----

**U.S. Commission on Civil Rights**

**Crossing Borders: TheAdministration of Justice and Civil Rights Protections in the Immigration andAsylum Context**

**Project Summary**

**January 2003**

----

**Introduction**

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has long recognized theimportance of ensuring the just application of civil rights laws and principlesto those who come to America�s shores in search of a better life or to escapepolitical, religious, or ethnic persecution in their original homelands. Fromthe Native Americans who first crossed the land bridge over the Bering Straitsto the Americas, to the Irish escaping famine across the Atlantic, to theChinese toiling on the railroads of the American West, to the modern-dayMexicans who provide a source of cheap labor for a myriad of non-glamorous but,essential, industries, to the many other peoples who have landed on these shoresover the centuries, the importance of immigration to the development of thiscountry cannot be overstated. Immigrants seeking to escape intolerance andpersecution, such as the Pilgrims and East European Jews, have also contributedimmensely to the fabric of American society. As the Commission noted in itsseminal report *The Tarnished Golden Door: Civil Rights Issues in Immigration*(1980), issued over two decades ago, �America is a nation of immigrants andtheir descendants . . . [t]he names of immigrants and their children and theirchildren�s children dot the history of America, for it was their labor andtoil that built this country.�

The Commission has devoted significant attention over the yearsto studying the impact of U.S. immigration and refugee laws and policies on thecivil rights of those in the process of becoming new Americans, or seekingprotection on our shores. The Commissionfollowed up *The Tarnished Golden Door*with a report�*ImmigrationReform and Control Act: Assessing the Evaluation Process*(1989)*�*whichexamined the findings by the General Accounting Office on the extent ofdiscrimination and the burden on employers under the employer sanctionsprovision of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. TheCommission also raised the plight of Haitian refugees and potential violationsof their civil rights early in the first Clinton administration.

Against this backdrop of historical interest in immigrationmatters, and in light of concerns about civil rights issues flowing fromrelatively recent changes in the country�s immigration laws and policies, theCommission embarked at the turn of the millennium on a series of projects tiedto the theme of evaluating the interplay of U.S. refugee and asylum laws andpolicies with civil rights enforcement in the immigration context. This overviewfocus was broadened after the events of September 11, 2001, to also include anevaluation of reported increased encroachment on immigrant and refugee civilrights as a result of U.S. antiterrorism policies and legislation, such as theUSA Patriot Act, which grants the government new powers that significantlyaffect the rights of political asylum seekers.

In the course of its overview, the Commission receivedstatements in several briefings and presentations from various immigrationexperts, academicians, government officials, and advocates on the civil rightsissues and challenges facing the immigrant and refugee communities. From thesebriefings, the Commission received a number of broad recommendations on whatactions it could take to help strengthen civil rights protections for asylumseekers and newly minted Americans, or those in the process of becoming one.

**Legislative Overview**

Concerns about civil rights issues flowing from relativelyrecent changes in the country�s immigration laws and policies have generatednumerous calls for legislative action. The Immigration and Nationality Act(INA), created in 1952, collected and codified many of the existing provisionsand reorganized the structure of immigration law. The Immigration andNationality Act of 1965, known as the Kennedy Immigration law, made sweepingamendments to the INA. It abolished the quota system that focused on nationalorigin, race, and religion and, instead, concentrated on family ties andemployment skills. Since then, the act has been amended many times, but it isstill the basis of U.S. immigration law.

In 1996, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and ImmigrantResponsibility Act (IIRIRA). Oneof the more noteworthy provisions that directly affects civil rights isIIRIRA�s �expedited removal� mandate. This provision allows the UnitedStates to conduct expedited removal proceedings for individuals entering thecountry with invalid or fraudulent travel documents. These individuals mustindicate to the immigration officer a �credible fear� of persecution intheir own country to avoid immediate removal from the United States.[1]Even when the individual seeks asylum based on credible fear of persecution, anasylum officer determines whether the individual demonstrates a significantpossibility of establishing eligibility for asylum. If the determination is thatthere is no credible fear, the asylum seeker is removed, although he or she mayappeal the determination to an immigration judge, who is then expected to rendera decision within one week. Under IIRIRA, the Immigration and NaturalizationService (INS) is required to detain the asylum seeker during the administrativereview process.

