Senator SIMPSON. I thank you, and I want you to know that we

will address•and I pledged that we would do this•we will address

the issue of the financial responsibility and the importance of

seeing that that is removed from a community that cannot respond

to it.

We will direct our attention to financial impacts and planning

and the impact issue. I thank you, and we will recess now for about

10 minutes.

[Whereupon, the subcommittee stood in recess from 1:59 p.m. to

2:14 p.m.]

Senator SIMPSON. The committee will come to order, and we will

now have testimony from the administration. We have Commissioner Al Nelson, Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, accompanied by Renee Szybala and David Hiller of

the Department of Justice.

Let me say that should Senator Hawkins arrive at the hearing

we will accommodate her. The missing children legislation, which

has been a very important thing to her, is having a conference

committee meeting and she is participating in that. She will be

here as soon as she can.

When she should arrive, we will interrupt for 5 or 10 minutes to

take her statement. For now, Al Nelson, it is good to have you

here, as always. I appreciate your cooperation and assistance to the

subcommittee.

STATEMENT OF ALAN C. NELSON, COMMISSIONER, IMMIGRATION

AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ACCOMPANIED BY DAVID HILLER, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY

ATTORNEY GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AND

RENEE L. SZYBALA, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Mr. NELSON. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Again, it is a

pleasure to be here before you. Of course, we would be happy to

yield when Senator Hawkins arrives.

We would like to repeat the introductions of David Hiller, the

Associate Deputy Attorney General, and Renee Szybala, Deputy

Associate Attorney. General, who are at my side. I would like to acknowledge their contribution within the Department of Justice on

immigration matters, in legislation, litigation, and all immigration

matters. So, I am very pleased to have them with me and will be

happy to have them respond to the questions that I know the chairman will have.

• "^/SHVM * f\ •*•.. "..""''U^'* «
15

On behalf of the administration, it certainly is a pleasure to testify in support of the immigration emergency legislation. As you

know, it was part of the administration's earlier package, and we

do feel that it is appropriate, as you are doing, to consider it here

in this hearing.

As the Attorney General stated a little over a year ago, this

country has lost control of its borders, and there is no better example of that than the 1980 Mariel boatlift, wherein 125,000 Cubans

within a space of a few weeks had a mass influx into the United

States. Senator Chiles has addressed that and you did, Mr. Chairman, in your opening remarks, and that certainly is a key example

for all of us.

It is essential that this Government never again permit our immigration policy to be set in Havana or any other foreign capital.

While we have detailed contingency plans, this can help us administratively. Certainly, the Simpson-Mazzoli legislation which is

moving through the Congress can strengthen and close many of the

loopholes, and will streamline exclusion and asylum proceedings.

Nevertheless, we feel there is a need to additionally clarify and

enhance the President's authorities in the event of a future immigration emergency, and for that reason, we propose this legislation.

We certainly need not sacrifice•and I know it is obviously a

very strong concern to you and to the Judiciary Committee and to

this administration that we not in any way sacrifice our liberties in

the pursuit of preparedness for any immigration emergency. But,

also, the Government cannot in any way continue to limp along

with legal authorities that have proved to be inadequate during the

Mariel boatlift. If we are to be responsible, we must learn from the

prior painful experiences and act to prevent their recurrence.

While existing legislation can be used in many ways, there are

ambiguities in that legislation. There is some confusion as to what

can and cannot be done under existing legislation. There is certainly the open door to increased litigation that clouds the efforts. The

problem in any emergency is the ability to move quickly, and we

must avoid hesitation when faced with uncertainty.

Also, these existing laws are scattered through various titles in

the U.S. Code. All are designed for other emergencies, and therefore, for the sake of clarity, we feel it is important to reestablish in

this proposed legislation the authority that we seek.

The proposed legislation remedies many of these problems. It

sets forth clearly what the President can do and the procedures.

We also think that the procedures set forth in the new legislation

can actually prevent a larger use of Presidential powers than

might be necessary under existing legislation, and this will allow a

more minimum and directed approach, should one of these unhappy circumstances of a mass immigration emergency occur.

The emergency bill has seven sections. I will not go through all

the details of those, since our full testimony has been submitted for

the record. This legislation sets forth the criteria where, under an

immigration emergency, if certain conditions exist, the President

can make a determination; that is, that a substantial number of

undocumented aliens are about to embark for the United States;

that the existing procedures of the Immigration and Nationality

Act and the resources thereunder are inadequate. And the third cri-
16

teria is that the expected influx would endanger the welfare of the

United States or particular communities.

There are procedures wherein the President must notify the Congress within 48 hours of his reasons, and publish the proclamation

and other procedures in the Federal Register. There are provisions

for extension of that, but again under substantial controls.

There are some who would raise questions as to some of the

words used, such as "substantial numbers of aliens." We think

those words, while they are somewhat inexact, must be, to allow

some flexibility, and we think those words are appropriate.

Clearly, the new legislation is not intended to apply to the existing, normal•if there is such a thing•flow of border crossings, but

clearly to the substantial and sudden increases that come along.

Under some of the powers specified, the President could restrict

or ban vessels, vehicles or aircraft from traveling to a foreign country specifically designated by him, unless there is certain approval

under some licensing provisions. This, we want to emphasize, Mr.

Chairman, applies to conveyances not to persons. Certainly, the

ability of individuals to travel will be maintained.

We want to emphasize that there is a substantial difference constitutionally between the right of individuals to travel within the

United States, which we all hold very sacred, and the right to

travel outside U.S. boundaries. The Haig v. Agee Supreme Court

decision in 1981 deals with the ability to regulate outside travel,

subject to due process limitations. And we think the provisions of

this act, Mr. Chairman, clearly meet any due process considerations, with the licensing procedures and judicial review procedures very narrowly limiting any travel to a specific influx of illegal aliens.

Likewise, there are provisions regarding banning the travel of

vehicles outside the United States or to a designated country for

the expressed purpose of bringing in any mass influx of illegal

aliens.

Certainly, the steps that this legislation addresses must be taken

prior to any boatlift such as the Mariel occurrence or any other

mass influx, and that is, of course, the expressed purpose of this

legislation, to be ready in the event that it does occur. Hopefully,

that contingency will not come to pass.

Also, the new law does, as I think Senator Chiles mentioned in

his comments, temporarily exempt some of the emergency-related

activities from environmental restrictions. We feel that in the Fort

Allen situation and the Mariel boatlift where there were environmental attacks, it made it very difficult to get the camp ready to

detain aliens. There was much delay, even though there have been

no environmental problems.

Again, there are clear and narrow guidelines under which the

environmental laws can be waived, and, in addressing one of Senator Chiles' questions, clearly for the period of the emergency. We

think it is appropriately and narrowly drafted to allow the waiver

for the temporary period of the environmental laws, and certainly

to avoid the negative impact of breaching any environmental laws.

There are provisions regarding the detention of illegal aliens. We

think, again, the authorities are important to clarify. We think
17

that while there is existing authority for detention, this act does

further clarify those and avoids potential challenges.

Similarly the bill does indicate that the President has the power

to designate appropriate agencies of the Federal Government to be

involved in handling immigration emergencies, including components of the Department of Defense to provide assistance. The language here can avoid some potential Posse Comitatus Act difficulties.

The act provides for specified civil and criminal penalties. And

again, addressing Senator Chiles' concerns, we realize funding is

always a question, and this was a problem, to a degree, in the

Mariel boatlift. We believe, the question of who is going to pay

exists and should be addressed. So, the act authorizes a contingency fund of $35 million to cover the costs of such an immigration

emergency.

I think in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we have all addressed in

the many hearings you have held, the essential nature of immigration in the United States and that we are a nation of immigrants.

But it must be controlled. The Simpson-Mazzoli legislation represents a great step forward in controlling illegal immigration and

making legal immigration more efficient.

But, nevertheless, we recognize that illegal immigration of a

mass nature can take the extraordinary form of one of these emergencies, such as the Mariel boatlift, and that we must never again

be unprepared for such an event. We think the enactment of this

legislation will clarify the President's power to prevent and deal

with any future mass immigration emergency. Even if the need to

invoke the provisions never arises, which we certainly hope, the enactment of such a law would do much to demonstrate our resolve

and discourage a repeat of such history. We urge this committee to

give this bill its immediate attention.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we will be pleased to respond to

any questions.

[The prepared statement of Alan C. Nelson follows:]
18

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALAN C. NELSON

I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the

Administration's proposed Immigration Emergency Bill.

In his testimony before this Subcommittee on July 30, 1981,

the Attorney General stated that our country had lost control of

its borders. There is no better example of this than our failure

to prevent, and our lack of readiness to deal with, the 1980 Mariel

boatlift. During Mariel, our country experienced the mass Influx

of some 125,000 Cubans in the space of a few weeks. The need to

assimilate such a large number of undocumented aliens, in a short

time, placed a tremendous strain on the resources of the communities of South Florida where most of the newly arrived Cubans

settled. In addition, some of those who arrived during the Mariel

boatlift were criminals who had been expelled from Cuban prisons

by a hostile and cynical dictator. Many of these individuals are

still in federal custody, pending return to Cuba which has thus

far proven impossible.

It is essential that this country regain control of its

borders. We can never again permit our immigration policy to be

set in Havana or any other foreign capital. To ensure against

this, the Administration has prepared detailed contingency plans

to permit a swift and firm response in order to help prevent and

deal with any future Mariels. Additionally, the Simpson-Mazzoli

Bill, which has already passed the Senate and is now being

considered in the House, would strengthen and close loopholes

in our laws which prohibit bringing undocumented aliens to the

United States. Also, the procedural reforms provided by that

legislation to streamline exclusion and asylum proceedings

would be critical in the event of another mass Immigration emergency.

There remains, however, a need to clarify and enhance the

President's authorities in the event of a future immigration

emergency. The proposed Immigration Emergency Bill has been
19

drafted to meet that need. Its interrelated provisions represent

the result of an intensive study and effort by the agencies

concerned. These provisions have been carefully and narrowly

drawn, so as to minimize any disruption of normal and legitimate

activities. We need not sacrifice our liberties in the pursuit

of preparedness. But neither can our government continue to limp

along with the legal authorities that proved to be inadequate

during the Mariel boatlift. If we are to be responsible, we must

learn from our prior painful experiences and act to prevent their

recurrence.

For several reasons, existing legislation should be improved

and supplemented to help us effectively deal with any future

Mariel-type situations. Existing legislation, which is not

tailored to this problem, in many cases does not give the President

the specific powers needed to deal with another mass immigration

emergency. Because of the ambiguity in existing legislation

there may be confusion as to what can and cannot be done. This

ambiguity could foster needless, time-consuming litigation and

hesitation which, in some cases, might interfere with the government's taking necessary action which is believed to be authorized.

The existing emergency powers which the President might consider

invoking should another Cuban flotilla situation arise are

scattered throughout various titles in the United States Code.

They were designed for other emergencies and were drafted with

those other problems in mind. Therefore, it is not always clear

from the face of these provisions that they would apply in a mass

immigration problem.

Many different types of problems potentially exist due to

poorly tailored or cumbersome existing emergency powers. For

example, if another Mariel boatlift were to occur today, the

President could very well deem it necessary to restrict and

regulate the movement of certain classifications of vessels.

Under current authority, he could accomplish this by declaring a
national emergency under 50 U.S.C. SI 91 and ordering certain

ports to be closed. The difficulty is that such action could

have consequences well beyond those that are intended or needed

to halt a new flotilla. The closure of ports would, needless to

say, cause severe hardship for many individuals. The President,

however, might have no other choice under existing law if he

were determined to prevent another large influx of undocumented

aliens to the United States.

The proposed legislation remedies such problems. It sets

forth specifically and clearly what actions the President can

take. And those actions are carefully tailored to what might be

required in an immigration emergency. Consequently, it would

assist the government in planning and acting in response to

another Mariel crisis or similar situation, and the legality of

actions taken would be less subject to question. It would mean

that in the context of a crisis those employing emergency powers

and those subject to the restrictions would know without any

doubt that the powers are being properly invoked and exercised.

The enactment of the proposed Immigration Emergency Bill,

for example, would give the President other powers which he

could could use to control vessel movement to the minimum extent

necessary in the event of a declared emergency, and the closure

of ports under 50 U.S.C. S191 to achieve this result would most

probably be unnecessary.

The proposed Immigration Emergency Bill also supplements

the powers of the President under existing law where necessary.

One example of this, which I will discuss in more detail later,

is the authority temporarily to exempt emergency related activities from certain environmental restrictions that might otherwise

be invoked to block necessary actions.

Thus the bill is a comprehensive one designed specifically

for a mass immigration emergency. It would satisfy the need for

more comprehensive and clearer authorities to facilitate the

prevention and handling of any future crisis.
21

The Immigration Emergency Bill Is arranged in seven sections.

The first of the major sections, 240A, concerns the declaration

of an immigration emergency. Under the Bill, the President could

declare an immigration emergency if three conditions exist. The

President must determine: (1) that a substantial number of

undocumented aliens are about to embark or have embarked for the

United States; (2) that the procedures of the Immigration and

Nationality Act or the resources of the Immigration and Naturalization Service would be inadequate to respond to the expected

influx; and (3) that the expected influx of aliens would endanger

the welfare of the United States or of any United States community.

The President must notify Congress, within 48 hours, of his reasons

for declaring an emergency, and publish the declaration in the

Federal Register as soon as practicable.

The phrase "a substantial number of aliens" is necessarily

inexact. The President could not be expected to have precise

estimates of the number of undocumented aliens who may be about

to travel to the United States. The term "substantial number"

would clearly permit the declaration of an immigration emergency

in response to a situation such as the 1980 Cuban boatlift, in

which well over 100,000 aliens came to the United States. It

is not, however, intended that declarations of emergencies be

limited to situations involving the exceptionally large numbers

associated with that boatlift. Rather, it is anticipated that

an immigration emergency could be declared even if only a few

thousand aliens were expected to arrive over the course of several

weeks. Consequently, key factors in assessing the need for

invoking these emergency powers are the adequacy of the response

that could be made using the normal procedures of the Immigration

and Nationality Act, the available resources of the Immigration

and Naturalization Service, and the short and long term effect

the influx would have on the welfare of the United States. On

the other hand, while serious problems exist with respect to the
22

usual daily Illegal border crossings, such activity would not

lead to the declaration of an emergency absent other exceptional

circumstances.

The emergency would last for a period of 120 days after its

declaration, unless ended sooner by the President. The President

could extend it for additional periods of 120 days if in his

judgment the conditions previously described still existed.

The declaration of an immigration emergency would enable the

President to invoke some or all of the powers specified in Section

240B of the Bill. Under the first of these, the President could

restrict or ban vessels, vehicles or aircraft subject to United

States jurisdiction from travelling to a foreign country specifically designated by him, unless such travel has been approved

under the Bill's licensing provisions. The provision applies to

United States conveyances rather than to persons, and individuals

would be free to travel to the designated foreign country as long

as alternative means, such as foreign common carriers, are used.

This provision will have an impact on the constitutionally

protected right to international travel. The Supreme Court has

noted, however, that there is a substantial difference between

the right to travel within the United States and the freedom to

travel outside the United States. While the former is virtually

unqualified, the latter is not. As stated by the Supreme Court

in Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 (1981), the right to travel outside

the United States can be regulated subject to due process

limitations.

The proposed bill provides the requisite due process by

establishing a licensing procedure in Section 240C under which

travel to the designated country would be approved where adequate

safeguards existed to insure that the legitimate interests of the

United States are protected. Full judicial review of licensing

denials would be available. Under this provision, all common
23

carriers or aircraft, for example, could receive a blanket exemption from travel restrictions if such travel would not result in

the arrival of a large number of visaless aliens. The authority

to restrict travel is thus tailored to address the perceived harm,

namely, the influx into the United States of a substantial number

of undocumented aliens.

Section 240B would also enable the President to ban the

transportation, on vessels, vehicles or aircraft subject to

United States jurisdiction, of aliens who are of a particular

nationality or who are travelling from or through a designated

foreign country. Once again, permission for such transportation

could be obtained through the licensing provisions of Section 240C.

This transportation provision, although related to the previously

discussed travel provision, is independently important. The intent

of the travel provision, for example, could otherwise be defeated

by vessels which pick up, at some third country, undocumented

aliens from the designated foreign country. In addition, the

transportation provision would assist in law enforcement efforts

by permitting enforcement actions to be taken if aliens of the

pertinent nationality were found on board, without the necessity

of establishing that the vessel had traveled to the designated

country. Finally, it would give the President flexibility during

an emergency and permit him to invoke only the transportation

provision, rather than the broader travel provision. If he

believed such action was sufficient.

The need for such powers over travel to designated foreign

areas and transportation of undocumented aliens of a particular

nationality was clearly demonstrated by the 1980 Cuban boatlift.

During the boatlift, residents of the United States provided the

means of transportation for the Mariel Cubans. There was little

our government could do until the vessels returned from Mariel

harbor crowded with undocumented aliens. In any future mass

immigration threat, steps must be taken to thwart a boatlift
24

before large numbers of undocumented aliens arrive in che United

States. The proposed provisions would enable the federal government to respond more effectively to future mass migrations by

giving the President specific power to prohibit residents of the

United States from taking actions to aid the aliens in their

efforts to reach our shores. It would not only permit enforcement

action to be taken later against those whose actions made a mass

migration possible, but would also provide the tools necessary

to prevent a Mariel-type situation from occurring in the first

place.

Thus, for example, an operator of a vessel could be arrested

and his vessel seized before it reached foreign shores if there

were probable cause to believe he intended to violate the travel

ban. Of course, a vessel operator would be permitted to proceed

with his lawful business in the absence of adequate justification

to believe he was attempting to violate the law. Moreover, the

experience gained by law enforcement authorities during the 1980

boatlift will better enable officials to make the determinations

necessary to distinguish legitimate activities from violations of

the emergency powers.

Section 240B also permits the President to prevent the

arrival in the United States of undocumented aliens coming from

the designated country during a declared emergency. The President could bar any vessels, vehicles and aircraft, for which the

United States has jurisdiction, including those of a foreign

flag, which are carrying such aliens from entering areas over

which the United States exercises any customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary jurisdiction. In addition, consistent with our

international legal obligations concerning refugees, the undocumented aliens on a vessel, vehicle or aircraft subject to the

jurisdiction of the United States could be returned to the country

of origin or to some other reasonable location.

During the Mariel boatlift, once the undocumented aliens

were on the boats, little if anything was done to prevent them
25

from arriving on our shores. Under Section 240B, vessels subject

to the jurisdiction of the United States can be required to

return the aliens to the country from which they came or to some

other reasonable location. Also, foreign flag vessels carrying

undocumented aliens can be prevented from entering waters over

which the United States exercises jurisdiction. It must be

recognized, however, that returning the vessels or the aliens

may be impossible if the foreign power is truly hostile to their

return. Consequently, stopping vessels from reaching foreign

shores in the first place is critical.

Section 240B, as previously mentioned, also authorizes the

President to temporarily exempt emergency related activities from

environmental restrictions. In addition to referring to existing

Presidential exemption authority under the Clear Air, Clean Water,

Safe Drinking Water, Resource Conservation and Recovery, and Noise

Control Acts, the provision would include new exemption authority

with respect to other major federal, state and local environmental

requirements. Such new authority could be exercised only upon a

Presidential finding, transmitted to Congress, that an exemption

is necessary to respond to an immigration emergency. The temporary

exemption would lapse upon the termination of the emergency. It

could be continued by the President, in increments not to exceed

one year, if he determines that circumstances related to the

immigration emergency make it necessary. The President could

also require that some or all of the environmental standards be

met without creating a private right of action to enforce the

requirement. This would permit the President to insure that the

environment is protected to the maximum extent possible without

risking debilitating litigation in the course of an immigration

emergency.

It is often necessary during a crisis to act quickly and

decisively and to temporarily reorder priorities. During the

Mariel boatlift, a Federal District Court issued an injunction
26

on environmental grounds blocking the transfer of Cuban arrivals

to Fort Allen, Puerto Rico for processing. The court action

came only after millions of dollars had been spent to ready Fort

Allen, and seriously disrupted government planning efforts. The

eventual transfer of aliens to Fort Allen almost one year later

has apparently had no adverse environmental impacts. While

the proposed Immigration Emergency Bill envisions compliance with

environmental safeguards to the extent possible, the temporary

exemption authority it provides could prevent the government from

being thwarted in taking the steps that are essential in responding

to the problems that inevitably arise during such a crisis.

In addition, Section 240B of the proposed bill reiterates

and clarifies the government's authority to detain illegal aliens

who come into custody as a result of an immigration emergency.

