AMERICAN VISAS CHRONICLE

Chronicle Home

SPRING 2004

Angelina Jolie, Envisioning A Pint-Size United Nations
washingtonpost.com <http://www.washingtonpost.com/>


"I'm the most tattooed person probably in Washington," Angelina Jolie told us yesterday, but you couldn't tell from the proper way she was dressed for her continuing role as a United Nations goodwill ambassador dedicated to helping refugees. Famed for impassioned love affairs and wild antics (e.g., swapping vials of blood with her second, and now former, husband Billy Bob Thornton), the actress visited the National Geographic Society to launch World Refugee Day with one of her big fans -- Secretary of State Colin Powell -- and to announce that she'sdonating $500,000 to provide attorneys for child refugees who arrive in the United States without parents.

"Some have walked, some have taken boats," Jolie explained in an interview. "Some also were children that were trafficked." From the stage, Powell said, "We are so thankful that there are beautiful souls like Angelina who so selflessly turn their compassion into action and not just words."

Last week, Jolie, 29, was in Chad to assist those fleeing civil war and ethnic cleansing in Sudan's Dafur region. Backstage, she talked about wanting to adopt siblings for son Maddox, 3, whom she adopted from Cambodia.  "I don't know when. I don't know how many children," she told us. "I could realize at three [kids] that I can only handle three as a single mother. I might be fortunate to fall in love and get married and realize that, with the help of a partner, I could adopt more." Her goal: "Having under the same roof Arab, Asian, European, Muslim, Buddhist, Christian [children]. And I'm curious as to how I'm going to manage that, but I think it's what the world kind of should be."

[Back to Top]

Panel Urges Immigration Reform Newcomers are Called Key to Future

By Oscar Avila
The Chicago Tribune

Taking a run at fixing an immigration system nearly everybody agrees is broken, a high-profile panel urged the federal government Thursday to legalize most of the 9 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S.

The bipartisan panel, headed by former Illinois Gov. Jim Edgar, also called for a plan to help industries bring in foreign workers on a temporary basis if they lack U.S.-born employees.

The task force, convened by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, said the reforms are necessary to keep business humming while dismantling an underground economy of illegal immigrants.

Task force members also said the United States needed to screen potential terrorists more effectively while helping law-abiding immigrants assimilate into U.S. society .

"When you're talking about immigration, you're talking about our future in this nation and particularly in the Midwest," said Edgar, one of the task force's co-chairs. "The status quo is not working."

The group, which included former Illinois Atty. Gen. Roland Burris, Episcopal Bishop William Persell and former Bank One Chairman Verne Istock, focused on the Midwest. Immigrant populations in nine of the region's 12 states grew more quickly than the national average in the 1990s.

The Midwest's growing stature as an immigrant gateway will be highlighted next week when Mexican President Vicente Fox visits Chicago, Detroit and Minneapolis-St. Paul.

Illinois has the nation's fifth-largest immigrant population, about 1.5 million residents, according to the 2000 census. Immigration authorities estimate that 400,000 undocumented immigrants live in the state.

In recent years, corporate interests such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have forged an unlikely alliance with labor unions and liberal immigrant advocacy groups, all of whom have a stake in an efficient flow of immigrant workers.

"Immigration is not a social issue, but it is a very important economic issue," said D. Cameron Findlay, executive vice president and general counsel for Aon Corp., one of several business executives on the panel.

Panelists heard from activists critical of a 1986 amnesty for many undocumented immigrants, which they said only encouraged more foreigners to enter the country illegally.

Task force members acknowledged the concern that a new wave of legalization would create the same problem. But the panelists concluded that stricter enforcement of immigration law after the proposed legalization, including penalties against employers who hire undocumented workers, would reduce illegal immigration in the future.

"There needs to be a stick with the carrot when people try to cut corners," said co-chair Doris Meissner, former commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

The task force said immigration enforcement has become more difficult after the 2001 terrorist attacks, noting that "security risks at U.S. borders cannot be completely eliminated without causing significant damage to vital interests and values."