In response to the criticism of INA and IIRIRA, approximately 50pieces of legislation have been sponsored suggesting that parts of these laws beamended or repealed.[2]The Refugee Protection Act of 2002,[3]the Secret Evidence Repeal Act of 2000,[4]and the Restoration of Fairness in Immigration Law Act of 2003[5]are just three of the major bills that have been considered by Congressinvolving the treatment of asylum seekers.

The Refugee Protection Act of 2002[6]was drafted to reduce the likelihood that a bona fide refugee will be returnedto persecution in the refugee�s country of nationality or country of lasthabitual residence because of expedited removal procedures or lack of dueprocess in the U.S. asylum system.[7] The proposed legislationwas specifically aimed at amending several provisions of the INA that apply toimmigration emergencies, the screening of applicants for asylum, refugeesfleeing countries with poor human rights records, the definition of �crediblefear of persecution,� the opportunity for review of credible feardeterminations, the detention of asylum seekers, the availability of judicialreview for asylum seekers, the conduct of asylum officers, and the �goodcause� exception for filing late asylum applications.

The Secret Evidence Repeal Act of 2000 aimed to amend proceduresused to classify information as secret under the Classified InformationProcedures Act.[8] The amendments would forcethe Attorney General, in any immigration proceeding in which classifiedinformation is used, to notify the noncitizen and the presiding officer inadvance and would limit the circumstances under which the Attorney General coulduse classified information against particular noncitizens. The USA Patriot Actof 2001[9]and the events of September 11, 2001, have probably seriously diminished thechances that this bill will be reintroduced or passed, since the major goal ofthe USA Patriot Act is to enhance domestic security and surveillance against terrorism; any bill seen as potentiallyweakening the classification of secret documents is now unlikely to survive thelegislative process.

The Restoration of Fairness in Immigration Law Act of 2003 callsfor changes to a myriad of provisions of the INA and, if passed, wouldessentially revamp our nation�s immigration laws. The act includes proposedchanges involving asylum determinations, decisions concerning document fraudwaivers, the burden of proof for admissibility, the elimination of mandatorydetention in expedited removal proceedings, the establishment of a right tocounsel, the review of cases involving minor misconduct, family reunification,naturalization and legalization proceedings, battered immigrant admissibility,and unused employment-based immigrant visas. Various civil rights groups,including Amnesty International and the Mexican American Legal Defense andEducation Fund (MALDEF), support these changes because they believe they willresult in more humane treatment for individuals seeking asylum, as well as putU.S. policy more in line with international policy concerning the treatment ofasylum seekers. 

**Summary of Briefings**

***Crossing Borders******:******AnExamination of Civil Rights Issues Raised by Current Immigration Laws, Policies,and Practices***

In December 2000, the Commission   commenced its examination of asylum and immigration issues by holding a briefing   titled �Crossing Borders: An Examination of Civil Rights Issues Raised by Current   Immigration Laws, Policies, and Practices� (�Crossing Borders�) (see Appendix   A for full discussion). The Crossing Borders briefing focused on the extent   to which civil rights protections are afforded to immigrants and asylum seekers   in the administration of the nation�s immigration laws. Several panelists were   invited to speak, and the topics explored in the briefing included the detention   of asylum seekers, equal protection concerns in deportation processes, and the   impact of delays associated with various INS processes.

The panelists were generally critical of IIRIRA. Underthe statute, those who reach U.S. shores face an expedited removal process thatallows for the summary return of people who enter the country without documentsor with fraudulent documents, unless they immediately express a credible fear ofpersecution and an intention to apply for asylum. General problems engendered bythe implementation of IIRIRA include an expedited removal program that does notprovide sufficient due process and safeguards, the excessive detention of asylumseekers in contravention to international norms, and the maltreatment of asylumseekers during confinement. It was noted that IIRIRA eliminated many dueprocess protections previously provided immigrants. Since the passage of theIIRIRA in 1996, the expedited removal process has made it much easier to turnimmigrants away at ports of entry. This is particularly troublesome for asylumseekers who are never afforded an opportunity to establish credible fear. Onepanelist observed that under the IIRIRA, INS officers make decisions to deportimmigrants without review from a judicial or quasi-judicial officer. Compoundingthis problem is the dire shortage oflawyers for people seeking asylum.

Another area of concern is the prolonged and indefinitedetention of asylum seekers permitted under current immigration law. Onepanelist noted that the United States routinely detains asylum seekers likecriminals for indefinite periods, often without hearings. Another panelist alsoobserved that the act requires mandatory detention if the INS is planning topursue administrative deportation against an immigrant, and that the actsubjects an immigrant to mandatory detention and mandatory deportation for smalloffenses such as shoplifting, even if committed in the distant past.