The bill anticipates that an alien's admissibility to the United

States will be determined under the existing provisions of the

Immigration and Nationality Act. It makes it clear that the

Attorney General has complete discretion to determine whether

an alien is to be paroled pending a determination of his admissibility or his deportation if he is found excludable. It also

makes clear the Attorney General's discretion to determine where

such aliens will be detained, including in federal or state

prisons or in local facilities if appropriate. The language of

this subsection is intended to permit indefinite detention of an

alien found to be excludable if no country is willing to accept

him, such as occurred in the Cuban boatlift. This specific

authority is necessary so there can be no doubt regarding the

power of the United States to protect the public by detaining

any or all of the arriving aliens during an emergency, as circumstances warrant.

The Attorney General's decisions under this subsection as to

whether or where an alien should be detained are not subject to

judicial review. A detained individual can, however, obtain

habeas corpus review on the issue of whether he falls within the

category of aliens subject to detention under this subsection.
27

The Supreme Court and several courts of appeals have stated

that the Executive Branch has broad authority to detain inadmissible aliens, and have either declined to review or have reviewed

such detention on very narrow grounds. The detention powers

specified in the bill are, thus, consistent with the Executive

Branch's view of its authority under existing law, and with much

of the case law on point. Nevertheless, the ambiguity of the

existing statutory framework has, for example, led some courts

to intercede themselves into the merits of the detention of

those Cuban criminals and misfits who arrived during the 1980

boatlift, despite the fact that the vast majority of the Cubans

who arrived were released.

The provisions of the bill would clarify the very limited

role to be performed by the judiciary in this regard should a new

mass immigration emergency arise, and preclude the courts from

ordering the release of aliens found to be unfit or potentially

dangerous to society by the Attorney General. In essence, this

provision recognizes that the paramount concern is the protection

of the American public from the perils posed by individually

dangerous aliens or by the uncontrolled release of large numbers

of aliens. While the detention of large numbers of aliens for

prolonged periods is permitted by this bill and current case law,

humanitarian and practical considerations will always dictate

the use of common sense in assessing any particular detention

situation. The language of this bill is merely intended, in no

uncertain terms, to preclude the judiciary from second guessing

the Executive Branch's decisions, made in the context of an

emergency, as to which aliens should be released and when those

releases should occur.

Finally, Section 240B assures that the full resources and

expertise of the federal government would be available by permitting

the President to designate which agencies are to be responsible

for carrying out the emergency provisions invoked, and by allowing

him to direct components of the Department of Defense to provide
assistance. By specifically permitting the Army, Navy and Air

Force to enforce its provisions at the President's request, the

bill avoids potential Posse Comitatus Act difficulties.

Section 240C makes it unlawful to violate any travel or

transportation restrictions the President may invoke under Section

240B, and it contains the licensing provisions discussed earlier.

Section 240D of the proposed bill provides for both civil

and criminal penalties for such violations. A civil fine of up

to $10,000 may be imposed for violation of the travel or transportation restrictions, and any vessel, vehicle or aircraft used

to violate such restrictions may be forfeited. A person who

knowingly engages in conduct prohibited with respect to travel

or transportation restrictions is guilty of a criminal offense

and subject to a fine of up to S50.000 and imprisonment for up

to five years.

The last major provision of the bill, which is contained

in Section 240F, is of great importance. This Section authorizes

a contingency fund of $35,000,000 which could be used by the

President to cover the costs of carrying out measures deemed

necessary to deal with the crisis under other provisions of the

bill. Our Mariel experience demonstrated that the existence of

such a fund is critical. It will enable the federal government

to respond quickly and carry out necessary tasks which have not

been otherwise budgeted for.

The reasons why large numbers of people desire to emigrate

to the United States are apparent and easy to understand. Poverty, lack of opportunity and political instability are widespread

throughout the world. The attractiveness of the United States

to immigrants proves the success of our experiment in freedom.

We have learned, however, that immigration must be a controlled

and orderly legal process if the interests of those already

here, and those abroad waiting for their chance to come, are to

be protected. The pending Simpson-Mazzoli Bill would represent
29

a great step forward in controlling the usual illegal migration

experienced by this country and in dealing with the legacy of

past illegal migrations.

We must not forget, however, that illegal immigration can

also take the extraordinary form of sudden mass movements of

people to and across our border. Mariel proved not only that

such emergencies can occur, but also that they can be particularly

disruptive unless decisive action is taken in response. We can

never again be so unprepared that a foreign government, wanting

to rid itself of excess population, can send us its criminals and

misfits while we simply stand by. The enactment of the proposed

Immigration Emergency Bill would give the President the powers

and flexibility needed to prevent and deal with any future mass

immigration emergency. Even if the need to invoke its provisions

never arises, the enactment of such a law would do much to demonstrate our resolve and discourage a repeat of history. We urge

this Committee to give this bill its immediate attention.

Thank you. I will be pleased to answer any questions you

may have.

16-948 0-83
30

Senator SIMPSON. Thank you very much, Commissioner Nelson.

This legislation indeed envisions a response against a sudden

mass movement of people across our borders. That is the thrust of

it, is it not?

Mr. NELSON. Yes, it is.

Senator SIMPSON. Would it not be more appropriate or should it

not be stated that that is the essence of the response, rather than

using the term "a substantial number of aliens?" I would appreciate your view on that.

Mr. NELSON. Well, that is certainly a very good question. As we

have seen, Mr. Chairman, in the long hearings and discussion and

markup of the immigration legislation, we can all use a lot of help

in getting the best words to meet the circumstances.

We used the word "substantial" intentionally, as I mentioned

earlier. It is difficult to be too exact, and we need flexibility. We

think this language does that. Certainly, we would not be against

other suggested language, and we would repeat that there certainly

is no intention in this legislation to cover the ongoing thing.

Clearly, we have "substantial numbers," but that has to be somewhat flexible, and also, clearly, the mass and sudden influx. We do

feel that the language does meet that need. Certainly, we would

not be opposed if we could come up with some better language.

Senator SIMPSON. Under the language of the proposed act in this

draft, dated September 24, and the section-by-section analysis,

would it be possible for the President to declare an emergency

today?

Mr. NELSON. I might ask Ms. Szybala to answer that question,

Mr. Chairman.

Ms. SZYBALA. We think not. As Commissioner Nelson said, that is

certainly not the act's intent. The legislative history that we are

now creating that exists in the form of a section-by-section analysis

would make it clear that the bill is to apply only in an unusual,

extraordinary circumstance.

But, again, if we would like to make that clear in the bill itself,

we really are not wedded to the language.

Senator SIMPSON. We want to be careful about that, not that a

President would do that, but that the law might give that power on

a continuing basis, looking at the fact, I guess, that the triggering

phrases are that: one, a substantial number of aliens without documents embarking to the United States; two, that the normal procedures of the INS are inadequate to respond; and three, danger to the

welfare of a community within the United States.

Another question: When the statute says in section 240(a)(1) "The

President may declare an immigration emergency with respect to

any designated foreign country if the President, in his judgment,

determines that," or "when a substantial number of aliens who

lack documents authorizing entry into the United States appear to

be ready to embark or have already embarked for the United

States," is the word "embark," which means "to leave in a vessel,"

intended to exclude ground transportation? Is that intended?

Mr. HILLER. Mr. Chairman it is not. Whatever the maritime etymology of that word, it was meant in its more common usage•to

begin to depart in destination for another country. Although,

surely, there are circumstances imaginable•indeed, we have seen
31

them•when the transport would be afforded by boats, it is also

conceivable that it could be a migration occurring over the land

borders.

Senator SIMPSON. We will get Webster's and Funk & Wagnall's

and we will pursue the best way to state that. But the intent is not

a limitation?

Mr. HILLER. That is correct.

Senator SIMPSON. If those powers were in place at the time of the

Cuban Mariel incident, what would have been different? What

would have occurred differently under this procedure than did

occur?

Mr. NELSON. We think, Mr. Chairman, that it could have been a

great deal different and that the negative results would not have

occurred. I realize that maybe now with the NFL strike, it is not

the time to do Monday morning quarterbacking, and there is a

question whether that is the case in looking back. But we all learn

lessons from history.

Certainly, one of the key areas in this kind of legislation is for

the President and the Congress to clearly express the intent of the

United States that we will not allow this type of mass influx, and

we think that gives our own people a clear signal. I think it also

gives clear signals abroad. It can cure some of the hesitation problem that we all recognize occurred during the Mariel boatlift.

So, just the intention and the thrust of such legislation and the

administrative action of getting ready for it, I think itself will

make a great deal of difference. Beyond that, in the specifics, we do

feel that the specific provisions of the Act wherein you can stop the

outflow of vessels, such as occurred in Mariel•and certainly the

powers are here to do that•give that kind of flexibility, where the

President could have declared an emergency had we had such legislation, and actually stopped all those vessels from leaving Florida

to head for Cuba. Under the circumstances of Mariel, they were

powerless to really do anything until they came back in. So, we

think there are provisions there.

Again, another aspect which I mentioned in the testimony earlier is having a contingency fund, I think, gives some assurance also

that local and State governments will assist and not sit back and

wonder who is going to do it and who is going to pay.

Senator SIMPSON. As we read the bill, the restriction in the

movement of citizens or aliens in the United States is solely in relation to vehicular traffic to prevent assistance to aliens arriving

on our shores. Is that a correct interpretation?

Mr. NELSON. Mr. Hiller, would you respond to that?

Mr. HILLER. Yes; basically, the restrictions and limitations drawn

in the bill are more to the movement of vessels and vehicles which

are subject to the jurisdiction of this Government. The burden, if

any, on travel outside of the country would be just incidental to the

limitation on the movement of vessels.

The purpose of the statute was to draw its limitations on movement of vessels and people in as limited a way as we could. As a

consequence, American citizens, lawful aliens, or anyone else living

here would continue free to travel by other means than those vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction. For example, they could travel by

foreign common carrier or foreign private vessel. The law was tai-
32

lored to deny the means to people whose vessels would lend themselves to that kind of migration.

Senator SIMPSON. Could you advise the subcommittee of the details of the interdiction effort and the number of boats that have

been stopped, the persons questioned, the number of persons returned, and the number of persons permitted to land? Can you

bring us up to date on the record with that, please?

Mr. NELSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. First of all, our agreement with

the Coast Guard technically ends today, but we have agreed within

the administration that that will continue. The formal continuation documents are in the process between the Attorney General

and the Secretary of Transportation. We think it has been an excellent cooperative venture between the Coast Guard and INS. We

also think that it certainly has been very successful in all respects.

As to numbers, there have been five vessels interdicted. And, 186

persons who were on board were returned to Haiti after appropriate INS interviews and a determination that there were no asylum

claimants on those vessels.

In addition, 111 other vessels were screened and boarded by the

Coast Guard and allowed to pursue their normal trade. As you also

realize, there have at least been several occasions when the interdiction effort, no doubt, saved lives because the boats were in

danger and, in fact, sank on a couple of occasions. So, a number of

lives were saved by these efforts.

Senator SIMPSON. DO you think that has been an effective policy?

What number of illegal aliens do you estimate are now coming

from the Caribbean and Central America, and how would that compare with previous years?

Mr. NELSON. Mr. Chairman, it is always easy for people in administrations to make statements of how great things are. We

think in this case, there really can be no question that the interdiction efforts, of course, coupled with detention policy and other legal

task force operations, have been extremely successful.

No one is really able to dispute the numbers. In the year 1980,

over 15,000 Haitians were apprehended in Florida, having arrived

by these mass influxes. In the year 1981•and it was halfway

through that year when these policies I mentioned were put into

place•the number was cut in half, down to 8,000.

In 1982•and, of course, that is just the first 9 months•there

were only 93. Comparing 9-month figures for the first 9 months of

1980, 1981, and 1982, it was over 11,000 in 1980, 7,600 in 1981, and

less than 100•specifically, 93•in 1982. So, there is no question

that this effort on behalf of the U.S. Government has been extremely successful in stemming the flow.

Now, we recognize that obviously some additional flow, as it

always has been, comes through the Bahamas or through extra

crew on freighters and things like that. That number is not readily

ascertainable; we do not know that. No doubt, that has, as I say,

gone on all along. But, clearly, the interdiction efforts, together

with these other things, have been very successful in stemming the

tide.

Senator SIMPSON. I know that there has been litigation with respect to the interdiction program and we want to know what the

status is of that, just briefly.
33

Mr. NELSON. I would ask Ms. Szybala to respond, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SIMPSON. Please.

Ms. SZYBALA. We had one suit early on in the interdiction effort,

and the suit did not get very far. The court, early in the litigation

on its own motion, dismissed the action•it was a Federal court

action•on two grounds. First, the plaintiffs had no standing to

question this kind of activity on the part of the Government.

Second, even if there were some kind of standing, it was a political

question in which the court would not interject itself.

Senator SIMPSON. And the status, please, of the Cuban litigation

with respect to detention? I think we had tenth circuit and fourth

circuit activity on limiting the right of detention. Are those cases

being appealed?

Ms. SZYBALA. There are currently no appeals. We have one active

case in Atlanta, Ga., which is actually now quietly dying down.

Those two circuit court opinions•the first one that you mentioned,

the tenth circuit opinion, was adverse to the Government. The

court had language in the opinion that could be read to limit the

Attorney General s detention authority. But the case was based on

a very narrow, unusual set of factual circumstances, and the Government did not appeal it.

The fourth circuit opinion, on the other hand, was a victory for

the Government, in which the fourth circuit very clearly held that

the Government does have•the Attorney General specifically•authority to detain indefinitely, if his reasons for doing so are reasonable. In that fourth circuit case, the court distinguished the tenth

circuit case on precisely the same grounds that led us to not appeal

it.

We currently have no appeals, although we do have a district

court case in Atlanta.

Senator SIMPSON. What is the status of the Haitian asylee applicants? How many do we have still in detention? Have those that

have been released showed up for hearings?

Mr. NELSON. We think that program has gone very well, Your

Honor. Again, I think that

Senator SIMPSON. Your Honor? That is the first time you have

ever said that. [Laughter.]

I will take judicial notice of that, however. It was marvelous,

marvelous. [Laughter.]

Mr. NELSON. Well, it has gone very well. In fact, in many ways, I

think, I will stand by that statement because, certainly, in the

processing out, there are only approximately 100 remaining of the

initial roughly 1,800. About 1,447 have been processed out on

parole under Judge Spellman's ruling, and another 222 under the

administration's humanitarian parole, which has, of course, been

an ongoing procedure.

In the New York case, as you know, the Attorney General has

determined under his parole plan to apply somewhat similar approaches and we expect that most of those will be paroled.

But it has gone well; it has diffused the issues. We are proceeding, of course. Here is the danger, which I know I have alluded to

you and I know you are concerned with, that everybody•the Haitians themselves, the general public, and the voluntary agencies•

recognizes that they are out on a temporary parole, pending legal
34

determination of their right to be here. That is going to be the determination.

They have a right to stay. Should they be granted asylum or

have other rights? Otherwise, they will be excluded. We certainly

intend very fully to continue to pursue that in all these cases.

Now, on the question as to how many have showed up, there

have been a limited number of hearings, so we have not really had

much in the way of statistics there. In the reporting requirement,

there were about 73•and, of course, that is not a large number

compared to the total number•that have failed to report. Yet,

with about half of those, there has been contact reestablished. So,

we are talking about 37 where we are further investigating as to

why they have not reported, and we have lost leads on about 9.

So, actually, the number is not great, but the key test will be, as

the hearings proceed, to be sure they, in fact, get lawyers or come

to hearings and that they appear for those hearings.

Senator SIMPSON. Are you getting more cooperation out of the

voluntary agencies who are involved in assisting in assuring that

they appear for the hearings?

Mr. NELSON. Yes; I think overall our relationship with the voluntary agencies, while we had some initial differences on funding and

procedures, has worked out well, and I think we can compliment

them. Now, there have been a few glitches in their proceedings, but

overall I think their efforts have been good, not that they are not

cases where they can be improved. But considering the program

and the processing speed here, I think overall we can be pleased,

including the voluntary agencies' efforts.

Senator SIMPSON. I believe that my good colleague from Iowa,

Senator Grassley, may have some questions. I certainly always

have appreciated his dogged persistence in immigration and refugee matters; it matches every bit mine and I appreciate it very

much.

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What I am going to address to you is something you have heard

me visit with you about before, as well as other members of the

committee. It was a point of discussion on the bill when it was on

the floor, and it was also the point of a major divergence of views

between Senator Kennedy and myself.

Because of the tight budget situation in the INS and also the

lack of manpower, I proposed an amendment to the immigration

bill allowing for more cooperation between local policemen and

INS personnel in domestic immigration law enforcement.

You are well aware of the Griffin Bell directive. This chilled the

cooperative effort previously enjoyed by the INS and local police.

During discussions between myself and the Department of Justice,

I was assured that this directive was undergoing a review with an

eye toward increasing cooperation.

Given the continued confused state of refugee processing in Indochina, even more resources may be necessary. This is something

that we have just been made aware of since the initial discussion of

this. This may cause a further drain on the resources of the INS

for local enforcement.

Can you give me the current status of the revision of the Bell

directive, and what specifically is being done to increase coopera-
35

tion between local law enforcement and the INS? I feel that this is

a proper time to discuss this question because we are talking in the

context of unusual situations and whether or not this cooperation

is addressed in this new legislation.

Mr. NELSON. Senator Grassley, I appreciate the question and the

dialog that we have had on this issue before, and I am pleased to

respond to that. As we indicated to you, it was certainly the belief

of the INS•and I can share that with the Justice Department,

also•that the Griffin Bell directive was not really appropriate and

it should be changed.

While the language of it might not have been as bad as some

thought, I think the intent or the way it was used was as a bar to

effective coordination. You had that concern and we did. We have,

within INS, analyzed that issue and discussed with Associate Attorney General Rudy Juliani. We are in the process of proposing that

that Griffin Bell directive be withdrawn, and that is in the mill

now. It has not reached up all the way to the Attorney General,

but I have no reason to believe that there will be any problem with

doing that. So, I would fully expect that we will, in fact, achieve

that result.

Beyond that, of course, as we have discussed too, we are fully

committed to effective coordination with law enforcement. I think

throughout the Department of Justice, there has been a great

effort since Attorney General Smith has been in office to get better

coordination. We have established law enforcement coordinating

committees throughout the country and INS is an active participant in those.

We ourselves are working closely with a number of the U.S. attorneys. We have set up several special assistant U.S. attorney positions where INS lawyers will work directly with the U.S. attorneys offices. We have set up and have utilized in Miami on the

Haitian issues and others a special litigation task force, and I think

that has been effective. We also have several of those going in

other areas.

We will be having within the next few weeks a 2, 3-day offsite

between many of the top U.S. attorney people and top INS people,

including myself, to coordinate. I have spoken and met with a

number of the police officer associations and others. We have had a

lot of local coordination.

So, it is a matter of building on the ongoing relationship, which

we are committed to do, and effectively coordinating, which likewise we are committed to do. I think we will achieve your concern

on the Griffin Bell directive.

Senator GRASSLEY. DO you have any particular timetable or could

you make any guesstimate of when the rescission might be effective or when the decision might be made, as opposed to when it

might be effective?

Mr. NELSON. I would hate to give you a very specific timetable,

but I would think there is no reason•as I say, we have discussed it

at the associate attorney general level and I do not expect a problem, so I would hope within 1 month. It is really a matter of just

processing the paperwork.

Senator GRASSLEY. Well, that is very good news. Thank you very

much.
36

Mr. Chairman, that is the only question I had, and I am going to

have to apologize. I am not going to be able to stay around anymore for this meeting.

Senator SIMPSON. Thank you for coming. I appreciate it.

Senator Kennedy is very much desirous of being here. He is on a

floor activity now. I believe that Associate Deputy Attorney General Hiller has an aircraft to catch, is that correct?

Mr. HILLER. Yes, sir.

Senator SIMPSON. Why do you not do that, then?

Mr. HILLEE. Thanks very much.

Senator SIMPSON. We will get back to you at some future time,

undoubtedly.

Thomas Enders, our Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs, will be here at approximately 3 o'clock, and we will go forward. I have just a couple of more questions and then we will just

have a recess, since we have a bit of time. We will not go to the

recess that is on the agenda. We will just go forward, except if Secretary Enders is not present, we will recess until he comes.

Could the President, under existing authority, handle any emergency influx? Does this bill not really focus on actions after the

aliens are here rather than initial entry, when we talk about detentions and exceptions from the environmental laws in reference

to detention? Your thoughts on that, please.

Mr. NELSON. I will ask Ms. Szybala to comment.

Senator SIMPSON. Yes.