Panelists said U.S. authorities were not true to the nation's values when they targeted immigrants based on national origin. They criticized the "special registration" program that required men from 24 predominantly Muslim countries and North Korea to be photographed, fingerprinted and questioned at U.S. government offices.

Surveys show that most Americans favor reduced immigration, with some critics saying there is a disconnect between the political establishment that favors immigration and the average U.S. citizen who must cope with the social needs created by the newcomers.

Edgar acknowledged that the topic is such a divisive one that any major immigration reform must wait until after this fall's election. He said the report is intended to help establish a consensus that the system is broken.

"Politically, this is not going to be an easy issue," said Edgar, a Republican. "But for those who think immigration is a dangerous thing for our nation, I think they are sorely mistaken."

EDITOR'S NOTE: The Chicago Council on Foreign Relations report advocating for an illegal alien amnesty is at:
http://www.ccfr.org/publications/immigration/main.html

[Back to Top]

Press Briefing by Senior Administration Officials on Secure International Travel

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
Media Center
Savannah, Georgia

3:07 P.M. EDT

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

The G8 countries plan to move forward with an action plan to secure international travel, particularly air travel. We look forward to moving forward with 28 specific actions which will be backed by time lines and will be backed by specific plans for carrying these out.

I can give you a flavor of some of the things that we have in mind. First of all, access to each other's information on suspicious travelers, including through real-time exchange of data on lost and stolen passports, data exchange on visa watch lists and advanced passenger information, and exchange on a reciprocal basis of information on terror watch lists. We also intend to cooperate on identifying techniques for high-risk analysis of travelers and on best practices for countermeasures.

[ ... ]

Q I'm wondering, a lot of these things, or at least some of them, specifically the information exchange, you've already had in place for the EU, which -- so I'm just wondering, how many of these 28 specific items are entirely new in their formation, and is there -- does anyone have any idea how much all this is going to cost?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: All of them are new in at least some very important respects. And the information exchange that we are talking about developing here will go beyond the arrangements that we've made bilaterally with the European Union on things like advanced passenger information systems and PNR, passenger name record. So every single thing in here will push this agenda forward, including with the European Union.

The price tag question I'm not in a position to give a firm answer to. These are things that, certainly, the United States recognized as we must do, and I think our G8 partners do, as well. I must say that when we negotiated this approach, it was a very collegial negotiation because there is a recognition throughout the G8 that this is a threat to all of us, and to others around the world. And clearly there is a price tag, but I don't have a number for you today.

Q Can I just follow up with one thing? I mean, clearly, the threat here is exacerbated by whatever is the weakest link in the whole world transportation system. And I'm just wondering, I mean, isn't it relatively -- I mean, obviously, experience shows that anyone is a target, and any amount of security can be thwarted. But aren't there weaker links outside of the G8 that should be -- that should be addressed here, in terms of countries?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: One of the things that you'll see when leaders move forward with this initiative is that there is a very heavy emphasis on capacity building and collaboration. We intend to push back our borders by making sure that we are cooperating with all of the countries that send air passengers, and, for that matter, sea freight to the United States. And all of the other G8 countries are adopting this same philosophy of pushing back our borders. That means that there is a premium on cooperating with countries that may have the will, but don't have the capacity to work on this.

[ ... ]

Q I have a question about the ease of travel. We remember the good old days, when you used to be able to roll up for and take a plane, and you didn't have to take your shoes off and take your belt off. Is there a danger that air travel is just becoming too unpleasant? I mean, in some ways, you could argue that the terrorists have already won, by making it so difficult to get on a plane. You have to be there so many hours in advance. You don't have these problems in Europe when you take a plane, for instance, from Paris to say Barcelona. It's not half as difficult as it is here.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: All of the G8 countries have taken the view that we can have air travel be more secure and more efficient at the same time. One of the things that -- one of the reasons we want to focus on screening methodologies is that it can help us make sure that we are focusing our enforcement and screening activities on those passengers that we know least about. A number of the G8 countries had successful experiments in facilitated air travel, and this initiative is about secure and facilitated air travel.

