USCIS Chief Leaving
The Fort-Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel
Immigration and Naturalization Service Commissioner Doris Meissner announced her resignation in Washington on Wednesday and said she plans to return to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Meissner joined the USCIS in October 1993, early in the Clinton administration, and her last day will be Nov. 17. Her successor will likely be Deputy Commissioner Mary Ann Wyrsch, pending White House approval, said an official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
"Commissioner Meissner's balanced approach to deterring illegal immigration while facilitating legal migration has enabled our nation to continue the great American tradition of welcoming immigrants to our shores," President Clinton said. In Miami, Meissner drew the ire of many Cuban exiles for her handling of the Eliáán Gonzáález case.
Others criticized Meissner's narrow interpretation of a 1996 Immigration Reform law that led to the detention and deportation of thousands of green card holders. "Their views were extraordinarily unhelpful to the protection of people who are long-term, lawful, permanent residents of this country," Miami lawyer Ira Kurzban said. "Her tenure was a microcosm of the Clinton administration. She was pushed much further to the right than a conservative Republican would have been."
Her announcement comes amid a federal investigation into alleged abuse of USCIS detainees by guards inside the Krome detention center. "The commissioner did the best she could under impossible circumstances," said Cheryl Little, executive director of the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center. "My concern now is that (Meissner's departure) places the investigation in serious jeopardy."
"Reforming Krome is a priority for the leadership at the BCIS," USCIS spokeswoman Maria Cardona said. "Mary Ann Wyrsch has worked closely with the commissioner on this issue so that will continue." Administration officials are departing as the end of Clinton's term approaches. Barry McCaffrey announced Monday his resignation as director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
Meissner, who served in several Justice Department posts before becoming USCIS commissioner, will examine U.S. policy at the Carnegie Endowment, where she previously founded its International Migration Policy Program.
President and Congress Fight over Amnesty
The Christian Science Monitor
Fifteen years ago this week, Congress cut a historic deal to end the "shadow society" of illegal immigration in America. Now, the terms of that bargain are being hotly contested again. President Clinton wants to make it easier for Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Haitians, and others who have lived in the US illegally for many years to gain permanent residency. White House officials say Congress will not adjourn without getting this done.
Yet many Republicans worry that extending asylum to a new group of immigrants encourages a disrespect of US borders and will lead to another wave of illegal immigration. It also hurts would-be immigrants who follow the rules, they say. "Amnesty is unfair to the millions of aliens who are waiting outside the country for their turn to come legally to the United States," says Rep. Lamar Smith (R) of Texas, chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. "Amnesty actually precipitates even more illegal immigration."
Politics of Amnesty
It's a tough issue for Republicans, who need the Hispanic vote to maintain control of Congress and win back the White House. The Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act, as the bill is called, is backed by a coalition of Hispanic groups, such as the National Council of La Raza and the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund. It's also supported by businesses that employ immigrant workers and unions organizing them.
"We now have the largest immigrant membership of any union in the country," says Daniel O'Sullivan of the Service Employees International Union, which recently organized janitors and office cleaners in a Los Angeles strike and is lobbying hard for this bill. "It took a while, but now immigrant fairness is part of the central debate in Congress," says Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D) of Illinois, chairman of a Hispanic caucus task force on immigration.
The proposed legislation could affect more than 1 million immigrants now in the country illegally or in bureaucratic limbo. It would:
* Make immigrants who came illegally to the US before 1986 eligible for permanent residency. The 1986 amnesty set 1982 as the cutoff, but bureaucratic errors in interpreting this law prevented many from applying at that time. Activists say extending the window of amnesty helps redress this mistake.
* Allow people to adjust their immigration status by remaining in the US and paying a fine, rather than leaving families and returning to their home countries to apply.
* Give Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Haitians, Hondurans, and other groups the same right to permanent residence that Congress granted Nicaraguans and Cubans in 1997 and 1998.
Supporters insist the aim of this bill is not to expand immigration but to redress issues of fairness. "We have never been able to understand why people that fled violence in Guatemala and El Salvador should have been treated differently than those from Nicaragua and Cuba," says Angela Sanbrano of the Los Angeles-based Central American Resource Center, which was founded to help Salvadoran refugees in the 1980s.
Ericka's Saga
Ericka Portela is one of 300,000 Central Americans waiting for a decision on her legal status. She left Guatemala in 1993, after her father disappeared in that country's civil unrest, and she applied for asylum in the US with what remained of her family. When she turned 21, she had to reapply on her own.
"They didn't answer me for a long time," she says of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (BCIS). "Now, my application is still pending, and I'm not sure if I'm going to receive it or not. My dream is to go to college, but I don't qualify for grants because I'm not a legal resident."
At least 5 million illegal immigrants reside in the US today, according to the BCIS. Critics say that illegal immigration creates an underclass of unskilled immigrants that can be easily exploited, driving down wages for others, and straining state and local resources.
Last week, the House Judiciary Committee released new USCIS estimates of illegal immigration obtained by subpoena. They show that the number of undocumented immigrants jumped sharply after the 1986 amnesty. "The fact that these new USCIS figures show that the last amnesty actually attracted more illegal immigration should give serious pause to those now advocating another amnesty," says Steven Camarota of the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies.
The Republicans are pushing an alternative that would allow those prevented from applying for legal status in the 1986 amnesty to do so now. But it would not open the window another five years. It also allows applicants who have been waiting five or more years to reunite with their families and work in the US while cases are processed. It addresses the needs of those "waiting in line, not those who have been breaking the law," says Smith aide John Lampmann.
Administration officials say the GOP plan would affect only a few thousand people. "Our response is: Let's not call it an amnesty at all. Let people benefit from the amnesty that was passed by a bipartisan Congress in 1986," says Maria Eschaveste, White House deputy chief of staff.
Judges Who Grant Asylum Show Extreme Differences in Rulings
By Fredric N. Tulsky
The San Jose Mercury News
There were good reasons to think U.S. immigration officials would rule that 18-year-old Rugie Jallow should be given asylum when she arrived here in 1995 from her native Gambia.
A military coup had unseated the elected government in which her father was a minister; in the year since, he had been repeatedly arrested and held without charges. Diplomats and human rights groups had protested his treatment. He sent his children abroad for their safety. A daughter and two sons were granted asylum in Great Britain. Rugie Jallow and a cousin went to the United States, where the cousin won asylum, too. Jallow was not so lucky.
She ran into one of the most arbitrary arenas in immigration policy: the administrative immigration courts, where an asylum seeker's hopes can depend as much on which judge hears the case as its merits. Jallow faced one of the nation's toughest judges and was ordered home.
In the first-ever analysis of asylum decisions by the nation's immigration judges, the Mercury News found extraordinary disparities from one judge to the next. The analysis, part of a two-year examination of the nation's asylum system, studied 176,465 cases that came before the 219 administrative immigration judges from 1995 through most of 1999.