The uneven application of mandatory detention policies was alsocriticized. It was explained that mandatory detention has been sporadicallyimposed on Haitian asylum seekers who reach U.S. soil, while Cubans who do soare automatically assumed to have established a credible fear of persecution andare not subject to such detention. Still, despite the obstacles, one panelistnoted that between 1991 and 1992 some 11,000 of approximately 23,000 Haitianswho had credible fear hearings were able to establish legitimate fear ofpersecution. 

Contradiction anduneven policies also extended into legislation affecting asylum seekers. Onepanelist noted that in 1997, Congress passed the Nicaraguan and Central AmericanRefugee Act (NACARA), which granted permanent legal status to thousands ofNicaraguan and Cuban refugees. In 1998, Congress passed the Haitian RefugeeImmigration Act, extending permanent legal residence to Guant�namoBay Haitians and their immediate relatives, but with greater restrictions thanNACARA. It was noted that a bill before Congress, the Latino ImmigrationFairness Act, would resolve some of these problems by mandating that Haitians betreated the same as similarly situated Central Americans.

***Informal Briefing on Haitian Asylum and Facility Tour***

Following up on the theme   of immigration policies that have been applied unfairly to Haitians, in June   2002, the Commission was invited to participate in an �Informal Briefing on   Haitian Asylum in South Florida� (see Appendix   B for full discussion) sponsored by local advocacy groups. Three panels   were assembled to discuss unfair immigration practices, and specifically a December   3, 2001, change in Immigration and Naturalization Service policy that has led   to the indefinite detention of Haitian refugees and asylum seekers in INS facilities   in the United States.

Apanel of immigration experts spoke generally about the change in the INS policy,resulting in what they described as the grossly unfair treatment of Haitianrefugees seeking asylum. Under a policy adopted secretly in December 2001 andnot revealed until March 2002, the INS instituted a �no-release� policy onlywith respect to Haitian refugees. The panelists described the policy as�facially discriminatory� and noted that the United Nations HighCommissioner for Refugees issued an advisory opinion critical of U.S. policy onthe blanket detention of refugees. Civil rights panelists questioned thegovernment�s reasoning for the detention policy. They said the fears stated bythe U.S. government of a mass exodus of immigrants from Haiti have never beenproven legitimate. For almost all of those making presentations at the meeting,the current Haitian-only detention policy was characterized as a surrealrepetition of the past racist and discriminatory policies that have beenrepudiated time and again in U.S. courts. 

Communityleaders also suggested that latent, historical U.S. prejudice and hostilitytoward Haiti, stemming from the latter�s status as the first instance of asuccessful slave rebellion in the Americas, continue to influence U.S. policydecisionmaking with respect to the treatment of Haitian immigrants and asylumseekers. Haitian community leaders and individual asylum seekers also relatedpersonal experiences and examples of hardship and discrimination encountered inthe asylum process. 

Civiland human rights panelists also highlighted the uneven, arbitrary, anddiscriminatory policies adopted by the U.S. government with respect to high seasinterdiction of refugees and treatment of male and female detainees. Severalpanelists spoke strongly against any INS policy that results in the unfairtreatment of women in comparison with men. They referred to an INS policy thatallows the imprisonment of all female INS detainees in a maximum-securitycriminal institution because INS cannot guarantee their safety in one of INS�own facilities. It was noted that in mid-December 2000 all of the women at theKrome Detention Center were transferred to the Turner Guilford KnightCorrectional Center (TGK) after allegations of sexual abuse and improprieties bythe guards were revealed. The women were then subjected to conditions morerestrictive than those imposed upon the men at Krome, such as being offered lessfrequent family visits; having no private room for meeting with attorneys; andbeing subjected to body searches, lock downs, and disruptive head counts in themiddle of the night.

Followingthe briefing, the Commission toured the TGK detention facility to investigateand collect information on confinement conditions at the INS-contract detentionfacility. The Commission met with the director of the facility, TGK employeesand officials, a local INS representative, and representatives from localadvocacy groups. The Commission, speaking directly with the detainees, foundthat non-Haitians appeared to have been detained for only a few weeks at most,while Haitians had been detained for over seven months. The Commission alsoaddressed specific concerns raised by the detainees, including the lack ofappropriate food and the lack of affordable access to long-distance telephoneservice to Haiti. 