Ms. SZYBALA. There is no doubt that there are authorities under

current law which could be used to, we think, effectively deal with

any sudden influx. A large part of being effective in response to an

emergency is a resolve, and I think the Government now fully has

that resolve that it would need to use what is available.

But there is no doubt that there is need for change in the laws.

None of the current authorities that could be used relate specifically to an immigration emergency, and most all of them are untried

in that situation•untested. That does create a certain amount of

doubt. That doubt will undoubtedly cause some hesitation, and that

kind of hesitation is fatal.

We think we have the resolve to use current authorities. We

would like to be able to use authorities that are tailored to meet

the situation. That allows us to act in a way that is not overly

broad. One of the difficulties with current authority being not tailored to an immigration emergency is that it allows more emergency powers than we would need in an immigration emergency.

The second part of the question asked, I believe, whether the bill

focuses on what would happen after the aliens are here. We do not

see the bill that way. A large majority of its provisions relate to

stopping an influx before it occurs and stopping southbound vessels

leaving the United States to pick up aliens.

The provisions that are intended to help us deal with the effects

of any mass immigration emergency are incidental, and there are

only one or two of them.

Senator SIMPSON. One final question: When we get to the area of

indefinite detention, that always raises flags and signals and the

situation where we cannot return the alien to his or her native

country. What is envisioned there? We are not talking about, of
37

course, a life sentence for an asylum applicant. But what is our approach to this difficult problem of this group of individuals•

asylum applicants who do not qualify but cannot return?

Mr. NELSON. Of course, that is a very difficult situation, Mr.

Chairman, and one we hope does not happen or is very limited. Of

course, we would hope to have the situation where you can return

people to their countries.

Certainly, the life sentence question•no one likes that. We have

practical, humanitarian considerations, and certainly it is obvious,

in general response to your question, that in the legal processes of

asylum proceedings and the Immigration and Nationality Act, anybody who can qualify for asylum or other procedures for admission

will go through those.

As I say, in addition, you would apply humanitarian considerations and the practical ones. Even with the Mariel Cubans, so

much focus is on the criminals and on the mentally ill, people that

are in long-term detention. But the number there has been greatly

reduced, so we hope it is not a big problem.

Frankly, passage of legislation such as we propose here, we

think, is itself one of the best answers; that there is a clear signal

from the United States that we will have these powers and will use

them. We can do the best we can in the future to avoid the kind of

contingency that brings about the problem you address.

Senator SIMPSON. I thank you very much for your presentation,

both of you. Ms. Szybala and Al Nelson, thank you for this helpful

testimony.

So, we appreciate that, and thank you.

Mr. NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. SZYBALA. Thank you.

Senator SIMPSON. The next panel before the subcommittee is Ambassador Gene Douglas, U.S. Coordinator for Refugee Affairs, and

Thomas Enders, Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs of

the Department of State. It is a real pleasure to have you both

here.

Tom, I know you made a special effort to be here, and I am very

appreciative, and Gene, too. Wait a minute. Here is my colleague

from Florida. Just a second.

[Pause.]

Senator SIMPSON. I have Senator Hawkins here, and I deeply appreciate that. If we could take her statement, then we will immediately come back to this panel.

How did things go on the conference on the missing children?

STATEMENT OF HON. PAULA HAWKINS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Senator HAWKINS. We have a bill.

Senator SIMPSON. YOU have a bill?

Senator HAWKINS. We have a bill which is satisfactory to all parties, with a unanimous consent to waive the 3-day rule and vote it

out tonight so that the President can sign it. I think that is a great

step forward.

Senator SIMPSON. Well, I am pleased.
38

Senator HAWKINS. I appreciate your tolerance in my being late

to all of your hearings. I am sorry.

Senator SIMPSON. That is all right. You are at least present, and

that is the important thing, and we appreciate it. So, if you have a

statement to make, we would be pleased to receive it.

Senator HAWKINS. I will rush through it because I know you

have heard this before, Senator.

I want to thank you for the opportunity that you have allowed

Senators from Florida to have input on the problems that confronted Florida and to discuss the means of dealing with immigration

problems that might develop in the future.

I have already proposed to your committee one way that we can

deal with problems posed by a sudden influx of aliens encouraged

to emigrate by a government in outright violation of our immigration laws. My proposal was an amendment that would have required that the Federal Government bear 100 percent of the cost of

any future Mariel boatlifts, and I hope that the committee will give

this suggestion continued and full consideration.

But you are here today to discuss another means of protection•

immigration emergency powers. I would like to make it clear at the

start that my support for immigration emergency powers legislation does not mean that I oppose our national policy of accepting

persecuted people. On the contrary, I fully believe that the United

States should continue as a beacon of hope to those who live in fear

of death or imprisonment for their political or religious views.

As you all know, Florida has been a haven, a retreat, for Cubans

and other Latin Americans who have fled tyranny and persecution,

and I am proud of them and proud that they are successful. Florida

has given solace and refuge to these brave refugees, and they in

turn have made significant contributions to the prosperity and culture of our State. I do believe in effective enforcement of our immigration laws, but I welcome those who are eligible to enter our

country as political asylees.

I want to emphasize the distinction between the case of a small

group fleeing persecution and a massive influx of undocumented

aliens. This difference in magnitude is significant because it affects

the accepting community. For instance, there is a tremendous difference between receiving a large number of Indochinese refugees

over a number of years and accepting the Cuban entrants who arrived from Cuba over a number of months from Mariel.

Most important, the Indochinese refugees were interviewed

before they were allowed in the country, and their legitimacy as

refugees was established. Also, Americans had enough time to prepare the refugees for adjustment to American society and to prepare themselves. The alien who hops in a boat and heads for our

shores is not that lucky. We may have no clear idea whether he is

here legitimately or not, and even more important, we have no

time to prepare for his arrival.

When you are dealing with numbers like 120,000 entrants over a

span of 6 short months, tremendous problems are unavoidable.

Most of you remember the segments from the evening news during

the Mariel boatlift. Scores of small pleasure craft bring in hundreds of Cubans. Tent cities are constructed hastily under the

shadow of the highway overpass. Thousands of Cubans are
39

screened in an effort to distinguish legitimate refugees from the

criminals, the mentally ill, and other outcasts that Castro tried to

dump on the United States, and did so very successfully.

The arrival of the Cubans 2 years ago has had an impact on

south Florida that we have yet to recover from. As you know, in

most cases crime increases along with the increase in population.

The increase in the Dade County crime rate has far outgrown the

population increase. In the year following the boatlift, Dade County's population increased by roughly 10 percent, but the increase in

serious crimes rose double that•23 percent.

Prior to the boatlift, the crime rate in Dade County had actually

decreased, and I cannot tell that enough. Every time I see Senator

Simpson, I tell him that. I believe that this underscores the real

purpose and need for the emergency powers that you are here for

today.

It is to provide protection for any community from the type of

disaster that befell Florida in 1980. It is to protect people and the

quality of their lives from the impact of a sudden and massive

influx of undocumented aliens.

There are also financial considerations at work here. Conservative estimates place the cost of the Mariel boatlift at $1 billion•

$1 billion that could have been spent on veterans programs, Mr.

Chairman, aid to the handicapped, education assistance, health

programs, a job training program, all designed to help Americans

with legitimate needs. These are the alternatives that we could

have spent money on, but we spent it on a surprise influx of aliens,

and clearly we have a need for immigration emergency legislation.

Unfortunately, a recurrence of the Mariel experience is entirely

possible. Mariel was a contrived scenario. Manipulating the discontent seething below the surface of the Cuban population, Castro orchestrated an exodus to have the maximum detrimental effect on

the United States.

The State Department has estimated conservatively that onetenth of the Cuban population, 1 million people, have expressed an

interest in leaving Cuba for the United States. This latent discontent, plus a depressed economy, are perfect conditions for a repeat

of the Cuban boatlift, should Castro so desire. It would be unconscionable for the United States to be caught unprepared again.

At the very least, there must be a public contingency plan. I

know that the administration has drawn up a plan, and that is

good. The administration's contingency plan is classified, however.

That is counterproductive. One of the main reasons to have a contingency plan at all is to assure the people of Florida or any other

State that effective measures are available to them; also, to show

the Cuban Government that the United States is determined to

resist violations of their immigration laws.

The administration has made public a list of sections in the law

to back up their contingency plan, and this list was most helpful.

But, unfortunately, it only emphasizes the need for more extensive

legislation. The legislative authority applies mainly to certain situations, punishing people who bring undocumented aliens into the

country illegally, detaining aliens, and making certain classes of

aliens illegal. There must be broader authority.
40

The boatlift would not have been possible had not hundreds of

Americans sailed to Mariel Harbor in hopes of finding their relatives. The hope of these Americans is perfectly understandable.

However, the result of their actions was a disaster. Fines or the

forfeiture of vessels is not sufficient to deter their actions. There

were fines in place in 1980 and vessels used in the illegal transport

of aliens were subject to forfeiture. Yet, people took the risk and

sailed to Mariel Harbor. Clearly, more extensive authority is required.

I support the legitimate need for full immigration privileges from

Cuba to the United States and legal immigration to the United

States. I support efforts to reinstate preference visas for Cubans,

since there are none being granted now. If there are Cubans desiring to come to the United States, as I know there are, then legal

immigration is a proper route, but orchestrated by us, not by

Castro.

Immigration emergencies are a new experience for the United

States and we are trying to address them with a comprehensive approach to the problem. I encourage you and your committee to

move forward now and in the next Congress with legislation designed to protect our communities from the sudden and devastating

impact of an immigration emergency.

I understand you have some questions, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SIMPSON. Well, I want to thank you very much for your

patience and your understanding in withholding your deep feelings

and your intent to legislate in this area of emergency powers and

financial assistance to the impacted communities so that the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1982 could move as it did

through the Senate. I very much appreciate that. I want to publicly

and sincerely acknowledge that.

I hear clearly what you are saying. We have listened to you because there is no area of the United States more dramatically impacted than Florida, and south Florida particularly.

In your sensitivity as a public official, could you share with us

your review of the sentiment of the people of Florida with respect

to emergency powers•a rather dramatic move in itself? What have

been your findings of public opinion on that?

Senator HAWKINS. Well, all polls that have been taken in the upcoming election, for instance, that are published weekly in the

newspapers show the failure of our present immigration system to

be the No. 1 thought on the voters' minds this year.

I know of no poll which shows what they think the State government should do versus the Federal Government, because Floridians, like Americans everywhere, will probably disagree with this

provision or that provision of the proposals before us by the President.

But one thing I know for sure is that Floridians say over and

over again that they never again•we even call it the "never

again" legislation, as you know; never again will this happen on

our shores.

So, I say that Floridians see emergency powers as effectively preventing that happening again, and I believe they would fully support any emergency powers that you propose.
41

Senator SIMPSON. There is in the legislation a proposed waiver of

environmental laws, which is designed, I believe, to avoid particularly the difficulties that were experienced when there was movement of asylum applicants to Fort Allen. Do you have any problems with that environmental waiver? I would be interested in

your comments.

Senator HAWKINS. Well, I have worked hard on environmental

legislation, as you have. In the case of an immigration emergency,

I think we need to be prepared with laws that will enable us to

deal with the situation before us as quickly as possible, and not be

hampered by a law that may be on the books that would restrict

our being able to deal with this sudden emergency.

I do not want us to be constrained by laws and regulations designed to be implemented when business is as usual. So, I think we

may have to have certain provisions there. As you know, the

sewers broke at the camp and many things happened at that time

which were against current law that we had. But there was nothing we could do about it.

So, I do not want us to be constrained by present laws that you

and I have worked hard to put on the books. I do not want them to

constrain us from handling an emergency situation.

Senator SIMPSON. A final question: Do you think that the local

and State government agencies in Florida are more alert to their

own emergency planning in relation to any such future immigration condition?

Senator HAWKINS. In jest, I could tell you that we had a meeting

and decided that we would meet them at the shore and send them

to Wyoming and Kentucky in the future.

Senator SIMPSON. Well, I am going to tell Mazzoli what you said.

[Laughter.]

Senator HAWKINS. But knowing that that would not meet with

much understanding with your kind heart, you may be surprised to

know that the State of Florida has drawn up a State emergency

plan. The plan is based on the lessons State officials learned during

Mariel. I understand from the officials who drew it up that it is

fairly detailed and that there are efforts underway to coordinate

the State and the Federal contingency plans.

Local officials were consulted when the plan was drawn up and

we had their input. As I understand it from the Governor's office,

the local officials put their input into the State plan.

Mr. Robert Wilkerson, who is director of the division of public

safety, planning and assistance, is the official responsible, and you

may wish to contact him. He was giving a speech today in another

State, but he is the official responsible for drafting Florida's plan,

which may be of assistance to this committee.

Senator SIMPSON. I thank you very much. Thank you very much,

Paula. You are very helpful.

Senator HAWKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SIMPSON. NOW, we will return to the panel of Ambassador Eugene Douglas, U.S. Coordinator for Refugee Affairs, and

Thomas Enders, Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs of

the Department of State.

We will take your statements in that order, please.
42

STATEMENT OF A PANEL CONSISTING OF H. EUGENE DOUGLAS,

U.S. COORDINATOR FOR REFUGEE AFFAIRS, AND THOMAS

ENDERS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INTER-AMERICAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Mr. DOUGLAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am

pleased to be back today.

I appreciate very much the opportunity to appear before the

committee in my role as the Coordinator for Refugee Affairs in

behalf of the administration's proposed Immigration Emergency

Act.

The significance of this legislation certainly extends well beyond

the obvious arena of immigration and border controls. Our success

in fashioning an effective, new authority in this vital area can help

restore the confidence of the American people in the Federal Government, and contribute to that new consensus that we have often

spoken of that we must regain control of our borders. The existence

of our national refugee policies, for which I am principally responsible, depends upon this same national consensus.

The mismanagement of immigration emergencies, such as we experienced in the Mariel boatlift, has the capacity to violently upset

the delicate balance of that consensus, and thereby poison the

goodwill of Americans toward immigrants and refugees alike.

As many of you know, we have resettled an unprecedented

number of refugees in the United States since 1975. While the refugee program has its problems, most Americans have been willing

to bear with them and support the refugee program out of our long

traditions of welcoming the politically oppressed.

The sudden influx of Cuban entrants into the United States in

1980, which included large numbers of criminals and other socially

maladjusted people, seriously jeopardized the public's goodwill.

This influx also put exceptionally heavy financial and social strains

on some communities and left us with a residual population which

must be permanently incarcerated in order to protect our people.

This entire experience left the American public with a feeling

that their Federal Government had broken faith with them by failing to protect the normal channels of immigration from cynical exploitation of foreign power. That is the kind of experience which

we know destroys national consensus and which, to this day, has

left a lingering doubt in the public's mind over whether such a

crisis will occur again with such devastating effect.

In this atmosphere, the American people can hardly be blamed

for wanting new assurances that the Government can manage all

three areas of entry into the country•immigration, refugee entrants, and illegal aliens•nor can we easily blame the public for

balking at attempts to widen the scope of any of these three areas.

This administration is attempting to repair the people's loss of

faith in Washington's management of our borders through a threepart program: One, the support of the Simpson-Mazzoli immigration bill now before the House, having already passed in the

Senate; two, a careful attention to the consultation process available through the Refugee Act of 1980 to more closely match refugee

admissions with domestic resources available to receive and reset-
43

tie new arrivals; and, three, the Immigration Emergency Act to

cover the unanticipated major crises of mass migration.

Another aspect of the Emergency Immigration Act which is most

important is its mandate to consult with State and local governments in formulating emergency plans. One cannot reasonably

expect the people to obey laws and cooperate in activities that they

do not understand.

Since becoming the Coordinator for Refugee Affairs in March of

this year, I have spent a great deal of time talking with State and

local government officials who are understandably most concerned

that we consult with them concerning refugee admissions into this

country.

The States most heavily affected by the influx of refugees resettled here since 1975 are, in some cases, also States with high populations of illegal immigrants. There needs to be a coordinated

policy established to insure that both immigration and refugee contingencies are met with plans that include the full knowledge of

and consultation with State and local officials.

In conclusion, I would like to say that the migration as well as

the refugee situation in the world today continues to grow as the

number of countries affording their citizens basic human rights

and economic opportunities continues to decline. More than ever

before, there will be increased pressures on the United States to

take not only the victims of the political upheaval, but those who

are the victims of the failed economic policies in which these regimes often result.

While Americans have traditionally had a generous refugee and

immigration policy, we have also had an orderly one, rooted in due

process with priorities established by the American people.

The opportunity to resettle in the United States is not a right,

but a gift, and that gift is rooted in the memory that most Americans at one time or another and their families were all immigrants

into this country.

It is to our great credit that we continue that tradition. It is also

our responsibility in government to protect that tradition with laws

that prevent its abuse, exploitation and manipulation. For that

reason, I urge this committee to support this legislation and seek

its quick implementation so that the Immigration Emergency Act

can take its place as the third leg of our national policy to effectively manage immigration, illegal aliens, and refugees.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SIMPSON. Thank you very much.

Secretary Enders.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS ENDERS

Mr. ENDERS. Mr. Chairman, thanks very much for asking me to

join this hearing. I have not had a chance to prepare a statement,

but could I make some observations in support of the act?

Senator SIMPSON. Indeed, that would be just as appropriate.

Mr. ENDERS. The position of this country has always been that it

would welcome, to the extent it could, those fleeing from oppression and fleeing dictatorships, and I hope it always will be the tradition of this country. Quite clearly, that does not mean that per- I
44

sons can come here when they want and how they want without

submitting to our laws and our procedures. And above all, it does

not mean that people can come here when they are sent here in

masses by a government determined to solve its domestic, political,

and economic problems by manipulating a mass exodus to the

United States.

That, of course, was what happened in 1980. As far as we can

tell, this was not planned far in advance. A domestic political situation characterized by increasing protests, bad economic results, and

challenges to the Government was improvised by the leadership of

Cuba into a mass exodus to the United States.

One of the first things this administration did when it came into

office was to prepare a contingency plan to prevent another Mariel.

I would like to state very firmly that it is the intention of the administration to apply that plan. We have, we believe, the means to

stop in very short order an effort to repeat what happened in 1980.

The critical factor, of course, is the departure of United States own

boats southward. We would act to prevent that, should circumstances of the Mariel type arise in the future.

Now, that is an administration policy and it is an administration

undertaking. But we should make it a fully national policy and a

fully national undertaking by legislating it and making it a permanent part of our authority.

I think the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization has

already given you an outline of what the proposed legislation

would do to confirm and reinforce the authorities we now have and

we are prepared to use.

Let me say that we do not have information at the present time

which would lead us to believe that the Cuban Government is preparing another Mariel. But it is true that there exist conditions

now in Cuba which are not unlike conditions which led to the two

previous waves of immigration in 1965 and in 1980.

The economic situation is bad. Cuba is unable to pay its debts.

World sugar prices are very low, and the cumulative bad performance of the Cuban economy means that the Cuban people cannot

expect any increase in their living standards perhaps for the rest of

the century, and have been so told by their leadership.

Significantly, perhaps, Castro has in the recent past made references to what he called "lumpen," or scum, a word he had used

before•people undesirable still in the Cuban population. Cuba has

indeed identified what it considers to be an exportable group that

lives on the margin of the society, which may be as large as 200,000

people.

Looking at all indicators, we think that it is possible that as

many as 2 million people in Cuba might wish, under certain circumstances, to leave. I repeat, we have no information which leads

us to believe that another Mariel is imminent, but it is clearly a

matter of urgent necessity to keep watching very carefully all intelligence indicators which might lead to a conclusion.

Now, there have been suggestions that the way to deal with an

issue of this kind is not by emergency legislation, but by negotiation. We have had some experience with negotiations on this subject. Indeed, in 1977, we approached the Cuban Government and

said that we wished to create circumstances in which the legacy of
45

the past could be undone•the tensions that existed between the

two countries, the embargo, the exceptional circumstances of our

relationship.

We suggested some actions on Cuba's part to build confidence,

and proposed some on our own. It is noteworthy, however, that

when we asked Cuba whether it could begin to pull down the

number of troops it had in Angola, it instead went into Ethiopia.

And when we asked whether we could have some assurances on its

behavior in the hemisphere, after 10 years of not exporting revolution it launched into the current campaign in Central America.

And while these negotiations were going on, Mariel occurred.

A short time ago, Secretary Shultz, asked about negotiations,

said that what we expect from Cuba is action not proposals for negotiation. If, in fact, they change their policies, many things are

possible.