The differences are so extreme that even when conditions in a country like Bosnia or Somalia are so dangerous that most applicants win asylum, there are many immigration judges who grant asylum in few or even no cases. At one end of the spectrum, some judges granted asylum in more than half the cases they heard. At the other end, judges granted asylum in less than 5 percent of the cases they heard, some less than 2 percent.
The statistics were obtained through a protracted request under the Freedom of Information Act to the Department of Justice, for whom the administrative judges work. Under U.S. and international law, an asylum seeker must prove a ``well founded fear'' of persecution on account of one of five factors: race, religion, national origin, political opinion or membership in a social group.
Asylum seekers can appeal orders sending them back to the homeland they fled; five years later, Jallow is still appealing her deportation. While she appeals, Jallow is taking college courses near Baltimore. But other asylum seekers wait in detention centers or county jails for months, even years, while they appeal decisions denying them asylum.
The nation's chief immigration judge says he makes no effort to evaluate judges' performance based on their rates of granting asylum. ``We want the fair decision, the right decision,'' said Michael J. Creppy, who has been the chief judge since 1994. ``I could care less if you affirm or deny a case, as long as you feel, based on your expertise, it is the right decision.''
The government also says it does not track the records of judges upon appeal to see how often their denials are overturned. Because asylum hearings are confidential, there is no way to conduct an independent study. Asylum lawyers and advocates have long complained that the results are arbitrary.
Mark R. von Sternberg, a senior lawyer in the Catholic Legal Immigration Clinic in New York who often trains new lawyers, said, ``Interns come in here and think there are two things that decide the case -- the law, and the facts. I quickly tell them there is a third factor, the judge, and it can count far more than the other two. ``It doesn't take them long to understand.''
The statistical analysis identified one factor as critical: the background of the judges. Those who come from private law practice, often representing asylum seekers, granted asylum nearly 50 percent more often than those who previously worked for the government, often as lawyers for the Immigration and Naturalization Service contesting asylum claims. Among the system's judges, former government lawyers outnumber former private lawyers by a ratio of 2-to-1.
Creppy, in fact, has worked to broaden the range of backgrounds among immigration judges, a group once overwhelmingly made up of white male lawyers who previously worked for the BCIS. The increased diversity, he said, enriches the thinking of the whole court. But it can also accentuate what appear to be arbitrary results by individual judges within the system, he acknowledged.
The analysis, conducted for the Mercury News by DMR Associates of Springfield, Va., an organization devoted to analyzing computer data for journalists, found that the disparities cover a range of circumstances. Some immigration courts as a whole are more lenient than others. Refugees from Sri Lanka, for example, who fly into San Francisco and have their cases heard there win asylum far more frequently than countrymen who fly into Los Angeles.
Some judges seem to favor some parts of the world more than others. Take judges Mirlande Tadal in Elizabeth, N.J., and Craig M. Zerbe in Chicago, for example. Tadal granted asylum in 69 percent of the cases she heard from Yugoslavia, while Zerbe granted asylum in only 28 percent. But of Somali applicants, Zerbe granted asylum to 95 percent and Tadal only 39 percent.
The gender of the immigration judges may make a difference. Most judges --72 percent -- are men, but women are disproportionately among the most lenient, and men disproportionately among the strictest. Ten of the 24 most lenient judges -- and three of the top four -- are women; at the other end, the six strictest judges were men; only three women were among the 24 most strict.
Almost no one, however, is tougher in granting asylum than the judge to whom Rugie Jallow was assigned, William Jankun, who in the period analyzed granted asylum in just 23 of the 1,569 cases he heard, 1.47 percent. Those cases included 26 from Gambia, and Jankun, an USCIS lawyer before becoming a judge in 1995, denied them all.
Just down the hall from Jankun's courtroom in Manhattan, however, is the courtroom of Immigration Judge Terry Bain, who was in private law practice before she became a judge in 1994. In the period analyzed, Bain granted asylum in 53 percent of the cases she heard, ranking in the top 10 percent of judges. And she granted asylum in four of the eight cases she heard from Gambia.
But Jallow knew nothing of these differences when she was randomly assigned to Jankun. ``I had never been in a courtroom before,'' she said in an interview. ``But I did not feel the judge was fair to me from the moment the hearing started.'' Before the hearing began in May 1997, Jankun ruled that he would not consider the documents that Jallow had gathered as evidence. Those documents included a letter from the secretary-general of the Interparliamentary Union in Geneva, expressing the organization's concern about Jallow's father. The letter stated that the organization ``firmly believes that Mr. Jallow's security and that of his entire family is at present not safeguarded.'' Immigration court rules in New York call for lawyers to submit their evidence 10 days ahead of the hearing but are ambiguous about what happens if a deadline falls on a weekend. Many judges interpret the rule liberally. Jankun did not. Because Jallow's deadline fell on a Sunday, his lawyer filed the documents the next day. Jankun then ruled they could not be admitted.
During the hearing, Jankun further restricted Jallow's case, cutting off her testimony about the abuses faced by her father. ``We're not here to try the claim of asylum that the respondent's father may have,'' he said. At the close of testimony, Jankun denied her application for asylum and ordered her returned to Gambia. In a pending appeal before the appellate administrative board, Jallow contends that Jankun's exclusion of her evidence was ``an arbitrary and capricious act'' that calls into question the judge's ``interest in fairness.''
Immigration judges are civil service employees rather than members of the judiciary. They used to be part of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, colleagues of the USCIS lawyers who contested the cases they were hearing. In an effort to make the judges more independent, in 1983 a new sub-agency was created within the Justice Department, the Executive Office of Immigration Review.
Immigration judges wield awesome power over people who often face the court under difficult circumstances. Many asylum seekers have no documents or other evidence to prove their stories of terror. Language and cultural barriers are common. And as many as half of all asylum seekers have no lawyers to assist them, according to the Justice Department.
The judges also have cause for skepticism, knowing that many foreign citizens desperate to escape poverty or to reunite their families may invent false asylum claims as a way to win a new life in the United States. Applicants can appeal a judge's denial to an appellate administrative board that has the power to consider the case anew. The board reverses or sends back for rehearing about 20 percent of the cases it reviews. One case reversed by the board was that of the wife of a Nigerian political activist. She testified before Immigration Judge Cary H. Copeland, in Arlington, Va., that officials had arrested her, tortured her and repeatedly raped her in an effort to learn where her husband was hiding.
In denying her application, Copeland said he was troubled by the woman's ``horrendous claims of abuse,'' and concluded that she had grossly embellished them. Of her claim that she had been raped three to five times a day for three days, he said, ``The number of rapists at this one detention center is incredible.''
``I want to try to be sensitive to these sexual assault cases,'' Copeland said at the end of the hearing. ``I'm a 90s kind of guy. On the other hand, I don't want to be victimized by people coming in to make false claims, and fall over backwards just because they say they were raped.''
