Proposed U.S. law upsets immigrants


By Anwar Iqbal
UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL


Washington, DC, May. 2 (UPI) -- Immigration lobbies are protesting a proposed bill, which would su Pro-immigration lobbies are protesting a proposed bill that they say would suspend the constitutional right to habeas corpus for the first time since the Civil War.

Critics say the Real ID act, which is supported by the Bush administration, would permit the Department of Homeland Security to deport immigrants without basic protections against illegal deportation. The act, they say, would also allow the department to police borders without regard to domestic labor, environmental and other laws.

The groups say the proposed law would mandate those seeking driver's licenses to prove their lawful immigration status to the Department of Motor Vehicles. Besides, they say, immigrants who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents would get an alternate driver's license, thereby creating a two-tier system.

The Real ID Act, which is now being negotiated by a House-Senate conference committee, will also make it much harder for those fleeing political and religious persecution to find refuge in the United States. The act, its critics say, will further empower bounty hunters to detain even those foreigners whose status in the country has not been determined.

Although the House of Representatives initially passed the proposed law, it was rejected in the Senate two weeks ago. If the conference committee approves it, it becomes law, however. President Bush has already indicated he will sign it.

To ensure a quick passage, the bill has been attached to a supplemental appropriations package to fund troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and to fund tsunami relief efforts in Asia.

Four Senate Republicans -- John McCain of Arizona, Sam Brownback of Kansas, John E. Sununu of New Hampshire and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee -- have urged lawmakers, however, not to attach the Real ID bill to the appropriations package and have called for a full Senate debate on the proposed legislation.

The White House has, however, urged the passage of the bill.

"The administration strongly urges the conferees to include the Real ID Act of 2005 in the final version of the bill," the White House Office of Management and Budget said in a letter to House and Senate conferees.

Groups opposed to the proposal say, however, that it infringes on civil liberties.

"In the name of national security, immigrants are being stripped of our basic rights," said Aarti Shahani of Families for Freedom, a multiethnic defense network for immigrants fighting deportation. "For the first time since the civil war, an entire class of people -- namely immigrants -- would be deprived of the constitutional right to habeas corpus."

She said the Real ID was one of many attempts that "anti-immigrant forces in Congress have made to pass sweeping reforms, side-stepping a debate because they know the debate will be very controversial."

Shahani said if the law passed, it will be the most radical immigration law in decades.

"I can't think of anytime in the recent past that Congress voted to take away such a sweeping breath of immigrants' rights -- everything from the right to drive to the right to see a federal judge," she said.

Shahani says the Bush administration is weakening the states by deciding to whom and how to issue driver's licenses. She and advocates around the country are urging those concerned to call the White House comment line to speak out against the proposal.

On April 14, the New York Immigration Coalition, an umbrella organization for 150 groups that work with immigrants and refugees, sent a letter to Sens. Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer, both Democrats from New York, urging them "to take a strong public position against the Real ID Act and to do everything you can to stop this anti-immigrant proposal from passing in Congress."

"Simply put," the letter read, "the REAL ID Act is blatantly anti-immigrant legislation masquerading as a national security initiative."

Sponsors of the bill, which was written by Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., R-Wis., say the United States is being protected against future terrorist attacks by increasing restrictions on immigration. The perpetrators of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States were all Saudi nationals and in the country on student visas.

Under the proposed bill, critics say, asylum-seekers will have an even more difficult time proving their cases. The legislation places a heavier burden on applicants to prove claims they are persecuted in their home countries. They would be expected to make persuasive cases of mistreatment, preferably with documented evidence.

Judges who do not believe their claims could order them deported even before their appeals run out, and federal courts would no longer have recourse to step in, the critics say.

"We are deeply disappointed that the Bush administration would so unequivocally embrace punitive measures that link all immigrants to terrorists," said Angela Kelley, deputy director of the National Immigration Forum, a leading pro-immigrant advocacy organization in Washington, which has been generally supportive of the Bush administration's call for comprehensive immigration reform.

"REAL ID won't impact immigrants' behavior, except to have them drive without insurance or licenses, to cross the border in more dangerous places, or to live underground after fleeing from their oppressors," said Kelley.

But those who believe in tighter restrictions say the asylum process is yet another way for terrorists or criminals to gain entry into the United States. They point to the cases of Mir Aimal Kasi and Ramzi Yousef, who committed terrorist attacks on U.S. soil after receiving asylum. Kasi later attacked and killed CIA employees in Langley, Va., while Yousef was involved in the first bombing attack on the World Trade Center.

The Clinton administration tightened the asylum process in 1996. New asylum seekers were automatically detained, fingerprinted and photographed, before undergoing a lengthy hearing process.

Between 1980 and 1996, anyone who entered the United States could claim persecution, ask for asylum and receive a permit to work legally in the United States while his or her claims were investigated. The process could take 10 years.

That ended with the CIA shooting and the World Trade Center bombing. With tougher rules in place, the 140,000 people who applied for asylum in 1995 fell to about 30,000 last year.
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking ... -8866r.htm