Well, one thing they could change at the moment is to take back

those persons that are excludable under American law that came

over at the time of the Mariel boatlift. They have no right to be

here. They have no basis on which to be here, and it would be, it

would seem to me, a start of an approach to this problem for Cuba

now to make the gesture to take back those people, many of whom

must now be confined in institutions and can never really, in our

judgment, be let go in an open and free society like this one.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SIMPSON. I thank you. It is helpful to have that information. I have always felt that negotiations should be pursued, and I

will not probe that, hoping that they are going on and ongoing.

And I am sure they are sensitive because I am sure they cover a

broad range of issues.

Let me ask you both, whoever wishes to address the question,

you have already stated that you feel that another mass first

asylum situation is not brewing there and forming.

Mr. ENDERS. Not being planned.

Senator SIMPSON. Not what?

Mr. DOUGLAS. Not being planned.

Senator SIMPSON. Not being planned, yes. Do you share that

view?

Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.

Senator SIMPSON. "Not being planned." That is your phrase?

Mr. ENDERS. The last two occurred spontaneously as a result of

internal troubles in Cuba. The Cuban Government, in effect, arranged to direct the people toward the United States and away

from the Government itself, and that could happen again.

Senator SIMPSON. Could you identify the most likely areas of

that, if it should occur? You indicated that the economy in certain

areas would be material in that. Is there anything further you can

share on that?

Mr. ENDERS. Well, we really do not know how Cuban society is

going to develop over the next several years. There are what must

be to the Cuban leadership some worrisome signs. The kids do not

seem to have the same affection for war and revolution that the

leadership does, nor do they appear to be terribly anxious to be recruited into the army and sent to Africa. So, recruitment for Africa

goes by stealth, in effect. In the regular army, you do not know
46

until you are about to go to Africa that you are going there, and

then you find yourself there maybe for some time.

But, of course, the stories come back from Africa about the casualties and the diseases there. That is one set of factors.

I cannot overemphasize the long-term damaging impact of the

lack of expectations in the economic field. This is a country which

is more dependent now on sugar than it was 20 years ago at the

time of the revolution. It is a country which can only maintain a

constant per capita income on the basis of receiving subsidies from

the Soviet Union equivalent to a quarter of its gross national product. But it is, at the same time, a country highly committed to foreign adventures.

I am not suggesting that Castro has overall, in the immediate

term, a control problem. But there is really a quite evident lessening of the enthusiasm on the part of the population for his leadership. And we have seen in the past that that can change quite

quickly into challenges to the Government.

Senator SIMPSON. DO you see a likelihood of a mass, first asylum

situation in other countries?

Mr. ENDERS. Well, we have cast the legislation in such a way so

that it could be used in case such situations occurred elsewhere.

Indeed, it has become apparent that a sudden burst of people can

appear from almost anywhere in the area. We saw one occur•not

as a result of a government action but as a result of a social movement•from Haiti.

We saw, after the fall of Somoza in Nicaragua, that a very large

number of Nicaraguans suddenly tried to come to this country. So,

clearly, there are other events that could occur, and we are not

predicting any one of those in the immediate future, but we are

aware that it could happen.

Senator SIMPSON. HOW have other countries, both developed and

lesser developed countries, viewed our interdiction precedence?

How do you evaluate the foreign policy impact of the interdiction

effort?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I will start out because of the work that we do

with the U.N. High Commission in moving around Europe and

Asia. I would say that in its first days and in its first months, the

response was, on the whole, unfavorable. They were not understanding what was going on in the territory.

As time has progressed, UNHCR has come into the area at our

invitation and on their own volition on some occasions. They have

come into Haiti and out to the straits area. They have reversed

that. We have, at the moment, little to no criticism, as the understanding of the immigration and the costs to the American people

of illegal immigration and this Mariel episode has been internalized.

Senator SIMPSON. TWO more questions, one for you, Tom, and one

for you, Gene.

Tom, in your view, what would be the reaction of the Mexican

Government to the enactment of this emergency powers legislation?

Mr. ENDERS. Well, first of all, there is no reason to believe that

the Mexican Government would consider it to be legislation which

is directed at Mexico. And there is nothing in the legislative histo-
47

ry or the preparation of it that would suggest that it is. We, frankly, have been thinking of other circumstances.

The problem of undocumented aliens, of course, is addressed in

the immigration bill that has passed the Senate. I would add something to that, though. On migration, we have had over the last 18

months some very intensive discussions with the Mexican Government to inform them of our own thinking, of the direction in which

we were going, and of proposals before they were brought up here.

We have of course made sure that the Mexicans were up to date on

developments within the Congress.

The Mexican Government has not so far made recommendations

or given us advice on our legislation or proposals. I would think

this, in effect, reflects a situation in which the Mexican Government quite clearly understands that the United States must exercise the right of sovereignty within its own territory, just as Mexico

does within its territory.

I would not rule out that the Mexican officials would not make

suggestions to us in the future, but I think that they have not so

far.

Senator SIMPSON. Ambassador Douglas, in this sensitive area, as

U.S. Coordinator for Refugee Affairs and in your recent dealings

with nations of the world, how will you explain the emergency

powers legislation•you have indicated that somewhat•to especially a reluctant country of first asylum like Thailand, where they too

would view the Indochinese refugees as perhaps illegal immigrants,

and certainly indicate that they are facing an immigration emergency which might warrant extraordinary measures? How will you

handle that?

Mr. DOUGLAS. With great care.

Senator SIMPSON. Yes.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I think we have already on a couple of occasions,

Senator, talked to the Thai about this general direction. They are

very perceptive on the implications of Mariel and the Cuban interdiction. On the last trip I had out there in June, at least three of

the senior people in the Government raised philosophical and legal

questions not in challenge but in almost sympathetic questioning

on how a number of countries•United States, Thailand, Austria•

are going to deal with rising threats to their ability to control not

only their borders but their own social fabric.

It is one thing to talk about repelling or being resistant to first

asylum and to adopt an inhumane or uncaring posture, and it is

another to talk about protecting an orderly flow as part of an open,

caring immigration and refugee policy.

I think it would not be difficult to explain to our friends and

allies abroad.

Senator SIMPSON. I thank you both very much for coming, and I

appreciate the special effort, I know, that you made, Tom, to do

this. Thank you. Thank you, Gene.

Now, the next panel•and we will have a 5-minute break•is

Prof. Mark Miller, University of Delaware at Newark; and Prof.

Harold Maier of the Vanderbilt University School of Law in Nashville.

We will take a 5-minute break.
48

[Whereupon, the subcommittee stood in recess from 3:31 p.m. to

3:41 p.m.]

Senator SIMPSON. We will go forward with the hearing with Prof.

Mark Miller and Prof. Harold Maier, and I think in that order,

please. I regret that we do have a time limitation and the light will

go on.

Are you ready, Mr. Day, to turn on the light? Is that not impressive? God, it is magnificent.

STATEMENT OF A PANEL CONSISTING OF MARK J. MILLER, UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE, NEWARK, DEL., AND HAROLD MAIER,

PROFESSOR OF LAW, AND DIRECTOR, TRANSNATIONAL LEGAL

STUDIES, VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL, NASHVILLE, TENN.

Professor MILLER. Mr. Chairman, many of the concerns which led

to the drafting of the Immigration Emergency Act are shared by

other democratic societies. The global migration crisis has propelled immigration and refugee issues to a prominent place on the

public agenda in most Western European countries.

In Western Europe, as in the United States, a broad consensus

has emerged on the need to take prompt and effective steps to restore or enhance governmental control over immigration. While no

Western European country has experienced an immigration emergency of the same magnitude as the 1980 Mariel boatlift, there

have been comparable episodes in recent Western European historyWhen the number of asylum seekers in the Federal Republic of

Germany skyrocketed to over 100,000 in 1980, for example, extraordinary steps were taken by German authorities to revise regulations concerning asylum seekers. More recently, in France, an

influx of illegal aliens and undocumented aliens occurred as news

of the French amnesty program for illegal aliens spread abroad.

This prompted the French Government to bolster its border controls and to adopt new regulations requiring aliens to provide proof

of their intent to return home.

The expected involvement of aliens in recent terrorist incidents

in Paris has given a new sense of urgency to regulation of alien

entry and residency. In the wake of the rue des Rosiers incident,

for example, there were demands for urgent revision of France's

liberal refugee law.' Both the Germans and the French have seen

their national security and sovereignty endangered by uncontrollable events involving aliens, as did the United States during the

Mariel outpush.

Due to the saliency of immigration and refugee issues, European

authorities sought to strengthen and clarify the legal basis for governmental action on immigration and refugee matters. Such efforts

to strengthen and clarify governmental powers to meet new challenges and contingencies, however, do not include specific reference

to immigration emergencies, nor do they require a formal declaration by heads of state to become effective.

European governments generally can be said to possess broad

powers to prevent a threatened mass migration of visaless aliens,
49

but have not felt the need to adopt specific laws for immigration

emergencies.

The French President, for example, does possess broad emergency powers under article 16 of the 1958 constitution which perhaps

could be invoked during an immigration emergency. The German

Chancellor, likewise, has broad emergency powers which conceivably could be invoked during an immigration emergency of large

magnitude.

France and Germany are both members of the European Community, and their laws must be consistent with Community law. It

is difficult to imagine how restraints on an individual's right to

leave his or her country could be reconciled with the freedom of

movement provisions of the Treaty of Rome and other international treaties signed by France and West Germany.

Other restrictions foreseen under the Emergency Immigration

Act seem consistent with European laws prohibiting the transportation and harboring of illegal aliens. Vehicles, for example, which

transport illegal aliens can be impounded. The West Germans levy

a fine on air carriers who bring in illegal aliens. Special visas and

other forms of travel restrictions on classes of aliens suspected as

potential law abusers have been imposed.

Perhaps the French and Germans have not felt it necessary to

pass immigration emergency legislation because they regard the

immigration situation as an ongoing crisis which can only be dealt

with by far-reaching, comprehensive immigration policy reform.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mark J. Miller follows:]
50

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK J. MILLER

Many of the concerns which led to the drafting of the

Immigration Emergency Act are shared by other democratic societies. The global migration crisis has propelled immigration

and refugee issues to a prominent place on the public agenda

in most Western European countries. In Western Europe, as in

the United States, a broad consensus has emerged on the need

to take prompt and effective steps to restore or enhance governmental control over immigration.

The first steps toward reform of Western European immigration policies began in the 1960's and eventuated in decisions

to stop guestworker recruitment in the 1973-1975 period. Since

then, Western European reforms have centered on employer sanctions and revision of laws regulating the admission of refugees,

guestworker dependents, tourists and, to a lesser extent, foreign

students. Faced with ever growing guestworker populations (due

to births and a steady influx of dependents), mounting unemployment and serious integration problems, European governments are

now more determined than ever to prevent abuse of their immigration and refugee laws.

While no Western European country has experienced an immigration emergency of the same magnitude as the 1980 Mariel boatlift, there have been comparable episodes in recent Western

European history. When the number of asylum seekers in the

Federal Republic of Germany skyrocketed to over 100,000 in 1980,

extraordinary steps were taken by German authorities to revise

regulations concerning asylum seekers. More recently, in

France, an influx of illegal aliens occurred as news of the

French amnesty program for illegal aliens spread abroad.1

This prompted the French government to bolster its border controls and to adopt new regulations requiring aliens to provide

proof of their intent to return home. The suspected involvement
51

of aliens in recent terrorist incidents in Paris has given a

2

new sense of urgency to regulation of alien entry and residency.

In the wake of the rue des Rosiers incident, there were demands

for urgent revision of France's liberal refugee law. Both the

Germans and the French have seen their national security and

sovereignty endangered by uncontrollable events involving aliens

as did the United States during the Mariel outpush.

Due to the saliency of immigration and refugee issues,

European authorities have sought to strengthen and clarify

the legal basis for governmental action on immigration and refugee

matters. Such efforts to strengthen and clarify governmental

powers to meet new challenges and contingencies, however, do not

include specific reference to immigration emergencies. Nor do

they require a formal declaration by a head of state to become

effective. European governments generally can be said to possess

broad powers to prevent a threatened mass migration of visaless

aliens but have not felt the need to adopt specific laws for

immigration emergencies.
52

TABLE I

Number of Registered Asylum

Seekers in the FRG and

Number of Persons Recognized

as Asylees 1970-1980

Year Asylum Seekers Persons Recognized

1970 8,645 3,488

1971 5.388 5,530

1972 5.289 2,464

1973 5.595 1.862

1974 9.424 3.961

1975 9,627 2,764

1976 11,123 2,530

1977 16,410 1,689.

1978 33.136 1,838

1979 51,493 5.899

1980 108,000a

(Source: Antwort der Bundesregierung auf die Grosse Anfrage

der Fraktionen der SPD und FDP - Drucksache 8/3753,

June 20, 1980, abased on interview in Zirndorf,

November, 1981.)

When "false" asylum seekers poured into Germany in the

1978-1980 period (see Table I), the government altered procedures

for abjudicating claims to asylum status and changed policies

pertaining to the socio-economic privileges of asylum seekers

while claims were being decided. As the right to asylum is

included in the West German constitution (article 16 of the

Basic Law), any foreigner who claims to suffer from political

persecution is guaranteed the right to a hearing. It is conceivable, then, that a huge number of aliens might arrive and

claim asylum status, but measures taken by the government in

recent years make asylum status less desirable and less likely

to be abused by economically motivated migrants. The Germans

did not find it necessary to pass a law which would' give the
53

Chancellor emergency powers to cope with migration questions,

but strong measures to curb abuse of asylum law nonetheless

were taken.

Among Western European nations, the need to strengthen

and clarify the legal basis for governmental regulation of alien

entry and sojourn perhaps has been most.keenly felt in France.

Over the last three or so years, the French have been debating

the wisdom of significantly increasing the powers of the government in the area of immigration control. This debate has touched

on some of the specific issues raised by the Immigration Emergency

Act (for example, the power to detain suspected illegal aliens),

but more importantly it illustrates how one Western European

country has tried to come to grips with the larger issue raised

by the need to respond to the immigration crisis: How can

traditional concern for individual rights in democratic societies

be reconciled with legal measures which enable democratic societies

to regulate alien entry and sojourn effectively?

THE BONNET AND BOULIN-STOLERU LAWS

The government's effort to reduce immigration to France

after the 197^ recruitment stop was frustrated by several

legal setbacks. A number of aliens who had been expelled were

permitted to return to France after the Conseil d'Etat (State

Council), which monitors the legality of French governmental

practices and can be appealed to directly by anyone on French

• • • • . 3

territory, citizen or noncitizen, ruled m their favor. Then

a regulation which would have suspended further immigration to

France by dependents of foreign workers was criticized for its

k

dubious legality and finally had to be rescinded. Controversies

also arose as to the legality of governmental detention centers

for alleged illegal aliens, such as at the clandestine Arenc

center in Marseilles, and the State Council forbade arbitrary

detention without judicial review.
54

Feeling handcuffed by a lack of clear legal authority to

take steps deemed necessary to restore governmental control over

immigration, the government proposed two laws which would modify

the 19^5 law governing the entry and residency of aliens. The

Bonnet law, named after Minister of Interior Christian Bonnet,

sought to clarify and strengthen governmental power over decisions

to admit and exclude aliens at borders, to legalize detention

(internment) and refoulement, and to expand the number of offenses

which subject aliens to deportation. The second bill, named

after the late Minister of Labor Robert Boulin and the former

Immigration Secretary Lionel Stoleru, pertained mainly to work

and residency permit regulation. The bill sought to simplify

the complex work and residency permit system by fusing the two

permits and to enable the government to deport aliens whose

permits were not renewed. Mr. Stoleru"s statement, "...that

what was once an immigration country will become an emigration

country," succinctly suggests the motivation behind the governmentbacked legislation.5

The two bills caused a storm of controversy. Compared

to the United States government, the French government already

enjoyed greater immigration enforcement powers. The French

police could, and did, stop suspected illegal aliens in Parisian

subways and sometimes entire neighborhoods were blocked off for

identity checks. All foreigners are required to carry visas or

passports while French citizens carry national identity cards.

But the government wanted to install a nation-wide computer

link-up which would enable the police to verify the identity of

aliens in a matter of minutes. This would have endowed France

with an alien identification system similar to that of West

Germany. However, the plan also called for the distribution of

new, noneounterfeitable identity cards for citizens and noncitizens. While only information on foreigners was to be stored

by the police, it was feared that the entire plan might lead to
55

violations of individual rights. In a country where memories

of World War II are still vivid, the idea of the computerized,

nation-wide identification system raised fears as did the idea

of noncounterfeitable identity cards.

The perception that the government's legislation would

endanger the liberties of French citizens was coupled with a

perception that the government was out to redefine the rights

of aliens in a more restrictive sense. Many Frenchmen opposed

the legislation on the grounds that foreigners should not be

made to bear the costs of the economic recession. The BoulinStoleru bill would make unemployed foreign workers deportable

due to nonrenewal of permits.

The two laws were extensively debated in the National

Assembly and Senate in 1979 before being passed into law by

early 1980. The vociferous opposition of some members of the

majority coalition in addition to minority party opposition led

to numerous amendments of the original bills. However, the two

laws still gave the government the right to detain aliens for

several days prior to deportation, the right to deport several

new categories of immigration law offenders (such as possessors

of counterfeit documents and expired visas), and the right to

demand additional documents of aliens requesting visas, so-called

repatriation guarantees.

One major consequence of the laws was a rapid increase in

the number of officially registered deportations (13,537 in

1980 as opposed to only ^,329 in 1979).7Many of the deportation

cases involved minors. In some instances, North African children

who had grown up in France were deported to native countries

which they scarcely knew. Allegations that thousands of aliens

were being deported without judicial appeal sparked a protest

movement which culminated with a highly publicized hunger strike

by a Catholic priest, a Protestant minister, and a young Algerian

Q

awaiting deportation in Lyon. The hunger strike coincided with

the Presidential election campaign and finally prompted Mr. Bonnet
56

to suspend temporarily all deportations of foreigners. When the

new Socialist government assumed office, one of its first acts

in the summer of 1981 was to reaffirm the suspension of deportations except in special national security cases. The government

also moved quickly to abrogate the Bonnet and Boulin-Stoleru laws

which it regarded as threatening to public liberties and to the

rights of foreigners.

PLUS CA CHANGE, PLUS C'EST LA MEME?

In September of 1981, a new law on the entry and residency

9

rights of foreigners was passed. To the surprise of some observers, the Socialist legislation bore more resemblances than

differences to the laws it was abrogating. The legal right of

the government to deport aliens was restricted to cases "imperious

to public order." But the government would still be able to detain

and expel foreigners at the borders and at ports of entry. The

Border and Air Police still would be able to demand documents,

in addition to a visa or passport, of unspecified categories of

aliens but a refusal to grant entry on the basis of the documents

provided would now have to be justified in writing to an administrative authority.

The new government hoped to integrate the foreign population residing in France while making sure that additional

unauthorized alien entries did not occur. The former goal required an end to the legal insecurity felt by the foreign population while the latter goal dictated augmenting legal and

administrative resources for immigration control. Events of

the past year have sorely tried the French government's effort

to enlarge the scope of rights for aliens residing in France

while holding abuse of immigration and refugee laws to a minimum.

Rather than adopting emergency laws to deal with influxes of

illegal aliens and widespread insecurity attributable to aliens,

the government opted for prudence and reliance upon existing

^^J^UBUMJ
57

laws. The number of Border and Air Police has been augmented

to enhance border controls while calls for drastic revisions

of France's deportation and refugee laws have been rebuffed. In

recent weeks, the Mitterand government has indicated that it

will establish a computerized data bank (in cooperation with

other European Community members) on suspected terrorists. But

there are no plans to establish a nation-wide computer data

bank on aliens as envisaged by Mr. Bonnet. Indeed, the French

government has repeatedly stressed the need to differentiate

legally-established foreign workers from aliens linked to acts

of terrorism.

COMPARATIVE FINDINGS

Although the French and German governments have been hard

pressed by abuses of their immigration and refugee/asylum laws,

they have not felt the need to adopt specific legislation for

immigration emergencies. European governments have, however,

sought to increase and clarify their legal powers to prevent

unauthorized entry and residency. The French President does

possess broad emergency powers under Article 16 of the 1958 French

Constitution which perhaps could be invoked during an immigration emergency. However, the Constitution states that only

when "...the independence of the nation, the integrity of its

territory or the fulfillment of its international commitments

are threatened in a grave and immediate manner and when the

regular functioning of the Constitutional governmental authorities is interrupted..." may emergency powers be invoked. Due

to the fact that the Presidential emergency powers invoked under

Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution paved the way to the Nazi

seizure of power, the German Chancellor's emergency powers (the

West German President now is largely a figurehead) were strictly

limited, in comparison to the French and American situations,

until 1968. Then, in the face of mounting urban terrorism,
58

12

emergency powers were expanded after a bitter national debate.