***Boundaries of Justice: Civil Rights Issues Stemming from September11, 2001***

As a result of the September   11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Commission expanded the focus of its study   of asylum and refugee issues to include an examination of the civil rights implications   of perceived emerging terrorist threats on the nation�s immigration policies,   practices, and laws. Thus, on October 12, 2001, the Commission held a briefing   with panels consisting of representatives from community organizations, legal   experts and scholars, and representatives from the Immigration and Naturalization   Service (INS), as well as the Department of Transportation (DOT) (see Appendix   C for full discussion).

There was disquiet expressed by many of the panelists regardingthe civil rights implications of antiterrorism legislation proposed in the wakeof September 11. Concerns were voiced that proposed antiterrorism legislationmust be balanced and not infringe upon constitutional freedoms and civilliberties. Legislation originally proposed by the administration was criticizedfor vague and overbroad standards resulting in constitutional problems such asimprisonment of individuals based solely on certification of the AttorneyGeneral and not on substantive evidence, indefinite detention of immigrants whoare not proven terrorists, and unfair punishment of immigrants for associatingwith groups that the government views as terrorist organizations. Othertroubling aspects of proposed antiterrorism legislation included the permittedindefinite detention of immigrants on the basis of suspicion and lawfulpolitical associations; expanded ability of the government to conduct secretsearches; and minimized judicial supervision of federal telephone and Internetsurveillance by law enforcement authorities. Government policies also provideimmigration supervisors with the discretion to exclude an asylum claimant frombeing admitted to the United States if the claimant does not possess theappropriate documents with no opportunity for judicial review.

In response, one panelist suggested three principles to governantiterrorism policymaking. First, any antiterrorism policy should be narrowlytailored to address actual security threats. Second, these policies should becarefully considered to prevent unintended results that adversely affect entirecommunities. Third, the September 11 attacks should not prevent our nation fromimplementing immigration and civil rights policies that are in the public�sinterest. Another panelist advocated that pending legislation eliminate the useof no-hearing deportations, impose a �reasonable grounds� burden beforeimposition of detention, and retain habeas review of any detention decision.

The panelists also discussed racial profiling and generaldiscrimination concerns, including the impact of the attacks on the civil rightsof Muslims and Arab Americans, and those perceived to be from those groups.Violent reaction toward these groups occurred following the Iranian hostagecrisis, the Gulf War, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the explosion of apassenger airplane off Long Island. Moreover, after September 11, more than 300harassment complaints and threats had been reported to the Arab AmericanInstitute and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. Due partlyto the history of the FBI�s relationship with the Arab and Muslim Americancommunities, members of these communities, particularly recent immigrants, arehesitant to report incidents of harassment, which include threats, assaults,deaths, vandalism, profiling on airlines, termination of employment, andindiscriminate detentions and roundups by the FBI.

One panelist, a professor at the University of Toledo College ofLaw, cautioned against the use of racial profiling as an enforcement tool,alluding to errors made by the government when it overreacted to past nationalsecurity crises, such as the internment of Japanese Americans, the Palmer raids,the McCarthy hearings, and the Wen Ho Lee controversy. Racial profiling is anineffective tool as it dilutes law enforcement resources with very small returnsand damages ability to gather intelligence in affected communities.

Problems of government immigration processes and theirdiscriminatory effects were also highlighted. These were traced in part to inadequatefunding of the service side of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Therewere reported backlogs of citizenship and green card applications despiteincreases in fees charged to immigrants, which expose individuals to civilrights threats due to the increased discriminatory nature of laws facingnoncitizens. Lack of language services was also criticized, since membersof the immigrant community are most vulnerable to civil rights violations due totheir unfamiliarity with the language, with the law, and with the agencies thatoffer services to assist and protect them. In particular, one panelist notedthat �[w]hen initially pressed for its plan, pursuant to President Clinton�sexecutive order asking all the federal agencies to servicelimited-English-proficient Americans, the INS�of all agencies�claimed thatit did not come into contact with that many people who didn�t speakEnglish.�

Official representatives from the INS acknowledged that theagency missed its congressional reporting requirements and had not issued areport on the detention of asylum seekers since 1999. INS panelists alsoacknowledged that enhanced security measures were causing backups at ports ofentry, but that it was continuing its attempts to process petitions promptly andefficiently. According to the officials, part of the problem was that INS doesnot always have access to the types of statistics that would be useful formonitoring its programs. For example, quantifying the number of asylum seekersin detention is difficult because INS does not have full access to informationon individuals processed in the immigration courts. However, the INS stated thatit was in the process of developing a strategic plan to evaluate detention andremoval proceedings, ensuring that they are humane and secure.