In reversing the judge's denial, the appellate panel wrote, ``Unfortunately, such repeated abuse is physically possible, and the mere fact that the applicant claims that it occurred cannot be used against her as an indication of her lack of credibility.''
Similarly, Immigration Judge Nicole Kim in Newark, N.J., found not credible a Tamil man who said he had fled Sri Lanka after being tortured by police officials who suspected he was a member of the violent Tamil Tiger rebels. The judge added that even if the man had been persecuted, his suspected membership in the Tigers justified the police interrogation. In this case, the Tamil man had no luck even on administrative appeal; as a result, he spent three more years locked up until, finally, a federal court intervened and ordered the administrative courts to re-examine their decision. Judge Theodore McKee of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote that Kim's reasoning ``was nothing short of astonishing.'' The decision states, ``conduct such as beating with bats, and forcing one to drink one's own urine when thirsty, ought not to be mistaken for legitimate government investigations by any judge.'' ``We emphasize,'' he wrote for the court, in sending the case back, ``that torture does not constitute valid governmental investigation.''
Immigration judges are instructed not to speak publicly about their jobs without permission. Still, several describe feeling pressured in their work, not to approve or deny, but to hear cases quickly.
``Quite frankly, there is an impetus (sic) on productivity,'' Judge Bruce W. Solow of the immigration court in Miami testified last year at a Labor Department hearing that focused on the nature of immigration judges' responsibilities. ``Numbers are very important.'' In a system that values numbers, no one surpasses Judge William A. Cassidy of Atlanta, who over the five-year period decided 3,846 asylum cases. The next busiest judge decided 3,056 cases.
And for asylum seekers, the result was unfortunately predictable: Cassidy had denied asylum 3,637 times, more times than any other judge's entire asylum caseload, an average of three denials every workday. He granted asylum in only 71 cases -- 1.9 percent of the time.
The other immigration judge in Atlanta, Mackenzie Rast, was hardly a safer haven. During the five years, he granted asylum 36 times out of 1,477 applicants; the numbers put Rast and Cassidy among the nation's 10 toughest judges in granting asylum.
``It is extraordinarily difficult to win asylum here,'' said H. Glenn Fogle Jr., a lawyer who represents a series of Somali clients who are appealing their cases.
Nationwide, immigration judges granted the claims of Somalis, whose country was ravaged by tribal warfare for much of the five-year period that was analyzed, more than half the time. Cassidy gave eight Somalis asylum and denied 79. Rast granted asylum to six and denied 50.
Creppy, the chief immigration judge, cautioned that a variety of factors could cause differences in approval rates among immigration courts in different cities. But he did go to Atlanta to observe how Cassidy handled such a high caseload.
Creppy said he came away convinced that Cassidy's secret was a system of pre-trial conferences that he had developed in which he would tell asylum seekers that he anticipated denying their cases unless they could develop more evidence of persecution. ``He tells them what they need, to give them the chance to develop more evidence,'' Creppy said.
A spokesman for the Executive Office of Immigration Review said Cassidy had said he would ``love to grant more asylum cases.'' He wants asylum seekers, the spokesman said, ``to give him a reason.''
But lawyers in Atlanta contend that Cassidy's system pressures asylum seekers to drop their claims. One lawyer who is among Cassidy's harshest critics, David C. Farshy, filed a complaint about the judge after a telephone call to arrange such a pre-trial conference.
Cassidy made the call to Farshy's office and left a message saying he was with an USCIS lawyer and wanted to schedule a conference for one of Farshy's clients. The answering machine, however, continued recording Cassidy's conversation after he thought the call had ended -- and so Farshy thenheard the judge, on Farshy's machine, telling the USCIS lawyer that he was going to rule against Farshy's client. ``I am going to give him a hard time,'' the judge said. Outraged, Farshy demanded that Cassidy disqualify himself from the case. Cassidy refused, and denied the asylum application.
Farshy tried two separate avenues in response. He appealed the denial to the administrative board. And he filed a formal complaint with the Justice Department about Cassidy's conversation with the USCIS attorney.
Neither avenue, it turned out, worked. The appellate board agreed that Cassidy acted improperly and should have disqualified himself. Nevertheless, it concluded, he had been right in his legal decision denying asylum. Months later, the Justice Department wrote Farshy that it concluded that Cassidy's conversation did not amount to unprofessional conduct worthy of discipline.
Manhattan Immigration Attorney Arrested
The Village Voice
According to the Village Voice the arrest of a Manhattan immigration lawyer charged with smuggling has turned up the heat on the BCIS. Immigrant advocates argue that the BCIS's having to enforce rigid, self-contradictory laws devised by a grandstanding Congress, exacerbated by USCIS incompetence and a lack of oversight, makes it easy for unscrupulous lawyers to take advantage of vulnerable people
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0041/fsolomon.shtml
Phony Consultants Prey on Desperate Immigrants
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram
Hilda and Juan Rodriguez were consumed with a desire to live and work with the protections afforded legal U.S. residents. About four years ago, their frustration led them to an immigration consultant's office in Dallas. Juan wanted immigration papers so he could provide for his family. Hilda and four of their children, who lived in fear of deportation, hoped for asylum. The couple made a $650 down payment and shelled out hundreds of dollars more for application fees, fingerprints and photographs. They waited in vain for documents that never came, they said. Months passed before they realized that something was awry. "They always changed offices," Hilda Rodriguez said. "They changed telephones. Sometimes, they worked out of a hotel. Sometimes, they rented a house." The family fell victim to a scam found nationwide, particularly near the Texas/Mexico border and in cities with large immigrant populations such as Fort Worth, Dallas and Houston. Untold numbers of people hungry for work permits and U.S. residency or citizenship are swindled by phony immigration consultants. The Rodriguez case is rare because the family was lucky enough to work out its immigration problems. But some immigrants -- lured by unscrupulous immigration consultants, or notarios -- wind up being bilked, then deported. Lawmakers are taking a serious look at the problem. U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, introduced a bill last month aimed at cracking down on fraudulent consultants. Desperation is common among those who fall prey to phony services, immigrants and their advocates said. The inability to find quick employment, abuse in the workplace and insufficient pay fuel frustrations for undocumented and legal immigrants. In some cases, immigrants do not want to hear that they do not qualify for benefits, so they open themselves to abuse, he said. They turn to immigration services that claim to "fix papers" for $800 to $5,000. Often, applications are filled out but never filed with the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. For the unlucky, meritless or false applications are sent to the BCIS. The cases can be difficult for federal and state authorities to investigate because the operations change addresses often and victims do not report the crimes for fear of deportation. "The victims are people who have already been victimized in many different ways. These people are probably not going to come to us," said Lynn Ligon, spokesman for the USCIS Dallas District. Schumer addressed the problem last month by introducing the Immigration Protection Act of 2000. It would make such scams a federal crime and would establish task forces nationwide. "Immigration consultants can get away with these scams because our federal laws look the other way unless fraudulent documents are involved," Schumer said in a news release last month. "But for many of these scams, the only paper trail is that left by the movement of money from the immigrant's wallet to the consultant's bank account." Estimates indicate that the problem has grown and that thousands of phony consultants are working nationwide, the bill states. Sometimes, phony consultant services give clients the false impression that they are operated by lawyers. A business card for a Dallas agency depicts a U.S. flag and lists immigration benefits such as citizenship, work permits and temporary protective status. "They tell the immigrant exactly what they want to hear, and they jump at the chance to get a green card,"
Study: Illegal Immigration Grew
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Illegal immigration surged in the years immediately after the last federal amnesty, according to figures a lawmaker released Thursday to try to boost opposition to amnesty proposals backed by President Clinton. Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, head of the Judiciary subcommittee on immigration, subpoenaed Immigration and Naturalization Service data on illegal immigrants for the 10 years following the 1986 amnesty. The number of illegal immigrants grew from 360,000 in 1987 to 455,000 in 1988 and peaked at 585,000 in 1989 before beginning a steady decline, according to the BCIS.