The German Chancellor now possesses extensive emergency powers

which conceivably could be invoked during an immigration emergency

of enormous magnitude. The concept of state emergency is applicable

when the German lower house (Bundestag) declares that a state of

emergency (Spannungsfall) exists under Article 80a of the Basic

Law. The notion of a legislative emergency (Article 81) applies

only when a vote of no-confidence is lost but no alternative

government to the existing government can be formed.

France and Germany are members of the European Community

and their laws must be consistent with Community law. It is

difficult to imagine how restraints on an individual's right

to leave his or her country could be reconciled with the freedom

of movement provisions of the Treaty of Rome and other international treaties signed by France and West Germany. Other

restrictions foreseen under the Emergency Immigration Act seem

consistent with European laws prohibiting the transportation

and harboring of illegal aliens. Vehicles transporting illegal

aliens can be impounded. The West Germans levy a fine on air

carriers who bring in illegal aliens. Special visas and other

forms of travel restrictions on classes of aliens suspected as

potential law abusers have been imposed. Perhaps the French and

Germans have not felt it necessary to pass immigration emergency

legislation because they regard the immigration situation as an

ongoing crisis which can only be dealt with by far-reaching,

comprehensive immigration policy reform.

FOOTNOTES

See, Le Monde, September 8, 1981, L,e Matin, September 11,

1981 and Liberation, September 5-6, 1981.

2

See Le Monde, August 14-17, 1982.

3

Ibid., September 29, 1977, p. 16.

.~<-u/r•x ^j_
59

She New York Times, October 30, 1977. p. 6.

*Le Nouveau Journal, October 8, 1977.

6

Le Monde, April 19. May 29 and July 5, 1979, Droit et

Liberte, Number 380, May, 1979, p. 23.

Based on a table excerpted from the Commission des Lois

du Senat reproduced in Presse et Immigre's en France, Serie

Problemes et Evenements, Number 20, 1981, p. IB"!

Q

Presse et Immigre's en France, November 18, 1981.

9

Ibid., Number 20, 1981.

10Le Monde, August 17, 1982.

William Safran, The French Polity, (New York: David

McKay, 1977), p. 304.

12See Arnold J. Heidenheimer, The Governments of Germany,

Third Edition, (New Yorki Crowell, 1971), pp. 71-76.

Senator SIMPSON. Thank you very much.

Now, please, Professor Maier.

STATEMENT OF PROF. HAROLD MAIER

Professor MAIER. Mr. Chairman, it is a great pleasure to be here.

My particular area of interest is the constitutional law of foreign

affairs, and therefore I would like to address for just a few moments some of the structural aspects of this bill.

First, I think it is important that we recognize what we are not

talking about. There is not any doubt about the Nation's power to

exclude aliens. It has been suggested that the President acting

alone, under his inherent powers under the Constitution, can do

that. And it is quite clear in terms of the existing case law that the

Congress, acting together with the President, can exclude aliens

from the country to any degree that they wish, because the Congress and the executive branch together represent the full sovereignty of the United States.

So, what we are really talking about in this bill is not whether or

not the United States can exclude aliens, acting in the way in

which it does, but rather whether the Congress and the Executive,

acting together in this way, can take the steps that they wish to

take.

I would suggest that it is probable that given a showing of serious potential harm to the United States, the President could act in

this respect even without statutory support. It is absolutely clear,

however, from the context of this bill that when the President and

the Congress act together, as this bill contemplates, certainly, then

the principles of separation of powers, at least, do not prevent the

measures which are proposed from being adopted.

Now, even if the statute is viewed as a delegation of powers by

the Congress under the naturalization clause or the commerce

clause or perhaps the necessary and proper clause, the standards
60

which are required for delegation in the United States are, in fact,

met.

The Supreme Court has said that intelligible standards must be

set forth in the bill which delegate powers from the legislative

branch to the executive branch. It is clear that the standards set

forth in this bill meet that test. In fact, most cases uphold delegation as long as the result to be achieved is clear; that is, even if the

manner or means by which it is to be achieved are vague or imprecise, as long as the President is directed in terms of the result he

should reach. That has normally been accepted as a sufficient

standard to meet the delegation test.

The Immigration Emergency Act, as proposed, is every bit as specific in the standards it establishes for Executive conduct as was

the Trading with the Enemy Act, for example, where much of the

emergency power during the last 50 years has found its source.

Even if the President already has sufficient power to deal with

serious emergencies under the International Economic Emergency

Powers Act or the National Emergency Act, I think that this proposed legislation is very useful. It is especially appropriate if the

President's inherent powers include the authority to achieve these

results by himself. I say it is especially appropriate that the legislation be passed even in that event.

Neither of the more general emergency powers acts that I have

referred to are directed precisely at the problem addressed by this

bill. Presidential action taken under them might well exceed the

scope of the action permitted under those bills. In any event, the

focus specifically upon the immigration emergency which this bill

provides is a very useful one.

Adopting the current bill, I think, would both encourage the

President to act in the case of an immigration emergency by providing pre-existing political support, and it would also implicitly restrain the President from going beyond the parameters of this bill,

since the act would define those areas in which the President and

Congress are agreed that he ought to act, and that I think is very

valuable.

Last, I do have serious reservations about the wisdom of using

the term "emergency" in connection with this immigration bill at

all. The emergencies described in this bill appear to be considerably less intense and less broad than those described in the other

emergency legislation.

There is nothing in this act, I think, that could not be accomplished under a straight rulemaking delegation by Congress which

would permit the President to make rules and act in specified ways

when the conditions set forth in the bill are met.

If everything becomes an emergency, then nothing is an emergency. I think it is very important that Congress be carefiil not to

begin to designate narrow areas as emergency areas when, in fact,

the whole issue of emergency powers is one which intimately interrelates the role of the President and the Congress in a broad spectrum of activities.

I do not believe it would endanger the bill's constitutionality to

remove the emergency characterization. In fact, if one looks at

prior emergency bills, what those bills really were, were bills which
61

provided certain means by which the President could act when a

general emergency occurred.

We already know what the circumstances are under which we

would like the President to act, and it strikes me that the emergency designation here may do more harm than good and certainly is

not required to support the constitutionality of the bill.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Harold G. Maier follows:]

16-948 0-83
62

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HAROLD G. FKIER

EMERGENCY POWER: LEGISLATIVE

AND EXECUTIVE INTERACTION

When Congress and the President act together to make law at the national

level, the only limitations on their power are the constitutional limitations on

federal governmental power generally. If the power to act in a given manner

resides in the national government at all, the political branches, acting in

concert, can exercise that power. This principle was clearly articulated by Mr.

Justice Jackson, concurring in the Steel Seizure Case, when he wrote

When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied

authorization of Congress, his authority is at its

maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own

right plus all that Congress can delegate .... If his act is

held unconstitutional under these circumstances, it

usually means that the Federal Government as an

undivided whole lacks power.2

Although this statement is dictum and appears solely in_a concurring opinion, its

logic is inescapable and it accurately states the law. Especially in matters

touching foreign affairs, the President and Congress, acting together, can do all

that any sovereign nation can do, so long as the act does not contravene an

express prohibition of the Constitution. Therefore, the constitutional questions

facing the Congress in connection with the Immigration Emergency Act are

concerned with whether the federal government can create and enforce the

special rules for dealing with aliens in the special circumstances described in the

bill, not whether the President acting alone could adopt such measures on the

basis of some inherent emergency power.

There is no longer any doubt that the President has independent power to

act in emergency situations, at least as long as he does not directly contravene

congressional legislation. Furthermore, he has greater emergency powers in

matters touching foreign affairs and these include matters connected with aliens

and immigration. It is also clear that Congress has power to legislate

concerning aliens under Article I, S 8, cl.4, the "naturalization" clause, article I,

§ 8, cl. 3, the "commerce" cluase and certainly in the light of the general

mandate of the "necessary and proper" clause of article I, S 8, cl. 18. Acting

together, the executive branch and the legislative branch possess whatever

power is necessary to deal with this issue. It is therefore unnecessary in

connection with this proposed legislation to determine which component of the

emergency power sought to be created is solely within the province of the

legislature and which solely within the executive prerogative.

It is clear that the standards set forth in the proposed legislation meet the

criteria for effective delegation of legislative power if, indeed, delegation of

power is involved. The statute is neither too imprecise nor too broad under the

tests applied by United States courts. The general rule is that when Congress

delegates power to the executive it must do so under an "intelligible, principle"

on the basis of which the President can know when and how to act. In cases

involving international affairs Congressional delegation ma^ be very broad

indeed. The Supreme Court made this clear in Field v. Clark, a case involving

delegation of authority to the President to revise duties if he found certain facts

concerning foreign countries treatment of United States sugar. The Court wrote
63

[I]n the judgment of the legislative branch of the

government, it is often desirable, if not essential, for the

protection of the interests of people, against the

unfriendly or discriminating regulations established by

foreign governments, in the interests of their people, to

invest the President with large discretion in matters

arising out of the execution of statutes relating to trade

and commerce with other nations.10

Congressional limitations on the scope and extent of delegated authority in

matters related to foreign commerce may be so vague as to be almost

nonexistant. Illustrative is Federal Energy Administration v. Algonquin, decided

by the Supreme Court in 1976. That case involved a challenge to the power of

the President to impose license fees on certain oil imports under an

authorization in s 232(b) of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. That section

provided that where an article was being imported into the United States under

circumstances that threatened national security the President could . . . "take

such action, and for such time, as he deems necessary to adjust the imports of

[the] article . . . ." The Court held that the legislation included sufficiently

intelligible standards to meet any attack on improper delegation grounds. The

discretion granted to the President to determine which of several measures to

select to deal with the imports in question was reasonable and did not violate the

principle that Congress could not delegate authority without indicating its scope

and extent.

The courts have in these cases given very broad scope to Congress1 ability

to delegate and a reasonableness standard is applied. The best recent analysis of

the related roles of the Congress and the President in dealing with emergency

powers is found in United States v. Yoshida International, Inc. In that case the

President, acting under the authority of emergency powers under the Trading

with the Enemy Act, had imposed an import duty surcharge of 10% across the

board. The emergency power provision permitted the President to "regulate . . .

importation . . . of . . . any .property in which any foreign country or a national

thereof has any interest."1The court found that this language, interpreted

liternally, gave the President power to impose the surcharge and no greater

specificity was required. The court, referring to Congress, wrote "Having left

the battlefield, it would hardly do to dictate all the weapons to be used in the

fight."14

Pointing out that the validity of the President's acts was to be judged by

what was done, not by what mght have been done under a broader interpretation

of the congressional authorization the court laid down the following rule:

A standard inherently applicable to the exercise of

delegated emergency powers is the extent to which the

action taken bears a reasonable relation to the power

delegated and to the emergency giving rise to the action.

The nature of the power determines what may be done

and the nature of the emergency retricts the how of its

doing, the means of execution. Though courts will not

normally review the essentially political questions

surrounding the declaration or continuance of a national

emergency, they will not hesitate to review the actions

taken the response thereto or in reliance thereon. It is

one thing for courts to review the judgment of a President

that a national emergency exists. It is another for courts

to review his acts arising from that judgment.*»
As this passage makes clear, the determination by the executive that an

emergency exists or the determination by Congress of the circumstances that

will constitute an emergency will be left undistributed by the courts. The

actions of the executive will be reviewed, however, to determine whether they

conform to the congressional mandate and relate reasonably to the situation in

connection with which the emergency power is invoked.

Although the courts speak in terms of standards for "delegation," one can

also view emergency legislation as if it involved no delegation at all. It can be

viewed equally well as a cooperative exercise of concurrent power. Under that

view whether the legislation provides an "intelligible principle" under which the

executive can act is irrelevant, except to the extent that the legislation must be

sufficiently clear as not to be void for vagueness. In fact, if the joint objective

of the political branches is clear, any executive rule-making authority reasonably

related to that objective will be upheld.

The remainder of this submission addresses two issues. The first is whether

the President has sufficient inherent emergency authority in his constitutional

role as chief executive to make this legislation unnecessary. The second issue is

the relationship of this proposed act to other legislation dealing with emergency

powers, especially the National Emergencies Act.

"Inherent" Emergency Powers

Whether the President has "inherent" powers to act in case of national

emergency has been the subject of considerable debate throughout much of the

history of the United States. Much of the conceptual difficulty arises from

the use of the word "inherent" to describe these powers. That word suggests a

power adhering to the occupant of the White House but located, somehow,

outside the constitutional scheme. A clearer formulation of the question is to

ask whether power to act in a national emergency has been conferred on the

President as part of the general executive power directly granted to him under

Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Constitution. In this sense, of course, the power is

still "inherent" in the President's designation as chief executive but asking the

question in this way makes it clear that the inquiry goes to the issue of what

power the constitution confers by means of this broad charge, not what power

the President can seize because of his ability to act more quickly and more

directly than the other governmental branches.

The country's chief executive must necessarily have the power to decide

and act as expeditiously as possible when the need for quick action arises. Given

this necessity, it is clear that the ability to act in emergencies must have been

constitutionally conferred on the President as part of the grant of Executive

power. If this were not so, the country would be paralized in those situations

where action is most needed and, in fact, the framers of the Constitution would

have created a government impotent in the face of threat, an objective that they

clearly did not intend. This conclusion stems from an organic conception of the

state and emphasizes the functional nature of the division of constitutional

powers rather than attempting to characterize of the power of the President by

analysis of predetermined and relatively firm conceptual categories. In this

sense, it is a functional and practical conception. While it is true that the scope

and content of the President's power to act in emergencies is undefined in the

Constitution, historic practice has made it apparent that the functional ability of

the President to act quickly and decisively without the delays that are inherent

in the legislative process has made arguments about whether the President has

textual "constitutional" authority generally irrelevant. The dynamic that js the

constitutional process is a function of practice, not of words, and hortatory

invocations of "the Constitution" to attack the exercise of executive initiative in

emergency situations fulfills a political function at best.
65

A more important consideration is the degree to which the other branches

of government can or should act to discourage or encourage the exercise of

executive initiative in emergency situations. The lack of a clear constitutional

mandate to act is a two-edged sword. Although it permits initiative, it also

serves to guarantee that the President must seek to act wisely and with

reasonable restraint, or he acts at his peril. Thus, where Congress is explicit

about the nature of the problem to be addressed and about the approach to be

taken in resolving it, the President has guidance about the appropriate means to

carry out his duty as chief executive. Whether the President could act with

"inherent" power in the situations described in the legislation becomes irrlevant.

His power to act is exclusive, but his power to establish the norms that shall

determine the legitimacy of his actions is not. His ability to act is strengthened,

if not created, by legislative endorsement.

Another effect of passing legislation such as this will be to create an

implicit restraint on the President. The Act will define those areas in which the

President and Congress are agreed that he has power to act and, consequently,

will identify those actions that he can take with the least peril of confrontation

with the legislative branch or of having his action overturned in the courts. A

Congressional mandate defining emergency circumstances increases the

likelihood tnat any Presidential act outside the scope of this mandate will be

judged harshly since the President would clearly have parted company with the

other political branch and have struck out on his own. In that instance, the

validity of his act would be supported solely by his own authority, now exercised

in the clear absence of legislative endorsement or perhaps in implied conflict

with the legislative will inferred from possible elements in the act's legislative

history. The President's authority to act contrary to the legislative will in

situations where the legislative branch has a specific assignment of power as it

does in the foreign commerce and naturalization fields is virtually non-existant.

Thus, while one effect of passing this proposed legislation would be to

identify clearly the grounds on which there is agreement on the requirements for

action, another effect would be to create a valuable implicit legislative

inhibition on the exercise of "inherent" Presidential power outside the legislative

mandate. The President must and will act in emergency situations. The

proposed legislation would perform the dual function of supporting the actions

covered by it and discouraging action that is not, without expressly requiring or

forbidding either. Thus, it will have taken advantage of the great flexibilities

built into the constitutional structure without either abdicating the legislative

prerogative or interfering with the executive decision-making dynamic.

Related Legislation

Legislative creation of, or support for, national emergency powers has had

a strange and, in some respects, dubious history. Under the provisions of the

Trading with the Enemy Act, which granted broad powers to the executive

during times of national emergency, there developed through the combination of

executive initiative and congressional acquiescence (and, in some instances,

active congressional participation) a practice of almost constitutional stature.

Over a period of almost 40 years through a series of declared national

emergencies, the executive branch expanded its law-making function. That lawmaking role for the executive became so deeply embedded in the governmental

structure of the United States that when an effort was made in the National

Emergenices Act [hereinafter NEA] to do away with emergency status and to

limit the opportunities for the President to create power by the invocation of the

national emergency rubric, S 5(b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act, the

authorization under which most emergency power i^ad been exercised, had to be

exempted from the NEA and dealt with separately.
66

Legislation does not give the President power to declare a national

emergency. The President, possessing the right of free speech guaranteed by the

Constitution and common to all citizens, can declare anything he wishes. The

issue for the legislator is what legal effect, if any, shall be given to such

Presidental pronouncements. Even without legislative authorization or

definition, however, a declaration of emergency by the President is not without

effect. A Presidential emergency declaration focuses public attention on the

situation so characterized at the highest level and often creates almost

irresistible public support to "do something." That "something" is then done by

the executive branch and considerations of the abstract constitutionality of the

action are subordinated to the realities of public support if it is successful and to

political condemnation if it is not. Thus, although the legislature cannot control

whether the President characterizes any given situation as an emergency, it can

make clear before hand what the effect of such a declaration will be and, by so

doing, influence the likelihood that the declaration will be made appropriately

and, when made, given its intended effect.

Neither the National Emergencies Act nor the International Emergency

Economic Powers Act [hereinafter IEEPA] contains language that would provide

specific authorization for the President to act in the manner permitted by the

proposed Immigration Emergency Act. Although it is argueable that these two

acts contains a mandate sufficiently broad to authorize almost any action that

the President might desire to take once the prerequisites for the declaring an

emergency are met, neither is directed specifically at the immigration situation.

If only the NEA and the IEEPA were available the President would be left

without use legislative support for specific measures that might prove useful.

The IEEPA is clearly designed to deal with economic emergencies and only an

accident of the vocabulary selected makes it applicable to the immigration

situation as well.

The NEA is principally designed to control the use of emergency power by

the President by providing for its automatic lapse and by defining the circumstances under which such emergency power may be exercised. The NEA appears

to have been intended to permit the President to react to emergencies broader in

scope that those envisioned by the Immigration Emergency Act. It is clear that

there is not conflict between two pieces of emergency legislation and the one

proposed. The requirement in i 201(b)(2) of the National Emergencies Act that

any legislation that supercedes it must do so explicitly should be observed and an

appropriate reference included in the current bill since both the triggering

devices and the arrangements for bringing an emergency to an end differ. Since

some of the actions that can be taken under the Immigration Emergency Act can

also be justified under either or both the NEA and the IEEPA, it would be helpful

to make it clear that all measures under the Emergency Immigration Act are

subject to its provisions exclusively and that such measures can be continued

only through the mechanisms provided in this act, not under procedures

permitted under either the NEA or IEEPA.

Lastly, the wisdom of characterizing the immigration issues dealt with in

the Immigration Emergency Act as "emergencies" is questionable in any event.

The "emergency" nature of the problems addressed appears to be considerably

less intense than is true of issues dealt with in existing emergency legislation.

Tnere is little legal magic in the word "emergency" except, perhaps, in those

instances in which the President seeks to act without prior congressional

authorization.

There is nothing in the Immigration Emergencies Act that could not be

accomplished by merely removing the word emergency and granting power to the

President to act as indicated and to create rules when necessary in the same

manner in which other non-emergency legislation operates. If everything

becomes an emergency then nothing is an emergency. Dropping the emergency
67

characterization from this act would not, I believe, endanger its constitutionality

and would make it clear that the act is really what it in fact seems to be • an

authorization to the executive branch to deal with certain types of illegal mass

immigration for which our immigration laws do not currently provide effective

procedures.

1. Youngstown Sheet <5c Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).

2. 343 U.S. at 635-37.

3. L. Henkin, Foreign Affairs and the Constitution (1972), pp. 104-107.

4. United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 320 (1936).

5. Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 18 (1956); see Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416,

433 (1920).

6. See A. Miller, Presidential Power (1977), pp. 205, 233-28.

7. See Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972).

8. Hampton Ac Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394, 409 (1928).

9. 143 U.S. 649 (1892).

10. 143 U.S. at 691.

11. 426 U.S. 548 (1976).

12. 526 F.2d 560 (CCPA, 1975).