The agency also responded that it not only prevents improperentry into the country but also concentrates on helping people legally enter theUnited States. Some examples included proposing guidelines that alleviate unduehardships resulting from the strict application of immigration laws, proposingnew regulations expanding the definition of �refugee� to includegender-based and domestic violence claims, and implementing a more open andaccessible system for receiving claims related to torture.

INS representatives described the asylum application process,conceding that only a small percentage of detainees had legal representation,and that a detainee did not have a right to counsel in an expedited exclusionproceeding. Nor did the government provide interpreters unless a case ispresented before an immigration judge. With respect to reports that attorneysare prevented from seeing their clients, the INS affirmed that it wasinvestigating complaints of noncompliance with detention standards. INSrepresentatives stated that the agency had instituted a new program to provideall detainees with a �know-your-rights� presentation and supplied relatedpamphlets to detainees in different languages. The program was in its infancy,however, and required improvement.

Panelist representatives from DOT also stated that that agencytook steps to ensure full compliance with civil rights laws. The DOTrepresentatives stated that no guidelines exist that allow removal of an airlinepassenger based solely on race, nationality, or ethnic origin. However, afederal statute, 49 U.S.C. � 449.02, permits removal of passengers if airlinepersonnel believe the passenger represents a safety or security risk to theairplane. Nonetheless, the airline cannot remove a person solely based on raceunder this statute, because 49 U.S.C. � 401.27 prohibits airlines fromdiscriminating based on race, ethnic origin, or religion. If an airline usedrace as a factor for removal, such action would raise serious concerns thatwould be dealt with on a case-by-case basis by the agency. The agency alsoreportedly maintained data on all complaints and kept investigation files foreach complaint.

**Recommendations and Results**

Severalbroad recommendations and themes arose out of the briefings and investigationsundertaken by the Commission. First, the Commission was encouraged to continueefforts at educating the American public about racial profiling and thesignificance of antiterrorism legislation. It was also recommended that theCommission encourage its state advisory committees to convene briefings on alocal level to address issues that disproportionately affect immigrantcommunities. The Commission was asked, too, to continue efforts at examining theimpact of September 11 on affected communities, such as increases in hatecrimes, and to monitor the status of persons held by INS alleged to have beenpotentially involved with terrorist activities.

Inresponse to these recommendations, the Commission�s state advisory committeesorganized more than a dozen briefings or meetings to discuss post-September 11civil rights issues affecting immigrant and minority groups in theircommunities. Among these was a two-day community forum held jointly by the Districtof Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia state advisory committees beginning on April24, 2002, to hear the perspectives of affected community representatives,members of the public, and public officials regarding civil rights concerns inthe Washington metropolitan region.[10]The forum was organized around several panels that addressed such issues as thefears and concerns of at-risk communities and local government actions inresponse to September 11. Also explored were such topics as �UnderstandingIslam in America in the Aftermath of September 11� and �Implementing the USAPatriot Act of 2001: Civil Rights Impact.�

The Illinois state advisory committee also organized a two-daycommunity forum on June 17�18, 2001, on civil rights issues facing ArabAmericans in the metropolitan Chicago area. The forum convened 12 panels ofspeakers, representing some 25 national, state, and local government agencies,professional associations, and community groups. At the forum, Arab American andMuslim individuals and advocacy group representatives detailed the victimizationof their community that occurred on September 11, 2001, as well as the hatecrimes, discrimination, and targeting by national law enforcement services andpolicies that followed.

Followingup, the Commission�s Midwestern Regional Office organized a panel presentationfor the Commission on July 19, 2002, titled �Presentation on Civil Rights Issues Facing the Muslim andArab American Community,�which explored the continuing civil rights challenges and problems facing theMuslim and Arab American community in aftermath of September 11. Thepublic presentation was a collaboration of state advisory committees throughoutthe Midwest and local advocacy groups in Detroit, Michigan, home to the largestconcentration of Arab Americans in the United States. The Commission�s NewYork state advisory committee subsequently also arranged individual andorganizational presentations on December 13, 2002, for the Commission at abriefing titled �Civil Rights Issues Facing Immigrants in New York City.�These public presentations continued to raise the issue of civil rightschallenges facing immigrants and minorities, such as hate crimes, racialprofiling, and indefinite detentions, and provided a forum for further publicdiscourse and awareness on government immigration and asylum policies as theyrelate to the protection of civil rights. 