"Amnesty increases illegal immigration" because new arrivals come hoping for another amnesty, Smith said.
Immigration advocates said the increase came mainly because illegal short-term farm workers brought spouses and children to join them. Provisions now under consideration would apply mostly to immigrants who have lived and worked in the country for years, so no such surge should occur. "He's being a little disingenuous," said Cecilia Munoz, vice president for policy of National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group that favors amnesty.
Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., said Smith's claim is based on conjecture. "If Mr. Smith is serious in debating this issue, he should make predictions that are based on sound logic and reasoning rather than scare-mongering and scapegoating," Gutierrez said.
USCIS Commissioner Doris Meissner warned that the figures subpoenaed by Smith weren't ready for public release because the agency still was studying how they were gathered. A final report is expected in November.
President Reagan signed the most sweeping amnesty provision in 30 years in 1986. It allowed 2.7 million illegal immigrants who had been living in the country since before 1982 to stay in the United States. Clinton supports granting amnesty for all illegal immigrants who have lived in the United States since 1986. He also supports allowing immigrants with work permits who are close to achieving permanent residency status to stay in the country while their application is considered. And he would offer
permanent residence to political refugees from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Haiti.
Clinton and other supporters wanted the provisions included in a bill passed by Congress this month that expands the number of visas for high-tech workers, but Republican leaders balked. Now Democrats are vowing to sustain a presidential veto of one of the spending bills that must be enacted before Congress adjourns if it doesn't include the immigration provisions.
Report Faults Snap Deportations
By Susan Sachs
The New York Times
Richard Riley arrived at Kennedy International Airport two years ago a carefree college freshman, just back from a Christmas break visit with his mother in Jamaica. He left the airport 12 hours later shackled, accused of trying to enter the country with falsified documents. Mr. Riley, who was then and is now a legal resident of the United States, said immigration inspectors rejected his proof of residency, strip-searched him twice and kept him shackled to a bench in a busy airport office overnight.
"They laughed and made fun of me, saying that Jamaicans only live here to mop floors," recalled Mr. Riley, now 21 and a senior at Syracuse University. "It was a lot of mind games." He was eventually freed from a detention center when the Immigration and Naturalization Service verified the validity of his documents. But others were not so lucky, according to a study made available yesterday by the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights. With sweeping personal discretion to deport illegal immigrants, I.N.S. inspectors have mistreated or turned away legal visitors as well as victims of torture who had credible claims for political asylum, the report concluded.
"The bottom line is we don't think anybody ought to be sent back without access to a judge," said Elisa Massimino, director of the Washington office of the Lawyers Committee. "It's not appropriate for an administrative person to be the final arbiter in this when the stakes are so high." The power to order immediate deportations, or expedited removals, as they are called in legal terms, was granted to immigration inspectors in 1996. The power grew out of the widely held perception that waves of foreigners were entering the country illegally, and then disappearing, by taking advantage of lax border controls and generous treatment of asylum seekers.
It amounted to a sharp increase in responsibility for the I.N.S. enforcement officers at airports and land borders, and to a major change for asylum seekers, who after making their escapes from their troubled homelands often arrive in the United States with false documents. Trained asylum officers or judges once determined whether applicants had credible fears of persecution or torture at home, but now immigrants must first make their case to front- line immigration inspectors. The inspectors decide who may stay to make a formal asylum claim.
Those suspected of traveling on false documents, or without the proper documentation for entry to the United States, can now also be deported by an inspector without a hearing or an appeal. Critics of the expedited removal process have long complained that immigration service inspectors lack the training and resources, such as certified translators, to make such delicate, swift and final decisions.
But immigration officials said they had loaded the process with safeguards like a requirement that inspectors always ask those facing deportation whether they fear returning home. "We understand that when you've got an asylum seeker, the stakes can be immeasurably high and the cost of a mistake can be immense," said Bo Cooper, the general counsel for the immigration service. "So we have tried to put in place every institutional safeguard that is practicable."
Mr. Cooper said he could not comment on the specific incidents cited in the report because he had not read it through.
The immigration service does not publish detailed data on the expedited removal process. What is known about the experience has generally come from immigrants and travelers who managed to remain in the country, or re-entered later, and then told their stories. In its report, the Lawyers Committee compiled the accounts of more than 100 such people - a minuscule fraction of the 189,000 people summarily deported - over the last three years.
The accounts suggested that at least some immigration inspectors treated the people they detained callously, frequently used shackles and handcuffs to restrain them for hours, and provided no translators or sometimes hostile translators for those who did not understand what was happening to them.
One incident involved a prominent Chinese dissident, Liu Nianchun, who was detained at Kennedy Airport in April 1999 as he returned with a visitor's visa after testifying at a United Nations human rights conference in Geneva. Immigration officers threatened to deport him to China, where he had once been imprisoned, because, they said, his visa was not valid. Mr. Liu, who does not speak English, spent the night chained to a bench. When he fell asleep, officers kicked him to wake him, according to his lawyer, Howard Sullivan. Mr. Liu was eventually released and won political asylum in the United States.
In an incident last January, the report said, a political dissident who had been tortured and imprisoned in Guinea arrived at Kennedy to seek asylum. Lacking a visa and unable to fully explain his wishes in English, he spent 55 hours in the airport, chained to a bench. Immigration officials decided to summarily deport him, the report said. Weeping and struggling, he had to be carried toward a plane. Only after immigration officers dropped him, injuring his shoulder, was he returned to the airport and interviewed by a different inspector, who believed he had a credible fear of persecution. The man, still fearing for his family in Guinea, was not named in the report.
Mark Thorn, a spokesman for the New York district of the immigration service, which oversees operations at Kennedy, said he could not discuss any specific case. But he denied that inspectors had abused travelers they were investigating or disregarded any immigrant's expressed fear of being deported.