13. Trading with the Enemy Act, S 5(b) as amended, 50 U.S.C.A. App. S 5(b).

14. 526 F.2d at 576.

15. 526 F.2d at 579.

16. Chicago 4c Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman Steamship Corp., 333 U.S.

103, 110 (1948).

17. 90 Stat. 1255.

18. itelyea, A Brief History of Emergency Powers in the United States, Special

Senate Committee on National Emergencies and Delegated Powers, 93d

Cong., 2d Sess. (1974).

19. Miller, supra note 6, at 200-205.

20. H. Maier, Prepared Statement in "Emergency Controls on International

Economic Transactions," Hearings, Trading with the Enemy Reform

Legislation, Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade,

Committee on International Relations, House of Representative, 95th

Cong., 1st Sess. (1977).

21. 90 Stat. 1258, i 502(a)(1).
68

Senator SIMPSON. Very precise; thank you very much.

I have a few questions. Mr. Miller, you note in your testimony

the emergency powers of both the French and the German Governments. Do you know if they have ever been exercised and the circumstances?

Professor MILLER. Well, certainly, in Weimar, Germany we know

that emergency powers were exercised.

Senator SIMPSON. Indeed, they were.

Professor MILLER. And this paved the way to the Nazi seizure of

power. One of the important points to understand about the Nazi

seizure was that it was legal. It was a legal seizure of power, or

legal means were used to subvert republican institutions.

Emergency powers were used in France in 1958 when there was

the military uprising in Algiers against the Fourth Republic. But

to my knowledge, with the exception of recourse to emergency

powers to crush largely military opponents of DeGaulle•the secret

army organizaton•at the outset, in Fifth Republic France emergency powers have not been invoked even during the 1968 studentworker uprising.

In Germany, there was some implementation of emergency

powers in response to the urban terrorism of the Bader-Meinhoff

Gang. But, in the German context it is only in the period 1968-78

that there was some limited utilization of emergency powers.

Senator SIMPSON. Were there any calls for emergency action in

the Federal Republic of Germany at the time of the Polish mass

asylum crisis in 1980?

Professor MILLER. There was a huge influx of Poles, as you well

know. There are estimates that range in the hundreds of thousands

of Poles going in. But to my knowledge, emergency powers were

not invoked; the constitution was not invoked nor considered. They

responded to influx with standard operating procedures.

One point that is very important to stress, though, when talking

about Poles is that it is German asylee policy not to return someone who flees from a Communist East Bloc country to their homes.

The Germans try to more or less hush it up, but they are not going

to deport Poles who seek asylum in Germany.

Senator SIMPSON. Have our deliberations here in this country in

the awareness of things to be done in immigration and refugee and

emergency power situations, and so on, had any impact on legislation in France and Germany? Do you think that any action we do

take, if we get to finality of action on this legislation, will have an

impact or an influence upon them?

Professor MILLER. It is funny that you asked that question because I brought down an article from Le Monde which I had intended to give to you, which is a report on the Senate passage of

the Simpson bill on immigration reform. Certainly, there is an

awareness of

Senator SIMPSON. What was that from?

Professor MILLER. From Le Monde, the almost semigovernmental

newspaper in France and probably the most important political institution in France.

Certainly, they are aware of U.S. immigration policy. In my research, I have come across instances in French history back in the

twenties and thirties when French officials would talk about re-
69

forming their immigration laws with reference to the United

States. I remember very well cutting out a cartoon from Le Monde

concerning the Mariel outpush. It made quite an impact in France

and Germany.

I think they would take note of this special legislation, but I do

not think they are going to go pass an emergency law on immigration.

Senator SIMPSON. Would you see the need for an emergency

powers legislation as being less if, say, the present Simpson-Mazzoli

legislation were to pass?

Professor MILLER. I am sorry.

Senator SIMPSON. Would the need for this emergency powers legislation be lessened if that bill were to pass.

Professor MILLER. I think so. The German and French response,

as I have indicated in my testimony, has been to reinforce and to

clarify governmental powers in what concerns immigration and

refugee matters, to attempt to design the laws to handle all possible contingencies without having to have recourse to immigration

emergency acts.

Clearly, they are engaged in a process that resembles our own

process of immigration legal reform here in the United States, so

the answer is clearly "yes.'

Senator SIMPSON. Finally, what experience has there been in

France or Germany with regard to asylee applicants who have

been detained for long periods of time? Has that been permitted by

the courts?

Professor MILLER. It has been a big political issue in both countries. I know the French case best. I recall very vividly the controversy over the so-called Arenc detention in Marseille, where alleged illegal aliens were kept for periods of time stretching for

weeks before they were deported.

Now, under the new immigration law, the French authorities

have the power to detain illegal aliens for 48 hours, and then after

that point in time, they have to notify a judicial authority, who

then could OK or prolong the incarceration. So, one result of the

reform in France has been to deny the Government the right to

maintain aliens in detention for a period of time over 48 hours

without notifying the legal authorities.

Senator SIMPSON. Thank you.

Professor Maier, in what ways do you think that this proposed

legislation might be similar to emergency legislation which has

been granted in the past, and in what ways might it differ?

Professor MAIER. I would like to answer that this way. Really,

there are two types of emergency legislation that we have had experience with. One is the type which says once an emergency is in

existence, then certain powers will flow to the executive branch or

to administrative agencies, as the case might be.

The other type tends to set forth standards under which an

emergency can be declared and then have legal effect. This legislation appears to fall really into both camps, because what the Congress would do here is to say here is something which constitutes

an emergency, and when this thing occurs, then the President is

empowered to act in this way. That is one of the reasons I suggested that if one can foresee it in that way, this really is not emergen16-948 0-83
70

cy legislation in the sense that historically we have talked about

emergency legislation in this country.

For that matter, in the 19th century, and really up until after

World War II, the idea of Congress passing legislation which would

declare when an emergency would arise just did not happen. The

executive branch declared an emergency and then the question was

what legal effects would flow from that. Often Congress, retroactively, would then give effect to the declaration of emergency if it

believed that there was one. That happened in the Civil War. It

happened in the whole history of the Trading with the Enemy Act

in World War I, until finally it was superseded and set aside in

effect, at least, by the National Emergency Act.

Senator SIMPSON. HOW should Congress review the exercise of

emergency powers in this area, particularly in the area of immigration legislation?

Professor MAIER. I am a firm believer in the reporting function

between the executive branch and the Congress. In fact, historically, if one looks at the times that serious difficulties have arisen between the branches on issues like this, it tends to be because inadequate information has been provided.

It strikes me that this bill requires the providing of information

in a very effective way. As it says, after a given time, the declared

emergency, if you wish to use that term, will lapse and then the

President has to restate the reasons for continuing it. I think that

is extremely important. Had we had that kind of a system in connection with certain other forms of emergency legislation, particularly the Trading with the Enemy Act, section 5(b), some of the difficulties that arose in connection with that, I think, would not have

arisen.

Senator SIMPSON. DO you believe we can really frame a narrow

immigration emergency statute, assuming that we would want to

do that? What would you suggest? I guess, also, based upon your

experience in emergency powers legislation and its use in the past,

what pitfalls would you see?

Professor MAIER. I am not sure that one can frame a much narrower statute than one has. This addresses a very specific problem.

It addresses the problem that arises when a substantial number of

aliens who do not have documents to get into the country either

appear to be ready to come or are already coming. It is a very specific circumstance under which the President is permitted to act.

So, unless one wanted to go outside the realm of this particular

problem, I think this is a pretty direct focus on a very specific problem-one which some of the witnesses earlier indicated we are

likely to have for a while. The only reason that this is really an

emergency situation is we had not thought of it before, or at least

we had not experienced the circumstances which required us to

think of it before. But we are going to be facing it, so I am not sure

that one ought to treat it as something that we do not have to•we

have to look at this with some care, I think.

Senator SIMPSON. That is certainly very true, as we put, I think,

basically a very good piece of legislation on the books in 1980 on

refugees, and so on, and then saw things change more dramatically

in the time since that passed than in the 70 years before.
71

I thank you very much, both of you, for your testimony. It is very

helpful to us and I appreciate your being here. Thank you.

The final panel of the afternoon: Arnoldo Torres of LULAC, the

League of United Latin American Citizens; Arthur Helton, director

of the political asylum project of the Lawyers Committee for International Human Rights; and Wade Henderson, deputy director of

the Washington office of the American Civil Liberties Union.

It is good to see all three of you. You were back there plotting; I

saw you earlier. I think we finally got back on schedule and I hope

we have not delayed you.

So, in that order, we will proceed, with Arnoldo Torres first,

please.

STATEMENTS OF A PANEL CONSISTING OF ARNOLDO S. TORRES,

NATIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN

AMERICAN CITIZENS; ARTHUR C. HELTON, DIRECTOR, POLITICAL ASYLUM PROJECT, LAWYERS COMMITTEE FOR INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS; AND WADE HENDERSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON OFFICE, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES

UNION

Mr. TORRES. Once again, I appreciate the opportunity to come

before the subcommittee on another issue besides immigration legislation. My name, for the record, is Arnoldo Torres. I am the executive director for the League of United Latin American Citizens.

We read the analysis provided to us by the staff of the committee•the administration's explanation of the provisions of this legislative proposal. To begin, a couple of things come to mind. It is unfortunate that there is such a mania that has developed as a result

of the boatlift and, subsequently, the Haitian movement, that we

have designed and are considering a legislative proposal by the administration that is extremely far reaching and very, very dangerous to simply deal with the problems of one State.

I would not want the record to reflect that we are insensitive,

under any circumstances, to the problems that confront Florida,

but such a precedent-setting, far-reaching piece of legislation of

this nature is somewhat extreme to address that problem.

The concerns that we have deal with the realities of fear. People

are concerned that boatlifts and things of this nature will happen

again, and unfortunately the response to this potential is extremely paranoiac and is willing to sacrifice the rights of individuals.

We indicate in our written comments that interdiction is an

issue in which the very first thing that appears to be expendable

are the human and constitutional rights of individuals, and we are

vehemently opposed to that.

But to discuss the legislation in the context of the Southwest,

here you have a piece of legislation that is designed to deal with

the problems of Florida and Cuba, yet we would apply it to situations of the Southwest area of the United States with regard to

Mexico.

We raise a number of problems with that issue•the definition of

"substantial numbers," the whole criterion that triggers off the use

of emergency powers. Would the devaluation of the peso, as recently occurred, require the implementation or the establishment of
72

emergency powers? Who would initiate the process for determining

its application? Would State and local governments have a major

role in calling for the emergency powers? What interaction or consultation would this Government have with the Mexican Government? Would we seek their active involvement?

The one thing that really bothered us with the analysis was that,

in fact, as Mr. Nelson indicated, an emergency could be declared

even if only a few thousand aliens were expected to arrive within a

few weeks. Gee whiz, if we go by the INS statistics, we would have

an emergency situation in the Southwest every single week, for statistics indicate that thousands of undocumented aliens cross on a

weekly basis.

The power to restrict or ban travel of vessels, vehicles and aircraft•if you were to do that along the Mexican border, you would

have some tremendous negative consequences to the international

commerce that takes place across the border. You would hurt the

cities, you would hurt the States, and their economies.

With regard to the search and seizure provisions, we have

enough problems now trying to keep the INS in line. You have

heard us continuously raise a number of problems with that issue.

We read a decision by U.S. District Judge Byrne, who indicated,

after barring the deportation of 150 aliens, that, "To say the INS is

really interested in the rights of these people is absurd."

Now, those are the concerns that we bring to this type of legislation. The other point that is really a major problem to us is the

inclusion of Army, Navy, and Air Force personnel in the execution

and enforcement of the powers. Sure, Mr. Enders can indicate to us

that Mexico will recognize that these provisions are not being designed to affect Mexico. But there are going to be some serious

issues raised and provoked as a result of having a military presence along the border.

Perhaps one of the greatest ironies with this proposal was stated

today by the Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, who indicated, in response to a question you asked, "Do you

anticipate any other boatlifts from Cuba"•he responded that our

intelligence system indicated that at this time, no.

Well, if we have intelligence systems that can tell us something

that is going to happen either in Nicaragua, in El Salvador, or, in

this case, as the Assistant Secretary indicated, in Cuba, then we

should have, certainly, a much different response than having such

far-reaching Presidential emergency powers developed simply for

immigration use.

We would take this opportunity to discuss some alternatives very

briefly. I know that you wanted to plug your immigration bill in

the previous panel, and we would say that if that bill does come to

pass and we do, in fact, have that law on the books, we should give

that bill the opportunity to see if, in fact, it can be effective.

We would also encourage bilateral discussions with countries

that we know have a high push factor. We would urge the subcommittee to seriously undertake an examination of the Federal agencies' capabilities to deal with such crisis situations as that of the

Mariel boatlift. We feel that this is a much more prudent approach

than getting into the whole issue of Presidential powers simply for
73

immigration needs. We think it just feeds the whole scope of paranoia that we have right now.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Arnoldo S. Torres follows:]
74

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ARNOLDO S. TORRES

GOOD AFTERNOON, MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION

AND PEFUGEE POLICY, TY NAME IS ARNOLDO S, TORRES, AND I AM

THE NATIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR THE LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN

AMERICAN CITIZENS (LULAC), THIS COUNTRY'S OLDEST AND LARGEST

HISPANIC ORGANIZATION LULAC AND ITS 106,000 MEMBERS ARE

ORGANIZED IN 44 STATES IN THE UNION, \!E APPRECIATE THE

OPPORTUNITY TO COME BEFORE TO DISCUSS OUR VIEWS ON THE ISSUE

OF PRESIDENTIAL IMMIGRATION EMERGENCY POWERS.

IT IS CLEAR THAT THE 19?0 CUBAN FLOTILLA HAS HAD A

TREMENDOUS IMPACT ON THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WITH REGARDS TO ITS

VIEWS AND IMPRESSIONS OF IMMIGRATION, nUE TO THE BARRAGE OF

CELEBRATED MEDIA STORIES OF VARIOUS ASPECTS OF CUBANS FLEEING

TO THE U.S.,,' AMERICANS EVENTUALLY BEGAN TO BELIEVE THAT THE

SHORES OF SOUTHEAST AMERICA WERE UNBELIEVABLY CROWDED WITH

CUBAN REFUGEES, IN ADDITION, THE FLOW OF HAITIAN REFUGEES

DURING THE LAST YEAR AND ONE-HALF HAS ALSO FED THIS IMAGE, HE

WILL NOT, NOR CAN WE DESAGREE WITH REALITIES WHICH THE STATE OF

FLORIDA HAS BEEN CONFRONTED WITH AS A RESULT OF THESE FLOWS,

HOWEVER, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THESE PEOPLES SHOULD OR CAN BE

BLAMED FOR EVERY PROBLEM FLORIDA IS FACING TODAY, SURELY, THE

ECONOMIC PROBLEMS OF UNEMPLOYMENT AND ITS CONSEQUENCES CANNOT

BE LAID TO REST ON THESE REFUGEES',, YET MANY HAVE AND CONTINUE TO

DEMAGOGUE THE ISSUE BLAMING CUBAN AND HAITIAN REFUGEES FOR EVERY

PROBLEM PLAGUING FLORIDA, WE CERTAINLY DO BELIEVE NEVERTHELESS,

THAT STATES SHOULD BE PROVIDED ASSISTANCE TO DEAL WITH

SITUATIONS ARISING FROM SUCH AN INTENSE INFLUX OF PEOPLE.

KLTH THIS IN MIND, WE REGARD THE LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL BY

THE ADMINISTRATION CALLING FOR PRESIDENTIAL IMMIGRATION

EMERGENCY POWERS AS AN EXTREME ATTEMPT TO DEAL WITH SITUATIONS

SUCH AS THE CUBAN AND HAITIAN FLOTILLA. WHILE MATTERS PERHAPS
75

COULD BE ADDRESSED, UNDER SUCH PROVISIONS; THE CONSEQUENCES TO

HUMAN AND CIVIL RIGHTS, TO INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND MAJOR

ADMINISTRATIVE UPHEAVALS WOULD NOT BE WORTH THE RISKS WHEN

THERE ARE OTHER LESS DRASTIC AND REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES

AVAILABLE. CLEARLY, WE COULD ALL LIKE TO AVOID SUCH CRISIS

SITUATIONS HOWEVER IT IS PRUDENT AND IN THIS COUNTRY'S BEST

INTEREST TO PLAN AHEAD IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE SUCH CRISIS OR BE

ABLE TO EFFECTIVELY DEAL WITH THEM.

CRITIQUF OF IF.SISI ATIVF PROPOSAI

THE PROPOSAL AND ITS ACCOMPANYING ANALYSIS EMPHASIZES ITS

TARGET AS STOPPING ANY POTENTIAL CUBAN FLOTILLA'S FROM OCCURING.

IT IS DESIGNED TO PRIMARILY RESTRICT SUCH ACTIONS AS THOSE

UNDERTAKEN BY U.S. CITIZENS DURING THIS REFUGEE MOVEMENT. IT

FAILS TO CONSIDER THE DIFFICULTIES IN ATTEMPTING TO APPLY THESE

PROVISIONS TO CIRCUMSTANCES ARISING IN SOUTHWEST STATES AND

WITH THE COUNTRY OF MEXICO. WE ARE EXTREMELY CONCERNED WITH THE

CRITERIA WHICH THE PRESIDENT IS TO BASE A DECLARATION OF

EMERGENCY. THE CONDITIONS INDICATED:

(1) A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS ARE

ABOUT TO EMBARK OR HAVE EMBARKED FOR THE UNITED STATES; (2)

THE PROCEDURES OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT OR THE

RESOURCES OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE WOULD

BE INADEQUATE TO RESPOND TO THE EXPECTED INFLUX; AND (3) THE

EXPECTED INFLUX OF ALIENS WOULD ENDANGER THE WELFARE OF THE

UNITED STATES OR OF ANY UNITED STATES COMMUNITY, ARE VERY

BROAD AND FLEXIBLE. IN OUR OPINION THERE IS MUCH TOO

FLEXIBILITY GIVEN TO THE PRESIDENT IN VIEW OF THE TREMENDOUS

AND FAR-REACHING POWERS HE COULD EXERT UNDER SUCH AN EMERGENCY.
76

IN EXAMINING THE APPLICATION OF THESE PROVISIONS TO THE

REPORTED INFLUX OF UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS FROM MEXICO, AS A

RESULT OF DEVALUATION OF THE PESO, WOULD EMERGENCY POWERS BE

REOUIRED? WHO WOULD INITIATE THE PROCESS FOR DETERMINING ITS

APPLICATION? WOULD STATE AND/OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS HAVE A

MAJOR ROLE IN CALLING FOR EMERGENCY POWERS AS THEY DO IN

DISASTER SITUATIONS? WHAT INTERACTION OR CONSULTATION WOULD

THIS GOVERNMENT HAVE WITH THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT? WOULD WE

SEEK THEIR ACTIVE INVOLVEMENT?

THESE ARE SOME OF THE QUESTIONS AND ISSUES WHICH ARISE

WHEN CONSIDERING THE APPLICABILITY OF THESE PROVISIONS TO

CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH HAVE OR MORE READILY OCCUR ALONG THE U.S.-

MEXICO BORDER. THE ADMINISTRATION IN ITS ANALYSIS INDICATES

THAT EMERGENCY POWERS "COULD BE DECLARED EVEN IF ONLY A FEW

THOUSAND ALIENS WERE EXPECTED TO ARRIVE," THEREFORE EMERGENCY

POWERS WOULD BE IN EFFECT VIRTUALLY ALWAYS IN VIEW OF

STATISTICS MAINTAINED BY THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

SERVICE (INS) WHICH REFLECT THOUSANDS OF ILLEGAL CROSSINGS

DAILY AND WEEKLY. SUCH A SITUATION WOULD HAVE DIRE NEGATIVE

IMPACT ON THE ECONOMY OF THE BORDER STATES BOTH FOR THE U.S.

AS WELL AS MEXICO, INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE ALONG THE BORDER

COULD BE STIFLED THEREFORE RESULTING IN SIGNIFICANT ADDITIONAL

PROBLEMS.

THE POWER TO RESTRICT OR BAN TRAVEL OF VESSELS, VEHICLES

AND AIRCRAFT TO TARGETED COUNTRIES COULD CREATE SEVERE

PROBLEMS FOR RELATIONS BETWEEN U.S. AND MEXICO AS A RESULT OF

OUR CONTIGUOUS BORDERS. CLEARLY, IT IS MUCH EASIER TO CONTROL

TRAVEL IF COUNTRIES ARE SEPARATED BY WATER. AGAIN, THE

ECONOMIC RAMIFICATIONS FOR U.S. AND MEXICO BORDER STATES COULD

BE MORE DISRUPTIVE THAN ANTICIPATED.
77

WITH REGARDS TO INTERDICTION, WE ARE VEHEMEMTLY OPPOSED

TO THE IDEA FOR INEVITABLY THE HUMAN AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

OF INDIVIDUALS BECOME EXPANDABLE. ALSO, HOW WOULD INTERDICTION

OCCUR WHEN CONSIDERING COUNTRIES WHO ARE CONTIGUOUS?

