Thread: Congress Handles Immigration Problems One At A Time

Handling immigration one at a time

How Congress is using private bills to address public problems.By Leah Nylen

Hotaru Nakama Ferschke is caught in a scenario straight from the pages of "Catch-22."

A Japanese citizen, she married a U.S. Marine in a proxy ceremony, a common procedure for members of the military in which he was not physically present. A month later, her husband was killed in Iraq.

Though military widows are eligible to become permanent U.S. residents, immigration officials turned Ferschke down because of a 1952 law that requires proof the marriage was consummated — even though she was already pregnant at the time of the wedding.

A long-delayed effort to update laws like that has been tripped up by the politics around illegal immigration. In the meantime, Congress has been dealing with these cases — quite literally — one at a time.

To keep Ferschke from being deported in January 2010 when her visa expires, Rep. John Duncan, R-Tenn., introduced a private relief bill on her behalf in July. The private bill (HR 3182 ) would make a special exception to allow her to apply for permanent residency.

Most bills introduced in Congress apply to the general public. If signed by the president, they become public laws. But members of Congress can also introduce private relief bills, rare legislation that applies only to a single person or group of people.

Private bills are legal as long as they do not benefit some people to the detriment of others. Those acts are barred by the Constitution as bills of attainder , which single out individuals for punishment.

They are typically reserved for extreme situations and only if a person has exhausted every other legal avenue and can address Social Security or veteran's benefits or the sale of public land.

In recent years, members of Congress have increasingly introduced these private bills to deal with immigration problems. While the House has led in filings, they have languished in the Senate.

Private bills used to be fairly common. From 1817 to 1971, Congress enacted hundreds of private relief bills, including 6,248 in one two-year session from 1905 to 1907, according to an account from the Congressional Research Service.

Congress revamped private bill procedure in the 1980s following the Abscam scandal , where six members of Congress were convicted of bribery and conspiracy after they were caught accepting money from undercover FBI agents in exchange for introducing a private bill on behalf of a fictitious Arab sheik.

In recent years, the number of private bills enacted into law has dwindled.
Congress last passed a private bill in 2006 which allowed an 83-year-old woman, Betty Dick, to continue living on a 23-acre plot in Rocky Mountain National Park. From 2007 to 2008, Congress passed no private bills, though more than 100 were introduced.

But unlike public bills, private relief bills do not have to pass in order to have an effect. If a private bill is introduced in the Senate, the subject of the bill receives an immediate reprieve.

For example, if Immigration and Customs Enforcement had planned to deport or deny permanent residency, that action would be put on hold while the legislation is pending.

The House procedure is somewhat different: the subject only receives a reprieve if the House Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee votes to pursue further action.

So far this year, 94 private bills have been introduced, the majority of which deal with immigration.

The House Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee has considered two of them: one that would allow a Texas couple to adopt a Kenyan orphan who was severely disfigured as an infant and in need of surgery (HR 1576 ) and the bill on behalf of Ferschke.

Leah Nylen writes for Congressional Quarterly.

http://www.alipac.us/ftopic-new-6.html
http://can-you-hear-us-now.blogspot.com[/url]

Welcome to alipac "DesertCactus" thanks for joining us at alipac!!

This has been going on for a long time, they use it in may different instances...like victims of crime, etc. any reason to not have to deport people.

The biggest farce right now is Immigration Judges allowing those who entered the country illegally a green card or work visa to stay and they are doing it everyday.

This is their way around the law, if a Judge allows it, it is OK, just another way of not enforcing our laws.

Immigration Judges need to be under stricter rules, or the law needs to be plain, you enter the country illegally you leave the country, it is quite simple and the only thing that will helps stop the flow...it is called "law enforcement"!

New Attempt to silence Americans, please take action here!

http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-970092.html#970092