"They're incredibly civil and sensitive to these people's plight," Mr. Thorn said. "Nobody wants to send somebody back where there would be fear of reprisal or even death." As for the use of shackles, he said restraints protected the safety of immigration officers and those they detained. "The expedited removal process," Mr. Thorn added, "can be very stressful to the individual, and the individual may not know how he or she is going to react."
Reports of abuse, physical restraint and insensitivity have also emerged from other airports and border crossings. Last summer, Oregon officials accused the immigration service of mistreating many Asian business travelers at the Portland airport, including a Chinese businesswoman with a visa who was strip-searched and jailed because inspectors doubted the validity of her passport.
According to the Lawyers Committee, immigration inspectors repeatedly provided Serb translators for ethnic Albanians fleeing Serb persecution in Kosovo. Women who said they had been raped in their home countries had to recount their ordeal to male translators, the report said.
"The sheer volume of these accounts, and their consistency in describing certain types of conduct by I.N.S. officers, makes it clear that there are widespread miscarriages of justice in the current expedited removal process," Ms. Massimino said.
EDITOR'S NOTE: The report is not on line. The Lawyers Committee for Human
Rights is on line at:
http://www.lchr.org/home.htm
October 4, 2000
CONGRESS PASSES H-1B LEGISLATION AND SENDS IT TO THE PRESIDENT
The Senate and House yesterday passed S. 2045, an amended H-1B bill. The major provisions of the just-passed H-1B bill include: an increase in the H-1B cap to 195,000 for FY 2001 - FY 2003; backlog clearance so that a full 195,000 visas are available as of October 1, 2000; exemption from the cap for individuals employed at higher educational institutions, their related or affiliated nonprofit entities, nonprofit research organizations or governmental research organizations; ameilioration of per country limits for employment-based immigrants by allowing unused visas to spill over to oversubscribed countries; portability for H-1B nonimmigrants by allowing them to change jobs upon the FILING of a new petition; allowing a change of job or employer for adjustment applicants after their case has been pending for more than 180 days without voiding the underlying I-140 or labor certification; recapture of unused employment based visas; and extension of status beyond the sixth year for H-1Bs awaiting green cards. Summary of Provisions of Senate H-1B Bill. Full Text of S. 2045 as Passed By Senate and House.
The Senate and House-passed H-1B bill does not contain a fee provision. A separate bill, H.R. 5362, has been introduced that would increase the fee to $1,000 with few exemptions.
Did You Know?
A new Gallup poll marks the continuation of a much more positive attitudes toward immigration than existed in the mid-1990s. The poll, released September 22, shows that 54% of Americans support current or expanded immigration rates (41% say immigration should be kept at its present level and 13% think it should be increased); in contrast, 38% would reduce immigration.
High-tech Victory on Visas
Congress Approves Increase in Skilled Foreign Workers
By Jim Puzzanghera
The San Jose Mercury News
WASHINGTON -- Silicon Valley won its top legislative priority after Congress voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to nearly double the number of visas for highly skilled foreign workers in a surprising bipartisan show of support for the high-tech industry. The Senate voted 96-1 Tuesday morning, and the momentum of that near-unanimous vote led the House of Representatives to quickly take up the bill and pass it on an unusual voice vote Tuesday night. President Clinton is expected to sign the bill. ``It's done,'' rejoiced Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, one of the major backers of the visa increase. ``It addresses the needs of the high-tech economy, and . . . there are important reforms.'' The legislation had been stalled for months in a partisan fight over immigration policy. But Tuesday's vote shows both Republicans and Democrats are anxious to deliver for the high-tech industry before Congress adjourns this month. ``We have strong bipartisan agreement on it, and this is a very, very important skilled workforce bill that we'll be able to provide to the president for his signature,'' said Rep. David Dreier, R-Covina. Republican leaders in the House moved quickly to bring up the measure Tuesday night after they suspended their usual procedure.
The issue, once on a fast track to passage earlier this year, had become bogged down in election-year politics. With the high-tech industry having unprecedented difficulties filling jobs, the delays in passing the visa legislation have caused consternation in Silicon Valley and touched off a flurry of lobbying in recent weeks. Increasing the number of H-1B visas has ranked with approval of a new trade deal with China as the top Washington priorities of Silicon Valley this year. With the Senate following the House in approving the China trade deal two weeks ago, the high-tech industry has been able to focus all its fire on the visa issue. "We could not have asked for a stronger vote,'' said Jenifer Verdery, Intel's manager of education and workforce policy.
Seeking temporary increase
Faced with what high-tech executives said is a widespread shortage of qualified computer programmers and engineers, Silicon Valley has pressed hard to again temporarily increase the number of three-year H-1B visas in order to bring in those workers from countries such as India. ``It's very important, because at the end of the day it's people who are driving the Internet economy, not machines,'' said Laura Ipsen, director of government affairs for Cisco. ``We need more and more highly skilled engineers in the company. We can't fill all the positions.'' The legislation boosts the allotment from 115,000 this year to 195,000 in each of the next three years. Labor unions and the nation's largest organization for engineers charged that the high-tech industry prefers foreign workers, who are beholden to the companies who obtained their visas, over retraining American engineers from other fields. The H-1B visa program also has been criticized for being rife with fraud. ``This whole thing is just the wrong way to go,'' said Paul Donnelly of the Immigration Reform Coalition, which includes the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers-USA. The coalition favors green cards to bring foreign workers into the country permanently, arguing the temporary H-1B visas keep salaries low because the workers aren't free to easily move to other companies. H-1B visas allow foreigners with special skills to work temporarily in the United States. The visa, which is applied for by the company seeking to employ the person, is good for three years and can be renewed for an additional three years.
Congress and the White House in 1998 agreed to a temporary expansion of the program, more than doubling the annual allotment of visas to about 115,000. But with the ``New Economy'' continuing to boom, those visas have proven insufficient to meet the demand. All of this year's visas were allocated by the end of March -- six months before the end of the fiscal year.
With the annual allotment set to start decreasing next year, the high-tech industry has desperately pleaded with Congress and the White House to temporarily boost the number again. Senators said Tuesday that they heeded the call. ``This bill represents our commitment to keep America on top in the high-tech industry,'' said Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, one of the key backers of the legislation. In addition to boosting the annual allotment of visas, the legislation will funnel more of the annual $500 visa fee to education and training for Americans in science and technology fields under changes in the bill proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. ``I support lifting the H-1B visa cap, but clearly it is only a short-term solution to a long-term problem,'' said Feinstein, who is recovering in California from surgery on her broken leg and was among three senators who did not vote on the bill. The amendments, along with others, would funnel about $450 million into education and retraining initiatives.
Another Feinstein provision would try to reduce the processing backlog at the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The agency would devote more resources to processing applications and would be required to process H-1B visas within 30 days, and process permanent employment visas and other visa applications within six months.