ANOTHER MAJOR CONCERN ARISES FROM THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE

PROVISIONS. DESPITE THE EMPHASIS WHICH IS MADE BY THE

ADMINISTRATION WITH RAGARDS TO ADHERENCE TO THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

IT HAS BEEN OUR EXPERIENCE THAT THE INS HAS NOT AGGRESSIVELY

COMPLIED WITH CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS, "OPERATION JOBS" AND

A RECENT 9TH CIRCUIT COURT DECISION SUPPORT OUR BELIEF THAT

THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE (INS) is NOT

OPERATING WITHIN ANY GUIDELINES DESIGNED TO REDUCE, MUCH LESS

PREVENT, THE VIOLATIONS OF A PERSON'S HUMAN AND CIVIL RIGHTS.

Lb'LAC IS NOT THE FIRST TO CONCLUDE THAT PROTECTING THE RIGHTS

OF THOSE WITH WHOM INS OFFICIALS INTERFACE, IS INCONSISTENT

AND CONTRADICTORY TO THEIR RESPONSIBILITY OF IMMIGRATION

ENFORCEMENT. U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE BYRNE OBSERVED AFTER

BARRING THE DEPORTATION OF 150 ALIENS THAT, "To SAY THE INS

IS REALLY INTERESTED IN THE RIGHTS OF THESE PEOPLE IS ABSURD."

FURTHER, A RECENT FEDERAL COURT DECISION PROHIBITS THE INS

FROM DETAINING WORKERS FOR QUESTIONING UNLESS ITS AGENTS CAN

SHOW A REASONABLE SUSPICION THAT EACH INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONED

IS AN ILLEGAL. THE COURTS RULING WAS PROMPTED BY THE

TACTICS EMPLOYED BY THE INS DURING AREA "SURVEY" OPERATIONS.

IN ADDITION, THE USE OF THE MILITARY INCLUDING THE ARMY,

NAVY AND AIR FORCE, IN THE EXECUTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE

EMERGENCY IMMIGRATION POWERS IS A MAJOR DEVIATION FROM THE

MANNER IN WHICH THE MILITARY HAS BEEN UTILIZED FOR DOMESTIC

PURPOSES. THE PRESENCE AND USE OF THE MILITARY IN SUCH

SITUATIONS, IN OUR OPINION, WOULD ESTABLISH AN EXTREMELY

DANGEROUS PRECEDENT AND CAUSE COMMUNITY UPHEAVALS ALONG THE
78

BORDER. WE WOULD ALSO QUESTION THE NECESSITY OF HAVING ANY

MILITARY INVOLVED CONCERNING IMMIGRATION EMERGENCIES WHEN THEIR

ROLE HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN RESERVED FOR CASES OF NATIONAL

SECURITY. THERE ARE OTHER PROVISIONS IN THE LAW WBCH

ALLOW FOR THEIR INVOLVEMENT SHOULD THIS BE A THREAT TO OUR

NATIONAL SECURITY.

IN CLOSING, WE WOULD EMPHASIZE THE NEED TO ALLOW

IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION TO PASS CONGRESS BEFORE ANY FURTHER

DISCUSSION ON PRESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY IMMIGRATION POWERS,

TIME MUST BE GIVEN TO ANALYZE AND ASSESS THE EFFECTIVENESS

OF SUCH LEGISLATION AND ITS IMPACT ON IMMIGRATION FLOWS.

IN ADDITION, WE STRONGLY BELIEVE AND ADVOCATE THAT, WHERE

POSSIBLE, THE U.S. GOVERNMENT SHOULD UNDERTAKE SERIOUS

DELIBERATIONS WITH COUNTRIES WITH HIGH PUSH FACTORS

TO DISCUSS BILATERAL EFFORTS TO CONTROL SUCH FLOWS.

FURTHERMORE, SUFFICIENT FUNDING SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO THE

INS TO INSURE ITS ABILITIES TO CARRY OUT ITS MANDATE MORE

EFFICIENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY. ALSO, WE WOULD URGE THIS

SUBCOMMITTEE TO SERIOUSLY UNDERTAKE AN EXAMINATION OF

FEDERAL AGENCIES CAPABILITIES TO DEAL WITH CRISIS SITUATIONS,

SUCH AS THE CUBAN FLOTILLA. AS EVIDENCED BY THIS EPISODE,

THE LEVEL OF RESPONSE, COORDINATION AND OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS

OF FEDERAL AGENCIES INVOLVED IN DEALING WITH REFUGEES WAS

STRENUOUSLY CRITICIZED AND REQUIRES A SERIOUS ASSESSMENT.

AGAIN, WE WOULD URGE THE ABOVE ACTIONS BEFORE ANY

FURTHER ATTENTION IS GIVEN TO PRESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY

IMMIGRATION POWERS LEGISLATION. FOR THE REASONS AND

ISSUES WE RAISE, WE CANNOT SUPPORT THE PASSAGE OF ANY

SUCH LEGISLATION.

THANK YOU.
79

Senator SIMPSON. Were you plugging the bill there, Arnoldo?

Mr. TORRES. No, no. I was just simply saying that if you have legislation that passes, we should give the opportunity to have it's proponents' claims be assessed and analyzed.

Senator SIMPSON. DO not lose that transcript; I want it forever.

[Laughter.]

I understand what you are saying.

Now, please, Mr. Helton.

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR C. HELTON

Mr. HELTON. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I am honored to

appear before you and the subcommittee.

The proposed Immigration Emergency Act which is the subject of

this hearing raises a whole host of issues regarding whether or not

aliens and citizens will be deprived of rights under the Constitution, statutes, and treaties of the United States. Some of those concerns have been addressed by other witnesses, including a witness

on this panel, and I am sure those concerns will continue to be addressed.

However, I would like to limit my remarks to the matters that I

featured in the statement that was submitted and to elaborate

upon that statement with respect to the likely impact of the proposed detention power and the proposed interdiction power on applicants for political asylum in the United States.

In particular, during the last year the Lawyers Committee for International Human Rights has played a substantial role in the representation of Haitians who have applied for political asylum in

the United States. Some of our experience in that area, I think,

will highlight some of our concerns and the problems that we foresee with respect to the enactment of this legislation.

In particular, the legislation that is being proposed here today

does not purport to limit, on its face, the right to counsel that an

alien has, including an applicant for political asylum. However, in

the interdiction context as well as in the detention context, that

right to counsel is effectively denied.

In the interdiction context, the alien and potential asylum applicant simply has no access to counsel. With respect to detention, I

can share with you a particular example that occurred during the

most recent effort to represent detained Haitians.

Haitians in detention at Camp Raybrook, near Lake Placid in upstate New York, numbered about 150 during the past year. Only

three of those Haitians, however, were able to achieve representation by lawyers in that remote locality. The power to detain and to

transfer to facilities in remote localities under the proposed legislation will, in effect, deny applicants for political asylum access to

counsel.

Only now, when those 150 Haitians have been released pursuant

to an order of a Federal court in Miami, have they been able to

achieve representation.

Second, prolonged detention, we submit, will effectively deny the

right to apply for political asylum. This legislation does not purport

to limit that right. However, we submit that in practice, the prolonged detention under the legislation will actually coerce appli-
80

cants for political asylum into giving up their claims for asylum

and returning to face persecution.

If I can simply quote briefly from my statement at page 8, one

Haitian who returned voluntarily in June 1982 told a Federal

judge:

After eleven months in detention in the United States, I wish to return to Haiti.

My decision is based on the fact that over the past month, I have become very depressed and ill and have not been able to receive medical treatment. I wish to state

that this decision to leave in no way indicates a change from my previous position

of fearing political persecution upon return. I fully expect that I may be mistreated

or even killed upon my return to Haiti. However, I would rather die in my own

country than remain any longer in prison in the United States without any indication that I will ever be released.

The emergency powers sought by the Executive in connection

with this legislation, we submit, violate the rights of asylum applicants and is offensive, as we detail in our statement, to international and domestic law relating to the protection of refugees. For that

reason, in this form, we oppose the legislation.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Arthur C. Helton follows:]
81

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ARTHUR C. HELTON

INTRODUCTION

Thank you, Chairman Simpson, for inviting our

views at today's hearing. My name is Arthur Helton. I

am Director of the Political Asylum Project of the Lawyers

Committee for International Human Rights in New York.

Since 1978, the Lawyers Committee has been a

public interest law center working in the areas of international

human rights, refugee and asylum law. The Political Asylum

Project of the Committee was created in late 1980 to provide

representation to individual asylum applicants in the United

States. The Project utilizes volunteer lawyers whom it

trains and supervises. Since 1978, the Lawyers Committee

has represented more than 250 asylum applicants from 33

countries. Based on this experience, the Committee has

testified in Congress and prepared papers on various asylum

and refugee policy matters.

Our testimony today examines the Reagan

Administration's proposed Immigration Emergency Act. The

proposed legislation raises several questions as to whether

the emergency powers sought by the executive branch will, if

exercised, deprive aliens of rights under the Constitution,

statutes, and treaties of the United States. Our examination

in this respect is limited to the likely impact upon asylum

applicants of the broad new powers conferred by the Act to

interdict or detain arriving aliens. In our view, these

powers run afoul of the entitlements of applicants for

political asylum in the United States under domestic and

international law.
82

THE INTERDICTION AND DETENTION PROVISIONS

Section 24 OA of the proposed Act provides that

the executive can utilize various powers, including the

power to interdict or to detain arriving aliens, upon a

declaration by the President that there is an "immigration

emergency" based upon a determination that a mass influx of

undocumented aliens is imminent. The declaration extends

automatically for a period of 120 days, and is extendable

for consecutive periods of like duration. During the

declaration, under Section 240A(a)(3):

The President may order that

the arrival in the United States of any

aliens or class of aliens who lack documents

authorizing entry to the United States or

who are otherwise inadmissible and who are

traveling directly or indirectly from or

in transit through a designated foreign

country may be prevented: (i) by

precluding the entry of any class or

category of vessels, vehicles or aircraft,

regardless of nationality, into the

territorial sea of the United States or

any waters, lands or airspace over which

the United States may exercise any customs,

fiscal, immigration or sanitary jurisdiction

in accordance with international law or

obligations as recognized by the United

States; and (ii) by returning or requiring

the return of such aliens or any class or

category of vessels, vehicles, or aircraft

subject to the jurisdiction of the United

States carrying any such alien to the

designated foreign country, or to some

other reasonable location; provided that

appropriate measures, prescribed by the

Attorney General and reasonable under the

circumstances, are taken to protect the

rights of refugees as recognized by the

United States.

Also during the declaration, under Section 240A(b):
The detention of any alien coming

into the custody of the United States as a

result of the circumstances leading up to

or comprising an immigration emergency

shall be in any civilian facility, whether

maintained by the Federal Government or

otherwise, as the Attorney General may

direct, or in any Department of Defense

facility, as the Secretary of Defense may

direct. The Attorney General may at any

time transfer an alien from one place of

detention pending a final determination

of admissibility, or pending deportation

if the alien is found excusable, except

in the discretion of the Attorney General,

and under such conditions as the Attorney

General may prescribe. ... No court shall

review any decision of the Attorney

General made pursuant to this paragraph

to detain, to transfer or to release an

alien, except that any person so detained

may obtain review, in habeas corpus

proceedings, on the question of whether

that person falls within the category of

aliens subject to detention. The

provisions of this subsection shall

continue in effect regardless of the

termination of the immigration emergency.

These interdiction and detention powers, however, will

conflict with the entitlements of asylum applicants under

domestic and international law.

THE LIKELY IMPACT OF THE DETENTION POWER

UPON ASYLUM APPLICANTS

The international experience indicates that

asylum applicants frequently flee persecution in their

countries of nationality without valid documentation. The

Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee

Status prepared by the United Nations High Commissioner for

Refugees, which is considered by the United States to bo a

persuasive restatement and authority in the analysis of

asylum claims,* explains that:

* Stevic v. Sava, _F.2d_ (2d Cir. 1982), pet, for

rehearing denied, F.2d (2d Cir. 1982).
84

[A]n applicant may not be able to support

his statements by documentary or other

proof, and cases in which an applicant

can provide evidence of all his statements

will be the exception rather than the rule.

In most cases a person fleeing from

persecution will have arrived with the

barest necessities and very frequently

even without personal documents (Paragraph

196) .

The implementation of the detention power provision could

fall disproportionately upon this class of persons, raising

a number of legal questions.

A DEPARTURE FROM PRIOR PRACTICE

Initially, detention would be a departure from

modern humane practice. Traditional administrative practice

with regard to the detention of aliens seeking admission to

the United States, at least since the 1950s, has been to

release them absent a demonstrable security risk or likelihood

of absconding. This has included aliens with or without a

passport and/or visa, as well as applicants for political

asylum in the United States. This practice is reflected in

the INS Immigrant Inspector's Handbook, and was confirmed

recently in testimony by two former INS General Counsel,

Sam Bernsen and Charles Gordon, at the trial in Louis, et

al. v. Nelson, et al., Case No. 81-1260-CIV-EPS, in the

Southern District of Florida.

The traditional release policy was recognized

by the Supreme Court in 1950 when it explained that the

policy was designed to avoid "needless confinement" and

that it "reflects the human qualities of an enlightened

civilization." Ma v. Barber, 357 U.S. 185, 190 (1958).
85

See also Petlock, A New Detention Policy of the Immigration

and Naturalization Service, 32 Interpreter Releases, 110

(1958), regarding the prior liberal release practice and

policy of the Service.

The humanitarian justification for the liberal

release policy is further reflected by the remarks of

James Hennessy, Executive Assistant to the Commissioner of

the Service, before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1962

concerning the Service's detention policy in the face of

massive immigration from Cuba:

All I can say is that out of 150,000--Cubans

in the United States, we are holding 16 in

long-range detention. However, I do not

get the satisfaction of saying that the

percentage is very low. If one is held in

detention improperly, that is very bad.

Cuban Refugee Problems: Hearings Before the Subcommittee

to Investigate Problems Connected with Refugees and Escapees

of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 87th Cong., 1st

Sess. 209, 212 (1962).

DETENTION IS INCONSISTENT WITH

DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

Many arriving asylum applicants may be imprisoned

pending the adjudication of their claims. Aliens are

entitled, however, to apply for political asylum in the

United States "irrespective" of their immigration status,

i.e., whether or not they are documented. 8 U.S.C. Section

1158(a). The Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees,

to which the United States became a party in 1968,* prohibits

* 19 U.S.T. 6257; T.I.A.S. No. 2322; 606 U.N.T.S. 268.

16-948 0-83
the imposition of penalties, "on account of their illegal entry

or presence", as well as unnecessary "restrictions" on their

movement. A detention measure that impacts disproportionately

upon asylum applicants would deter aliens from pursuing their

statutory right to request asylum, and constitute a penalty

and unnecessary restriction under the Protocol.

Additionally, the detention power would be used

against selected nationalities. Such express discrimination

is, at the very least, legally questionable. Cf., Louis, et

al. v. Nelson, et al., supra, declaring illegal the detention

policy implemented by the Service in the summer of 19 81 in

which United States District Judge Eugene P. Spellman found

that Haitians were "impacted to a greater degree by the new

detention policy than aliens of any other nationality."

Finally, the detention rule heralds the prospect

of prolonged imprisonment for many arriving asylum applicants.

While indeterminate imprisonment of aliens by itself may be

legally infirm,* it has a particular consequence for

asylum applicants. The asylum adjudication process makes

representation by counsel difficult, and prolonged imprisonment

may serve to coerce bona fide refugees into returning to

countries where they will be persecuted. This has been the

experience with detained Haitians who "choose" to return to

Haiti. Prolonged imprisonment has occurred under onerous

conditions, frequently in facilities designed but for shortterm detention. Upon such imprisonment, some Haitians gave

up their right to apply for political asylum. One Haitian

who returned "voluntarily" in June of 1982 told a federal

judge:

* See Fernandez v. Wilkinson, 505 F. Supp. 787 (D. Kan. 1980),

affaTr654 F.2d 1382 (10th Cir. 1981).
87

After 11 months in detention in the United

States, I wish to return to Haiti. My

decision is based on the fact that, over

the past month, I have become very

depressed and ill and have not been able

to receive medical treatment.

I wish to state that this decision to

leave in no way indicates a change from

my previous position of fearing political

persecution upon return. I fully expect

that I may be mistreated or even killed

upon my return to Haiti. However, I would

rather die in my own country than remain

any longer in prison in the United States

without any indication that I will ever be

released. (Affidavit of Haitian who

"voluntarily" departed.)

Such a result produced by prolonged imprisonment

would be inconsistent with the domestic and international

legal obligations not to return persons to territories

where they would likely suffer persecution as refugees.

See 8 U.S.C. Section 1253(h); Article 33 of the Protocol

relating to the Status of Refugees.

THE LIKELY IMPACT OF THE INVOCATION OF

THE INTERDICTION POWER

Interdiction, the apprehension of aliens in vessels

coming to the United States, is a radical departure from current inspection and inquiry procedures which afford an alien

the opportunity to present his or her case, through counsel,

to an immigration judge.*

Interdiction would violate the obligations under

Section 243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and

its international law correlative • Article 33 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, to refrain from

* Sections 235 and 236 of the Immigration and Nationality

Act.
retoulement. This is the duty to not expel or return a

refugee to the frontiers of territories where his or her

life or freedom would be threatened on account of race,

religion, nationality, or membership in a particular social

group or political opinion. A refugee who would experience

persecution might be returned upon interdiction without any

recourse simply because of an inability to articulate the

reasons that persecution is feared, or to persuade the onship inspector that the fear is well-founded, or because he

or she is afraid to speak to authorities. This is particularly so as there would be no access to counsel under these circumstances .

A refugee fleeing persecution after a stressful

and surreptitious journey often lacks the documentary resources,

the psychological reserve, and even perhaps the willingness to

persuade someone then of the bona fides of an asylum claim.

Indeed, the Handbook emphasizes the difficulties experienced

by aliens in pursuing asylum at a national border:

It should be recalled that an applicant for

refugee status is normally in a particularly

vulnerable situation. He finds himself in an

alien environment and may experience serious

difficulties, technical and psychological,

in submitting his case to the authorities of

a foreign country, often in a language not

his own. His application should therefore

be examined within the framework of specially

established procedures by qualified personnel

having the necessary knowledge and experience,

and an understanding of an applicant's particular difficulties and needs (Paragraph 190.)

A person, who, because of his experiences,

was in fear of the authorities in his own

country may still feel apprehensive vis-a-vis

any authority. He may therefore be afraid

to speak freely and give a full and accurate

account of his case (Paragraph 198.)
89

The proviso in the interdiction provision about taking

measures "to protect the rights of refugees" simply fails to

address these concerns.

The only experience to date with an interdiction

program, the government's Haitian program, indicates that

these concerns cannot be properly met in the interdiction

context, particularly in view of the lack of access to

counsel, use of personnel not trained in refugee recognition, presence of on-board representatives of the government of claimed persecution, and the effectively non-reviewable character of the process. If it is deemed necessary to

control the influx of large numbers of aliens, it must be

done in a way that does not deny the rights of those entitled to refugee status, and that permits them a fair

opportunity to have their claims determined.

A SUGGESTION

Rather than to focus so emphatically upon deterrence, one possible approach to the problem of mass refugee

influxes could involve a more generous use of the parole

power to respond temporarily to the influxes, coupled with

international arrangements to ensure that an undue burden

does not fall upon any particular country.

The parole power, under Section 212(d)(5) of the

Immigration and Nationality Act, as enacted in 1956, has

traditionally been used to bring groups of refugees into

the United States. That provision was utilized in 1956 to

bring to the United States over 30,000 Hungarian refugees

who had fled to Austria after the unsuccessful revolution

in Hungary in October of 1956. H.R. Rep. No. 96-608, 96th
90

Cong., 1st Sess. 3 (1979); Library of Congress, U.S. Immigration Law and Policy 1952-1979 18 (1979). Subsequently,

large numbers of Cuban refugees were paroled into the United

States by the Attorney General after the fall of the Batista

government in late 1959. H.R. Rep. No. 96-608, supra, at

4; Library of Congress, U.S. Immigration Law and Policy 1952-

1979, supra, at 23, 24, 46.