In terms of immigrant issues not directly tied to September 11,the California state advisory committee arranged for a local advocacy grouppresentation to the Commission on November 14, 2002, regarding the challengesfaced by migrants along the U.S.-Mexico border, including death due to exposureduring border crossings, as well as detentions and violence by vigilante groupsalong the frontier. As a result of this presentation, the Commission issued aletter to the Department of Justice requesting it to investigate the reportedacts of vigilantism on the part of United States citizens against suspectedmigrants crossing the U.S. Southwest border.

TheCommission was also asked to continue to monitor the detention and parole ofasylum seekers. In addition to the aforementioned presentations, the Commissionfollowed up on the issue of the Haitian asylum seekers. After listening to thetestimony of the immigration experts; former Haitian refugees, detainees, andtheir family members; and civil and human rights leaders, the Commissionersunanimously agreed to contact the appropriate officials and urge the reversal ofthe INS policy allowing the indefinite detention of Haitian refugees.

As a result, the Staff Director of the Commission forwarded aletter to INS Commissioner James W. Ziglar, expressing the view that howeverwell intended, no federal agency should engage in national origin discriminationor embrace a policy that creates the appearance of national origindiscrimination. The Immigration and Naturalization and Service was, therefore,urged to cease enforcing the policy of indefinite detention of Haitian refugees.The Florida state advisory committee was also asked to follow up on the issueand continues to monitor the situation of those refugees in south Florida.

Another general recommendation arising out of the briefings wasthat the Commission monitor implementation of antiterrorism legislation andsubmit comments to federal agencies and other governmental entities that may beissuing proposed regulations related to immigration law enforcement.Consequently, in addition to monitoring immigration-related legislation, theCommission also analyzed proposed legislation establishing the Department ofHomeland Security and forwarded a letter to Congress recommending provisionsinstitutionalizing an independent inspection office within the department tosafeguard civil rights in the wake of antiterrorism efforts. Although theCommission�s overall recommendations were not adopted, the current enablinglegislation does provide for a civil rights monitor within the department.

The Commission wasalso asked to monitor the INS investigation into reports of denial of attorneyaccess to clients, as well as INS� efforts at gathering and publicizing dataon the detention of asylum seekers. Accordingly, the Commission�s staffconducted follow-up meetings with the INS. On November 27, 2001, Commissionstaff extensively interviewed the INS on the organization of civil rightsactivities and enforcement within the agencies, the processing and resolution ofcomplaints (of discrimination and/or improper detention) received, and thepreparation of policy guidance. Through this process, staff was able to morethoroughly monitor and obtain an accurate evaluation of INS processes relatingto post-September 11 civil rights issues.

Other recommendations, such as urging relevant authorities totake proactive steps to address racial profiling, examining the government�sresponse to terrorist incidents, and monitoring the government�s compliancewith reporting requirements included in antiterrorism legislation, will requirethe Commission�s ongoing attention and consideration. Such awareness andcontinued focus reflect the Commission�s enduring commitment to ensure thatall individuals enjoy equal protection under the laws, regardless of race,ethnicity, or religion�a principle that has served as a beacon to generationsof immigrants and those escaping persecution who have arrived on our shoresseeking a better life and, in the process, enriched this country.

----

[1]    If the individual does not seek asylum, he or she is removed from the United    States and the decision is not subject to administrative appeal or review by    an immigration judge.

[2]    Thomas, �Legislative Information on the Internet,� <http://thomas.loc.gov/>    (accessed Nov. 11, 2002).

[3]    H.R. 4074, 107th Cong. (2d Sess. 2002).

[4]    H.R. 2121, 106th Cong. (1st  Sess.    1999).

[5]    H.R. 47, 108th Cong. (1st Sess. 2003).  This    bill was reintroduced by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) on January 7, 2003, and    was referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims.

[6]    Rep. Christopher H. Hill (D-NJ) reintroduced this bill into the House on    March 20, 2002, as H.R. 4074, 107thCong. (2d. Sess. 2002). It    was referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims on May 6, 2002.

[7]    S. 1940, � 2.

[8]    8 U.S.C. �� 1351 *et seq.*

[9]    Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to    Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T.) Act of 2001, H.R.    3162, 107th Cong. (2d. Sess. 2001).

[10] Transcripts and/or    executive summaries of most forums and briefings referenced in this section    are available from the online version of this report on the Commission�s    Web site at www.usccr.gov.