No increase in fees
Different versions of the visa bill offered in the House of Representatives would have doubled the fee companies pay for each visa, to $1,000, to provide even more money for training and education. Although many in the Senate favor increasing the fees, the Constitution prevented the Senate from initiating an increase in taxes or fees. But the easiest way for Congress to get an H-1B visa bill to the president this year was for the House to simply vote on the Senate bill. Dreier is co-sponsoring a separate bill to increase the fees that he is optimistic will pass Congress in the coming days as well. Several key Republicans and Democrats on Tuesday called for an end to the partisanship that has stalled the visa increase -- though each side blamed the other for the delays. While there is strong support in both parties for increasing the number of visas, the issue became bogged down in the spring when the White House and congressional Democrats pushed to also include some provisions for Latinos.
Amnesty issues
One would extend a current immigration amnesty provision for Nicaraguans and Cubans to others in Latin America. Another, known as late amnesty, would allow illegal immigrants who entered the United States before 1986 to apply to become U.S. citizens. A similar amnesty was passed in the 1980s for people who had entered the country before 1972. Those were volatile issues in an election year when both parties are appealing to the growing Latino electorate, and the visa bills were shelved.
But the high-tech industry continued to press the need for an increase, and last week Senate Republicans used their majority muscle to prevent Democrats from adding the Latino provisions as amendments. Congressional Democrats then largely removed the Latino issues from the debate by shifting their strategy, vowing to try to attach them to one of the budget bills Congress must pass before it adjourns. Clinton has promised to veto the budget bill if they're not included. With the Latino issues out of the way in the Senate, all but Sen. Ernest ``Fritz'' Hollings, D-S.C., an ardent opponent of H-1B visas, voted for the bill. ``I think what you've seen in the last couple of weeks is a perhaps a realization that all the political gamesmanship wasn't gaining either party any extra points,'' said Jeff Modisett, co-CEO of TechNet, the Silicon Valley-based high-tech lobbying group. ``Many CEOs made calls, and the message was the same: `We don't care about the partisanship, and we don't care about who gets to claim credit. We just care that it gets done.' ''
The bill numbers are S. 2045 and H.R. 4227
Summary of S. 2045,
Section 1. Title of the Act is the "American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000."
Section 2. In addition to the numbers of H-1Bs already authorized, the bill raises the H-1B visa cap as follows:
FY 2000 - 80,000 (plus 115,000 already authorized) FY 2001 - 87,500 (plus 107,500 already authorized) FY 2002 - 130,000 (plus 65,000 already authorized)
Section 3. Creates new rules for universities, research institutions and graduate degree recipients.
First, the H-1B cap will not apply to anyone employed (or who has an offer of employment) at a college or university or a related nonprofit entity. It will also not apply to a nonprofit research organization or a government research organization. If someone leaves this job, then they will be become re-subject to the H-1B cap unless the next employer is also exempt.
Second, the cap will not apply to anyone for whom a petition is filed not more than 90 days before or not more than 180 days after the person has attained a master's degree or higher degree.
Section 4. Changes rules on per country quotas for employment-based green card applicants. If the total number of visas available in the five employment-based green card categories is more than the number of
applications submitted, then requirements that prevent countries from having more than 7% of the allotment of employment-based green cards will not apply. That way, immigrant visas will not go unused if there are applications pending that would otherwise be subject to the per country limit.
This section also contains a provision that says that notwithstanding the H-1B visa cap, if an H-1B visa holder is the beneficiary of an employment-based immigrant visa petition and would be subject to the per
country limit, the applicant may apply for an extension of their H-1B status until the applicant's adjustment of status case is completed.
Section 5. This section makes H-1B visas more "portable."Under this section, an H-1B visa holder is allowed to begin work for a new employer at the time of submitting an H-1B petition. The USCIS currently holds that the change of status must be approved before work can begin for a new employer. If the change of status is denied, employment authorization will end. This rule only applies to applicants who have non-frivolous applications pending and who has not otherwise been employed illegally before or while the petition is pending.
This section of the bill becomes effective immediately and applies to cases already filed. That means that anyone with a pending H-1B transfer case can legally work for the new employer right away after the President signs the bill and do not have to wait for an H-1B approval.
Section 6. Extension of stay when applications are delayed by the BCIS.
The H-1B visa six year time limit is not applicable to people with I-140 employment-based immigration applications or adjustment of status applications if a year or more has passed since the labor certification was filed or the I-140 was filed. H-1B visas may be extended pursuant to this section in one year increments until the final decision comes in on the green card petition.
Section 7. Extensions of parts of 1998 H-1B law.
The attestation requirements for H-1B dependent employers are extended from October 1, 2001 to October 1, 2002. The new $500 retraining fee for H-1B visa petitions is extended from October 1, 2001 to October 1, 2002. And Department of Labor investigation provisions in the 1998 law are extended
for an additional year to September 30, 2002.
Section 8. Recovery of fraudulently used visas.
If an alien issued a visa subject to the H-1B visa cap is found to have gotten the visa by fraud or willful misrepresentation and the visa is then revoked, then a visa shall be added back to the H-1B visa quota for the year in which the visa is revoked. It does not matter if the visa was originally counted for an earlier fiscal year.
Section 9. National Science Foundation study.
The NSF is required to conduct a study on the "digital divide." This is the term used to define the gap in access to high technology between the haves and the have nots in society. The study is due no later than a year and a half after this bill passes.
Doggett Annoyed by Stealth House Vote
By Marilyn Geewax
Cox News Service
WASHINGTON -- The speed -- and stealth -- with which the House voted Tuesday to increase visas for skilled foreign workers left one lawmaker shaking his head. ``Incredible,'' said Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, a major supporter of increased visas. Doggett said the voice vote on a bill to increase H-1B visas for foreign professionals came as such a surprise that only about 40 of 435 lawmakers were there. The GOP leadership's decision to hold a vote on such an important issue with no warning was ``pretty underhanded,'' he said. Doggett, who had co-sponsored a bill to increase the so-called H-1B visas for foreign workers, gave this account of the evening: ``At about 3:30, it was announced that there would be no further votes'' on important issues in the House, he said. Because many lawmakers wanted to get home early to watch the presidential debates, nearly everyone left, he said. ``But at about 5:30, an e-mail was sent over here'' announcing that an H-1B debate would begin shortly. ``I didn't see the email until about 6,'' he said. Doggett said he scurried to the House floor, while other major supporters of the legislation also rushed back to Capitol Hill. Using various procedural moves, the GOP leaders ended the debate quickly and called for a voice vote, even though the House was nearly empty. ``It's a really sorry way to run a railroad,'' he said. ``This was very improper. We needed this bill, but I would hope that...a better job could be done by a new Congress.''