In 1965, a provision was added to the Act,* permitting "conditional entries" for aliens who had fled a Communist

or Middle Eastern country, or who were the victims of a

national calamity. After two years in such status, aliens

were permitted to become residents. The provision, however,

proved inadequate to accommodate the large influx of refugees.

Consequently, parole was then needed in the 19 60's and early

1970"s to bring additional refugees • Chinese from Hong Kong

and Macao; Czechs; Jews from the Soviet Union; and Ugandans.

More recently, parole was used for Chilean refugees, Cuban

prisoners, Latin American refugees and detainees, and over

250,000 Indochinese refugees, particularly after the fall of

Vietnam and Cambodia in 1975. H.R. Rep. No. 96-608, supra,

at 5; Library of Congress, U.S. Immigration Law and Policy

1952-1979, supra, at 77.

The ad hoc use of the parole power to accommodate

groups of refugees lead to the enactment of the Refugee Act of

1980, which was designed "to establish a coherent and comprehensive U.S. refugee policy." H.R. Rep. No. 96-608, supra,

at 1. In that connection. Section 207 of the Act was added

to establish a systematic procedure for the screening and

admission of refugees from abroad and, at the same time.

* Former Section 203(a)(7) of the Act.

- -w--i oi
91

Section 212(d)(5)(B) was added to restrict the Attorney

General's parole power with respect to bringing in groups of

refugees.* The parole power, however, could be utilized, as

it has been in the past, to stabilize temporarily mass

refugee influxes on an emergency basis, coupled with international arrangements so that an undue resettlement burden

would not fall upon any particular country. Such a procedure

might be responsive to the problem without diminishing the

rights of asylum applicants.

CONCLUSION

The emergency powers sought with respect to interdicting and detaining arriving aliens would violate the

entitlements of asylum applicants under domestic and internationational law. The powers are a radical divergence from

traditional policy and practice. A solution must be devised

to the problem of mass alien influxes that does not impinge

upon the rights of asylum applicants.

Currently, the parole power cannot be utilized to bring a

refugee in the United States unless "the Attorney General

determines that compelling reasons in the public interest"

with respect to a particular alien requires parole in lieu

of admission as a refugee. 8 U.S.C. Section 1182(b)(5)(B)
92

Senator SIMPSON. Thank you, sir.

And now, please, Wade Henderson; it is nice to have you here.

STATEMENT OF WADE HENDERSON

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, it is a pleasure to come before you to discuss the topic of Presidential immigration emergency powers and the draft Immigration Emergency Act

which the Reagan administration has submitted for your consideration.

The American Civil Liberties Union has a deep commitment

toward the difficult task, as you know, of reforming the Nation's

immigration laws, and we would hope that we could continue our

work with the subcommittee, as we have done over the last several

months.

We are, however, particularly concerned about the topic under

discussion this afternoon. The use of expanded Presidential powers

in a time of war or national emergency has a very troublesome history in our Nation. And whether it be President Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus protections during the Civil War or the detention of Japanese Americans during World War II or President

Truman's effort to seize production authority of the steel mills

during the Korean conflict, the use of emergency decree by the

President has always seemed to warrant the most careful legislative and judicial scrutiny.

Now, we have before us the Immigration Emergency Act. It appears that the Reagan administration is seeking broad authority

from Congress for substantial changes in the handling of the mass

migration of refugees, using as a basis for their concern the Cuban

flotilla of 1980.

This afternoon we have heard much testimony which cites the

mass migration of Cubans as being a major cause of concern and

something that obviously we as a nation need to prepare to address

in the future. Yet, no one seems to have mentioned the role of our

own Government in enticing or inducing the Cuban mass migration to take place in the first instance, and therein lies part of our

concern overall with the nature of this legislation.

The thrust of these proposals is intended to address problems of

administrative efficiency in the processing of refugee asylum

claims and would authorize interdiction of vessels traveling with

aliens by sea. However, the proposals are far more than a mere administrative adjustment or a codification of current law and regulation, and the issues raised, we think, have far-reaching significance not only for aliens but for citizens as well.

The Emergency Act draft that we have seen represents a sweeping grant of power to the President to suspend the Constitution in

the name of efficiency. The bill is intended to respond to the emergency situations that we have talked about and would allow the

President to unilaterally declare an immigration emergency. It

would authorize restrictions on the rights of citizens to travel both

internationally and domestically, and authorize interdiction and indeterminant detention. But most importantly, it would strip the

Federal courts of their jurisdiction to review the reasonableness of

provisions under the act itself.
93

We think this is gravely troubling because the potential for

abuse of broad Executive authority to override constitutional protections is indeed very grave; and one of the major deficiencies of

this bill, notwithstanding the stripping of the Federal courts, is the

failure to include an oversight role for the Congress to monitor the

effectiveness and implementation of these provisions.

The Presidential authority to detain aliens proposed by the act is

very similar to, we think, the title II provisions of the Internal Security Act of 1950•that emergency detention act which established

detention camps in the United States during the Korean war to

detain persons that the Attorney General considered likely to

engage in certain future illegal acts.

This legislation was passed during the McCarthy era and it was

focused, in part, on the kind of hysteria that was generated in the

concern for aliens and the role of citizens in involvement with national security problems. Suspicious individuals or citizens could be

held without charge, without trial, without conviction by a court.

The repeal of this effort was successful in large part because of the

memory of the U.S. experience with Japanese American internment under Executive Order No. 9066.

The draft bill that is now before the subcommittee could once

again subject aliens to unlawful detention, we believe, solely on the

basis of their nationality. Several components of the bill are particularly vague and problematic.

The bill would allow the President to declare an emergency if, in

his judgment, and without confirmation or review by the legislative

or judicial branch, a substantial number of undocumented aliens

have or will embark for this country, and that the procedures of

the current Immigration and Nationality Act or the resources of

the Immigration Service are deemed to be inadequate to respond to

the influx.

The triggering criteria for determining when the declaration of

an emergency would be appropriate is totally unspecified. It appears that maximum discretion has been reserved for the President

without any indication of the essential data to be used in reaching

his judgment or the roles of other executive branch agencies in documenting the validity of the emergency.

Critical terminology in the bill is left almost totally undefined.

The terms "substantial number of aliens" and "normal procedures

of the INS," which are keys to any comprehension of the conditions

requiring a declaration of the emergency, are critically vague. And

there really is little possible understanding of objective criteria to

be used in reaching a decision which can be gained from the bill

itself.

The vagueness of these key provisions appears designed to provide the broadest scope of coverage and latitude for the President,

without any oversight and review. The failure to use numerical criteria also permits the declaration of an emergency where only literally a few thousand aliens are involved. That kind of latitude,

that broad range of discretionary power, would pose a serious potential for abuse.

The primary consideration to be used in determining the existence of a valid emergency would be whether normal procedures of

the INS are adequate to the anticipated task. Now, this most cru-
94

cial judgment would be made with neither legislative nor judicial

scrutiny or review of the decision, and the underlying question of

the preparedness of the INS to administratively handle mass

asylum determinations and the effectiveness of existing determination procedures to expeditiously and fairly process individual

claims is certainly more within the control of the President and

the Congress than the passive terminology of the bill would seem

to imply. Reliance on this rationale alone for defining the existence

of an emergency, we think, is highly questionable.

There are numerous other civil liberties considerations with respect to the bill, including the international travel restrictions.

And we understand, of course, that there are major distinctions

from a constitutional standpoint between the right of citizens to

travel domestically and internationally. Nonetheless, we are deeply

concerned about these provisions.

We, of course, are deeply troubled about the interdiction provisions because they would seem to request a congressional license to

violate international law by eliminating the necessity for bilateral

treaties for such actions, and replacing them with some sort of

vague standard for the unilateral exercise of Presidential authority.

There are questions about probable cause standards, equal protection in the application of standards, first and fourth amendment

protections to be afforded to those persons who are stopped in the

process. There are problems with respect to our commitments

under international agreements, including U.N. protocol relating to

the status of refugees.

There are major problems, of course, with the judicial review

provisions, and I will not continue. I will simply summarize.

Senator SIMPSON. Thank you.

Mr. HENDERSON. We do have a number of grave concerns. What

we would hope to do is to augment this statement with a major

statement for the record. This testimony has been presented only

as a preliminary statement on behalf of the ACLU.

Senator SIMPSON. Without obection, so ordered.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you.

Senator SIMPSON. Thank you.

I will just ask some questions and start down the line, if I might,

first with Mr. Torres. The section-by-section analysis that accompanied this bill indicates at least, I think, an application to the Caribbean. Does not any possibility of this applying to the Mexican

border situation appear remote?

Mr. TORRES. NO, because as the Commissioner of the INS indicated, it could easily be applied to situations where there are a few

thousand undocumented aliens. Also it is very unclear as to who is

going to initiate the process to decide whether emergency powers

should be applied.

Is it going to be like the disaster relief program we have now? In

other words, if the State of Texas Or the State of Arizona or California or some Southwest State says, "I have got a tremendous

flood of undocumented people coming across the border and they

are depressing the markets along the border of my State; I have

serious difficulties and I think that emergency powers should be

\
95

applied to this situation," you have a totally different situation

taking place.

The bill never indicates whether it will only apply to countries in

the Caribbean. Again, you do have that strong, strong public

outcry, as you well know, coming from the Southwest. It could

easily be interpreted as, anytime you have a peso devaluation

crisis, the provisions of the bill could be applied because these

State governments feel the need to stop the flow of undocumented

workers. I think you know Governor Clements better than I do in

that regard.

Senator SIMPSON. Well, you and I both have come to know the

Governor and some of his comments with regard to immigration

matters. You know, he has some very rich and deep views on that,

indeed.

You raise the point that the emergency declaration by the President may, just like the designation of a disaster area by an administrative official or a Governor, evolve as a semiautomatic response

kind of thing to gubernatorial or congressional concern.

What suggestions do you have for us that we could use to try to

prevent that?

Mr. TORRES. Well, I would not be interested in making suggestions to legislation to prevent that from happening. My interest is

making sure that there is no movement to legislation of this

nature. I think that the best thing to do is some of the things that I

previously summarized in my opening oral comments. That is, if

the legislation in Congress passes then it should be given the opportunity to be implemented and function, and assessed as to its

effectiveness in accomplishing its proponent's claims which is to

stifle the flow of illegal immigration.

In addition, some of the trigger criteria contained in this bill indicate that there are serious resource problems for the INS. Again,

attention should be focused on that whole issue.

The serious discussions that must be undertaken with countries•I think Mr. Henderson has indicated that our posture with

certain countries has, in fact, stimulated the flow of people here.

Certainly, in the case of Haiti, we are in a much better position to

influence and work with that Government to stop that kind of situation from happening.

The other issue is simply the fact that we really should develop

much better economic programs to deal with those impacted States

and areas of countries that are sending most of their people to the

United States.

I think that is, again, I emphasize, a much better way of dealing

with the issue, getting perhaps the United Nations involved again,

than coming in with a piece of such far-reaching legislation. Clearly, this bill, as evidenced by this panel's comments, is not that concerned with the rights of individuals, not only those who are potential American citizens or those who are going to apply for citizenship, but those who are in the country already who simply are

going to be viewed as potentially undocumented or red meat for

questioning.

You know, I think that the bill does not have enough protections

in that sense, and I just do not want to get into a whole Pandora's

box in that area.
96

Senator SIMPSON. Well, if the other legislation should pass, then

you will be coming back to share with us your views as to how best

this legislation might work. Is that correct?

Mr. TORRES. Well, if the legislation on the table now passes,

which many of us feel there is a 50-50 chance of right now in the

House if we continue to work well, yes, we certainly will come back

and work with you.

Senator SIMPSON. It was 100 to 1 when you were not working.

Mr. TORRES. Yes. [Laughter.]

But, anyway, if it does, we certainly will come back to see if we

can improve on provisions of the law that deal with minimizing the

flow of undocumented people to the United States.

Senator SIMPSON. One other question, in all seriousness. We have

these witnesses that testify, not today but other days; Latin American experts and authorities, and so on, testifying•and this is not

new to you either, I know•that there are perhaps another 200,000

to 2 million potential Marielitos in Cuba whom Castro has designated or considers exportable.

How is this Nation to respond to that type of intelligence that is

presented to us, and that there is no plan, perhaps

Mr. TORRES. Well, I think that

Senator SIMPSON. Wait.

Mr. TORRES. I am sorry.

Senator SIMPSON. There is no plan to do that yet, but there was

no plan to do it with the Marielitos; it was just a combination of

foreign policy issues, internal, and so on. So, how are we to respond

as a thoughtful nation to that without something like emergency

powers, whether it is this or something else? I mean, that is where

we are; it is kind of the nub of it.

Mr. TORRES. I think a member of one of the previous panels, Professor Maier, indicated that he felt that there were already existing

powers to some extent that could address situations of that nature.

But more important, to expand upon that, is the need to have a

foreign policy with regard to relations with Cuba that is going to

work to avoid that from happening. I think that is probably the

key. You are really dealing with a foreign policy issue in that

sense, and to draft legislation of this nature is not really efficient,

nor is it a good public policy precedent to be setting.

I agree that something must be done to keep Florida from having

to be confronted with such intense flows of people as it was under

the Mariel boatlift. But at the same time, it is our foreign policy

that probably is going to make it or break it. I would just as soon

be able to be in a preventive posture through more effective foreign

policy and international pressure on Cuba than to be responding to

a crisis with such questionable public policy legislation as this.

Senator SIMPSON. Thank you.

Mr. Helton, was a lady named Harriet Rabb involved with your

process up in New York? Are you aware of her?

Mr. HELTON. Yes; she was counsel on a litigation concerning a

number of detained Haitians in New York City.

Senator SIMPSON. I had a fine visit with her many weeks ago and

I wondered if she was not part of this same•is it the same?

Mr. HELTON. We are allied as co-counsel in that case.

Senator SIMPSON. I was interested in that. Thank you.

- • i , ^^^m
97

Would you give us your views of the interdiction questioning procedure? Do you have any suggestions that could assist in improving

it or making it fairer? I would be interested.

Mr. HELTON. Well, I question whether or not interdiction can be

made a fair procedure for the presentation of a claim for political

asylum. Asylum applicants frequently find themselves at the

border after a harrowing escape from persecution, without the

benefit of documentation in the form of a passport or visa. And in

the context of an interdiction, that process will be telescoped, as is

reflected in the only experience that we have had with interdiction,

which is the U.S. Government's Haitian interdiction program. It

has been telescoped into brief interviews before personnel who

have received no specific training in refugee recognition, who presumably are in a situation where the representatives or military

officials and personnel from the Government of claimed persecution can participate in some respect in the process, and indeed

where there is no access to counsel.

It is an impossible request to comply with, should the alien or

applicant for political asylum request counsel. Under those circumstances, I question whether or not an interdiction procedure could

ever provide a fair opportunity to present and have considered a

claim for political asylum on the part of an undocumented alien

who is the subject of an interdiction.

Senator SIMPSON. What has been the impact of detention upon

the Haitian asylum applicants? You know, I know what you testified to and the particular quotation of the one gentleman who said

he received no medical attention and that he would go back, and so

on. I would be interested to know where that occurred, but that

can come in another place.

I appreciate that you do not favor detention, but can you give us

your estimate of the impact of detention upon Haitians who are

contemplating coming to this country? Of course, you are aware

that in Hong Kong, the British have now begun a detention program, and also, of course, began many months ago an identification

system, and so on. What are your thoughts on that?

Mr. HELTON. I do not know, and really cannot know, what

impact a detention program would have on an alien contemplating

fleeing persecution. My instinct is that that is a decision simply

made in the immediacy of that circumstance, and the escape occurs

and the alien is in flight.

My particular concern, and the concern of the Lawyers Committee, is that once here, what is the United States doing that may

coerce that alien who has applied for political asylum into giving

up that right. That is the context in which I see the risk of detention to the entitlements of asylum applicants.

Senator SIMPSON. IS there any element, with our policies in this

country, of in some way coercing, in a sense•I use the word carefully•the economic migrant to seek asylum?

Mr. HELTON. I do not think that one can describe the current immigration law as an invitation to aliens to apply for political

asylum when those claims are frivolous. Should that occur, there

are adjudicatory procedures that resolve that issue relatively quickly.
98

However, where there is a well-founded fear of persecution, I

think it is paramount to guard against any procedures or incentives that will discourage compliance with the obligation of the

United States to recognize that well-founded fear of persecution

and accord asylum.

Senator SIMPSON. Of course, the interesting dilemma is that if

that same person went into the consular offices•a Haitian, say,

went into the consular offices at Port-au-Prince and sought to say

the same things he says up here in America, a consular official just

stamps it and says "sorry," and that is it. Yet, when they come

here illegally, it is almost as if the minute they leave their shore,

they gather unto themselves more degrees of due process than

would have ever been imagined by the average American citizen.

In the final touch of it all, they end up in many cases with more

due process than an American citizen might obtain. That is a curious anomaly as we deal with the refugee Haitian asylee issue, and

will remain so to me•how we can hang up on the area of judicial

review when down there at home base, it is just bam, like that.

You know, that makes me scratch my dome somewhat.

Mr. HELTON. There are certainly, it seems to me, illogical aspects

of any system of law. However, I think in part, by definition, under

international and domestic law, Mr. Chairman, the fact that an

alien arrives here does confer benefits in the form of entitlements

to apply for political asylum which an alien in the country of nationality, just by definition, does not have.

In fact, experience indicates that the kinds of aliens who apply

for political asylum frequently or ordinarily do not make prior applications to consular offices, simply because they flee without the

benefit of documentation and are prompted to flee under relatively

urgent circumstances. They are not in a position to await a consular determination.

Senator SIMPSON. Thank you.

Mr. HELTON. Thank you.

Senator SIMPSON. Mr. Henderson, do you conceive of any circumstances other than in times of war when the United States might

exercise emergency powers, and if so, what would those be?

Mr. HENDERSON. Well, certainly, Mr. Chairman, in times of

major national disaster, destruction, flood, or a major civil disturbance where the rule of law may have broken down in a way that

would prevent orderly processes from taking place, the appropriate

terminology of an emergency situation may well be applied to

those circumstances.

I think we certainly concur with the observations made by one of

the professors on the earlier panel that the terminology "emergency" may well be inappropriate to apply to the kind of situation

which this proposed draft legislation is intended to address.

In large part our concern•again going back to the ambiguity of

terms, it would seem to allow the President and the Congress, who

have relative control over the administrative process of the INS by

way of appropriation and regulation, to therein suggest that because the system as it presently stands is incapable of accommodating an anticipated influx without having the specificity to know

how the interplay of actual administrative process and the number

of aliens who might be coming in and affecting that system•how

o
99

they will interplay with one another•that seems to us to present a

situation where potential abuse is likely to occur. And therein, I

think, lies the grave problem that we see with the proposed bill.

We certainly do believe, though, that circumstances could exist

where it would be most appropriate to declare a national emergency under circumstances such as those I have just mentioned.

Senator SIMPSON. NOW, we have the existing International Economic Emergency Powers Act. Do you have opposition to that in

itself, the present one?

Mr. HENDERSON. NO, Mr. Chairman. We have not taken a policy

position on that at this time. We may, in fact, respond to that in

our statement, but at this time we do not.

Senator SIMPSON. Let me ask you, do you think that President

Carter's actions under that International Economic Emergency

Powers Act during the time of the Iran hostage crisis was proper? I

might ask that.

Mr. HENDERSON. Well, Mr. Chairman, again, without policy positions to formally support the statements, I would not want to be

misinterpreted as giving the solid posture of the ACLU on that

question.

I think we were troubled, however, that there were obviously a

number of serious foreign policy considerations which had direct

impact on the President's decision on how to treat Iranian students

in this country and punitive measures with respect to the use of

the INS to search visas and determine the eligibility of students

who had participated in political demonstrations against the

regime.

Much of that, of course, was, we thought, overtly political and

therefore very troubling. Other elements of the President's action

during that period, I am not familiar with and could not really respond satisfactorily.

Senator SIMPSON. Well, as we proceed in this•and the House

will begin to process, I think, emergency powers legislation, too, in

the next session•we will appreciate, as we have in the Immigration Reform and Control Act, your thoughts and your suggestions

on what might be acceptable and unacceptable.

I think you have always had that access. I know you may not

always agree with the final product, but I promise you, you will

always have that access. That is as important to me as it is to you.

Mr: HENDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SIMPSON. SO, I thank you very much. I appreciate your

testimony and thank you for coming.

That will conclude the hearing on emergency powers for today.

Thank you very much.

[Whereupon, at 4:43 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

o