Silicon Valley Pushed Hard for High-tech Workers Visa Bill
By May Wong
The Associated Press
SANTA CLARA, Calif. (AP) -- With an engineering degree from the Indian Institute of Technology and three years of experience as a software programmer at Citibank's office in India, it didn't take much for Pratibha Gupta to find a job here. She sent an application to a technical consulting company, which sponsored a highly coveted high-tech work visa for her. Job offers soon poured in, and she switched to programming for an Internet startup in Santa Clara. ``It feels good to know we are wanted, not just here in America, but anywhere in the world,'' Gupta, 25, said. ``The hardest part was going to the consulate to get my passport stamped.'' With unemployment very low and talent at a premium in Silicon Valley, skilled technology workers like Gupta are gems -- especially if they have a six-year H-1B visa from the Immigration and Naturalization Service. That is why high-tech companies heavily lobbied federal lawmakers to pass a bill that would authorize nearly 600,000 new H-1B visas over the next three years.
The bill sped through Congress on Tuesday, and President Clinton has said he will sign it. ``The short-term problem is how to fill the key positions immediately so that we don't lose opportunities to foreign competitors or so that we don't force American businesses to move offshore to where skilled workers might live,'' Sen. Spencer Abraham, R-Mich., said. The quick congressional action after nine months of jockeying fulfills an election-year promise by Democratic and Republican leaders to the high-tech world, which is flexing its political muscle through increased lobbying and campaign donations to both parties.
The high-tech industry contends it isn't a matter of choice. ``It is certainly nearing a crisis stage,'' said Jeff Modisett, co-chief executive of TechNet, a national bipartisan political organization that represents high-tech interests. Computer software and other high-tech companies contend that 300,000 jobs are going unfilled for a lack of qualified workers, threatening a slow in growth.
``We can't hire enough people,'' said Yahoo! Inc. co-founder Jerry Yang. ``While we're big believers in education, and making sure that we get the right people going through our educational system, we also believe that we're in a global business. ``In Silicon Valley, we don't think about our competitors being the U.S. only. We think about the Germans, Japanese, and Latin Americans.'' At San Jose-based Cisco Systems, where 1,000 new employees are hired each month, there are 2,500 job vacancies at any given time. Out of its current work force of more than 34,000 people, about 300 are foreign workers with
H-1B visas. ``The availability of a skilled work force is critical not only for Cisco but for all of America,'' said Laura Ipsen, Cisco's director of government relations. ``We're hiring these skilled engineers, and they're the ones driving the innovation.''
The competition in recruiting such highly skilled workers -- and filing for their visas with the USCIS before the year's quota fills up -- is stiff. The visas are issued on a first-come, first-served basis, and companies have found the national quota filling up earlier and earlier each year, exacerbating the worker shortage. The majority of workers who make use of the high-tech visas come from India and China. Under present law, the government issued 115,000 H-1B visas during the fiscal year that ended Saturday and the ceiling was to fall to 107,500 this year and to 65,000 next year. High-tech companies had projected that by 2002 -- taking into account the growing backlog of visa applications -- the cap would be reached even before the fiscal year begins, said Tracy Koon, director of corporate affairs at Intel Corp. in Santa Clara. Up to 4 percent of the chipmaking giant's U.S. work force are H-1B visa workers; in 1999, 7 percent of Intel's new hires were foreign workers. A majority of them were snapped up after they graduated from master's or doctorate programs at top-notch American universities, Koon said. ``One of them, a computer architect with a Ph.D from Stanford -- he could have worked anywhere in the world,'' Koon said. ``He's Belgian and we were fortunate to get him, and that there was a visa for him when we hired him a couple years ago.''
The bills are S.2045, H.R. 3183 and H.R. 4227.
Conservatives, labor backing amnesty bill
By Frank Davies
The Miami Herald
WASHINGTON -- On the surface, the timing looks right for legislation this fall to provide some form of amnesty for up to one million undocumented aliens, including thousands living in South Florida. The booming economy, labor shortages and two presidential candidates and political parties avidly wooing Hispanic voters have combined to reverse the anti-immigrant fervor of a few years ago.
A major bill to benefit Central Americans, Haitians and thousands of others in legal limbo even has the support of big labor, large employers and such conservative groups as Americans for Tax Reform and Empower America, headed by Jack Kemp and William Bennett.
``Weve stepped up our efforts this year for this bill,'' said Christina Howard, a lobbyist for the National Restaurant Association. She said the groups members, chain restaurants and independents, employ more immigrants than any other industry and are facing a ``huge'' labor shortage. Unions that used to be wary of immigrants as a cheap-labor threat now see them as a new source of stable membership and energy. Union leaders note that when immigrants whose legal status was in doubt tried to unionize, employers sometimes called in the Immigration and Naturalization Service as a way to blunt pro-union activities.
Cheryl Little, executive director of the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, said the measure ``is of enormous importance to our immigrant community. No matter what group youre talking to, theres help here. ``And the time is right -- this has the support of everybody from Alan Greenspan to the AFL-CIO,'' she added. ``We dont want it to be forgotten in an election year.''
Thats the problem facing the legislation, dubbed the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act. It may get lost in the political crosscurrents when Congress returns after Labor Day with just a few weeks to deal with dozens of contentious issues and one overriding priority -- its own reelection.
ISSUE AWARENESS
``The stakes are high, but I think the [immigration] issue is underappreciated by both parties,'' said Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, an advocacy group in Washington. So a pro-immigration coalition of groups is trying to turn up the heat for the legislation, which would do several things:
Undocumented immigrants who can prove they have lived in the United States continuously since 1986 would be eligible for permanent residency, and after two years that date would be moved up to 1991. The current date is 1972, disqualifying many immigrants. About 300,000 aliens from the 1980s applied for amnesty and won court victories, then found themselves in limbo after anti-immigration legislation in 1996 stripped the courts of jurisdiction in these cases.
Haitians, Guatemalans, Salvadorans and Hondurans would have the same opportunity for permanent residency that was granted in 1997 to Nicaraguans and Cubans who were fleeing leftist and communist regimes. A change in immigration law in 1998 was designed to help some Haitians get easier access to green cards, but advocates say it was too restrictive and
implemented late.
Undocumented immigrants with work and family ties who are applying for legal status would not have to return to their country of origin while they wait. That was the case until 1997, when Congress did not renew a provision of law allowing them to stay while their status is determined.
``This is not a complete amnesty,'' said Sharry, who estimates that the bill would help one million of the estimated five million to six million undocumented aliens in the United States. Most of those affected, he said, have already applied for temporary legal status. In the Senate, the bill is sponsored by Sen. Bob Graham of Florida and three other Democrats: Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, Harry Reid of Nevada and Richard Durbin of Illinois.
So far, Republican leaders in the House and Senate have blocked votes on the measure. Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, who chairs the immigration subcommittee, says the moves toward partial amnesty would simply attract more undocumented aliens.
Hispanic groups are pressuring GOP presidential candidate George W. Bush, who is campaigning hard for the Hispanic vote, to lean on Congress to adopt the measure, but he has not taken a position. ``Bush has a chance to lead here with specific, bipartisan, modest proposals,'' said Raul Yzaguirre, president of the National Council of La Raza, at a recent press conference. ``Were asking that his deeds match some of his rhetoric.''
DEMOCRATIC SUPPORT
Democrat Al Gore and the Clinton White House support the measure, and Gore specifically endorsed the three provisions of the bill. ``Many Central Americans and Haitians who fled human rights abuses or unstable conditions find themselves treated differently than others who fled similar circumstances,'' Gore said. ``We should correct this long-standing injustice.''
How hard the administration will push the bill during the end-game frenzy of Congress, when many other issues are at stake, is a big question. Immigration advocates are worried that Republicans will avoid a divisive vote on the bill, while Democrats will be content to see it lose so they can seize it as a campaign issue.
``Weve got to challenge both the Republican and Democratic leadership,'' Yzaguirre said. ``Some may want to play politics with this, but for us this is a bread-and-butter issue.'' The one immigration measure many observers expected to pass Congress this year -- more temporary visas for skilled foreign high-tech workers -- has been bogged down in recent months by political infighting.
Immigration advocates say their challenge this fall is to make sure that Congress hears about the needs of low-skilled workers along with the demand for high-tech visas -- and that the two issues are not in conflict. ``Theres a golden opportunity for candidates and Congress to show some real leadership here,'' Sharry said.
South Floridians Creating Families from Afar as International Adoptions Increase
By Hellaine Anyango
Fort-Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel
"Old MacDonald had a farm, E-I-E-I-O. And on that farm he had a duck, E-I-E-I-O ... " The sound seeped from the nursery into the living room. A maze of toys of red, blue, yellow and green littered the floor. A baby table accompanied by a little red seat was tucked into a cove within the living room. By all signs, Rich and Shawn Erisman had prepared their home in the Coral Heights section of Fort Lauderdale for the arrival of their baby.
Like all new parents, they were in awe of Cavan Alexander Erisman, 19 months, their fair-skinned, blond son with clear gray eyes and a perfect smile. "He gets bored very fast," new daddy Rich Erisman said in an effort to explain the abundance of toys. Cavan is not just any baby, as his parents would be the first to proclaim. They traveled to Russia to bring him home to Florida only three weeks ago.
The Erismans are part of a growing group of Americans who are adopting babies from abroad. The National Council for Adoption says many Americans are turning to international adoption. They have doubled over the past decade, going from 7,948 in 1989, to 15,774 in 1998.
The council gives the top five source countries in 1999 as: Russia, with 4,348; China, with 4,101; Korea, with 2,008; Guatemala, with 1,002; and Romania, with 895. The top five countries accounted for more than half of the worldwide total of 16,369 last year.
NCFA founding president Bill Pierce says some Americans are wary of adopting children at home because they do not feel protected by the laws and are concerned about the tendency of courts to rule against adoptive parents in contests with birth parents. "A majority of them do not trust the judges or the state legislature to rule in their favor when it comes to illegal intrusion by biological parents," he said.
The emotional and financial investment that adoptive parents put into their children is enormous. To live with the possibility of someone turning up on their doorstep and breaking their family into pieces is what many of them admit fearing.
"I had gone through infertility treatments, endometriosis, laser surgery, artificial insemination, and when they all failed we turned to international adoption," said Shawn Erisman, Cavan's mother. "I wanted a baby in my arms. I wanted to come home and raise my child without having to worry about anybody ever taking him away from me," she said.
To many adopting parents, the leap of faith and the positive results at the end of it all are what make the experience so gratifying. Don't expect to bond right away, the adoption official had warned John Donahue and his wife, Sarah, when they went for their 27-month-old Guatemalan-born son. "But the sparks flew the moment I laid my eyes on him. I could feel this love engulfing me. Every time I looked at his little face, I couldn't contain a rush of feelings totally unknown to me from before," John Donahue said.
Doreen Kiwa, 39, of Lake Worth, feels the same rush every time she looks at her 1-year-old daughter, Lauren. She brought her daughter from Russia. "Both my grandmothers were from Russia, and deep down I felt the link with my family there," Kiwa explained.
The readiness to have children and the capability to provide a nurturing environment sometimes come late in life, and that can be one incentive to seek a child abroad.
"At the age of 45, I was getting too old to be a father by the country's regulations on domestic adoption. When my wife and I came to the realization all the miracles of science could not give us our own flesh-and-blood baby, we opted for international adoption," said John Donahue, who is a supervisor at Big Cypress National Preserve.
Pierce of the adoption council said he expects the numbers of international adoptions to stay on the rise because of a bill pending in the U.S. Congress, the Hague Convention for Inter-Country Adoption. He said if the bill passes, which is likely, it will reduce paperwork and prevent fraud in international adoptions. It would institute a central office in each country to ensure there is one authoritative source of information and point of contact. The idea is to cut down on unauthorized agencies that do not follow the right procedures, are prone to fraud, and could compromise children's safety.
Bureaucratic delays and paperwork can be a significant problem for the prospective adoptive parent. "My wife left her work to deal with the paperwork. It took us one year from the start to the finish," said John Donahue.
"International adoption has its ups and downs ... there are so many trivial details. The embassy of the government you have been working with closes down, the government official goes on vacation, lost paperwork, not to mention USCIS and FBI," he said, referring to required immigration and criminal background checks.
Kiwa, the Lake Worth adoptive mother, had other problems. "You are sometimes required to attend two court sessions in some countries before you take the baby," she said. "I wish the U.S. government could work with the foreign countries' governments to make the process faster."
The waiting and the anxiety clearly show that international adoption is not all cuddly babies and happy endings. Charlotte Danciu, a Miami-based attorney specializing in domestic adoption, argues that in many cases, people have run overseas only to find the children have hepatitis or are HIV-positive.
Jill Scott, a consultant for Adoption Source, agreed there is often very little or no medical information on the children. But she said the agencies try to give prospective parents all the information they have.
"They get video shots of the child's facial characteristics, obtain measurements of the head, and they keep records of their development milestones, like walking, coordination and recognition of people," Scott said. "All the information gathered is aimed at lowering the risk of bringing in a sick child."
"We have realized that a lot of these medical problems can be solved, by good nutrition and physical therapy," added Paul Lesnik, a social worker with Adoption Source. And luck may play a role. The Erismans' baby is a perfect example. "We were told to expect him to be slow, to be behind in his shots," said Rick Erisman, "but he is so full of energy that he tires me out. He is just like any other regular kid around here, if not better."
Brought up in the regimental orphanage in Russia with numbers as identification tags, Cavan knows, even at his tender age, that every time he goes outdoors he has to have his hat on to protect his skin. "He is just too conscious of his schedule," said his father, "but he is also very conscious of when his mother comes back home and he runs to the door to meet her."