For example, between Mexico and the United States, and Canada and United States, there are a number of frequent traveler programs that let known travelers who cross the border on a frequent basis be so identified, and they can, sometimes, just pass through electronically. I believe France and Switzerland have a similar program.

So part of the work program, one of the initiatives that we will be working on will be improving our mutual understanding about how to carry forward these methods, the risk analysis, so that we can have secure travel, but, particularly, for frequent travelers, travelers who are known, we can expedite their movements without compromising security. And we do want to make sure that any type of screening methodology that we might develop in this regard would be fair and would be objective.

[ ... ]

There are 28 action items in the Safety Initiative. They fall into four broad categories. Let me just run through those. First is document interoperability through international standards. That looks at issues like the issuance and standards for the issuance of secure passports -- biometrics, for example. The second, international information exchange. That is, agree on what data related to each passenger you need to collect, and then try to get access to it as early in the screening system as is possible. Third, to reduce the MANPADS threat. There's already been some work done in this area, including the assessment -- an assessments guide on the vulnerability of G8 airports. That guide will be used by all of its members, then, to assess the smaller secondary airports, as well.

And then, the fourth broad category focuses on cooperation and capacity building. In the wake of the holiday aviation threat this last New Year's time period, what we discovered working, most particularly with the U.K., France, and with Mexico, was our need for 24-by-7 access to civil aviation points of contact so that we could exchange not only threat data, but also cooperatively decide what was the best way to manage that threat -- the best way, one most secure, ensuring the safety of civil aviation, but also, in a way that was -- met the needs of, sort of, bilaterally and multilaterally, our partners. Those 24-hour points of contact are part of the action plan,; that's already in place.

We will also work to have an agreed upon airport inspection and enforcement regime; that is, what are the best practices that we have found since our renewed and increased focus on the safety of civil aviation.

We really must look at standards for information gathering and what those data points ought to be. As I mentioned, we need to acquire them as early as possible. One of the things we found during the holiday threat period was that we -- you don't get the kind of data you need until very late in the process; that is within that last 60 minutes when someone's boarding. When that information is incomplete and you try to go through that data, what you find is you have multiple hits against very common names because there's insufficient identifiers. This pointed out a bunch of things, not only the need to get the information earlier in the process, but the need for very specific points of data on individual passengers.

We have seen over -- based on our experience post-September 11th, the urgent need to develop standards for tamper-resistant travel documents. And that comes back to the notion of biometrics, for passports, for visa. We need to get better at processes for the intel-based screening of passengers and the sharing of information related to terrorism watch lists.

This sort of thing brings me to -- I mentioned in passing the notion of visas. The Department of Homeland Security, under the leadership of Secretary Tom Ridge, is spending an enormous amount of energy and time trying to refine our visa processes, not just the documents themselves, but the procedures and processes that people go through with consulates, American consulates around the world.

As you've heard me say, here in the Safety Initiative -- but it applies more broadly -- we want to encourage people to take advantage of American educational institutions, medical intuitions, and commerce, business here. To do that, people have to feel comfortable with our travel procedures, and that we have to make them more user-friendly. We believe we can do that by the Safety Initiative and the review of the visa process that's going on at the Department of Homeland Security while ensuring safety standards and security.

That's sort of a brief overview of the initiative, and I'm happy to take questions.

Q How much time will be given to the discussion of these 28 points?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I don't know off the top of my head the exact amount of time. I will tell you that a lot of work went into for both the Roman group and the Leon group, so there's been a tremendous amount of work already done. There's basic agreement among the sherpas. So I don't know that there needs to be a lot of time among the principals. I think the details have basically been worked out in advance.

Q With regard to air travel screening methodologies, and we kind of touched on this a little bit earlier with the previous speaker, but I wanted to go into greater detail -- is there a protocol in place right now specifically barring the use of political affiliation and/or race and ethnicity as identifying characteristics in their screening?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The answer to the question seems so obvious that I want to say yes. I can't say that I personally have gone and looked, but I feel relatively confident that that is the case. Those are not factors for screening.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: And if I could add, we have made it very clear in this document that we are not going -- we're only going to base these screening methodologies on appropriate and objective criteria. And so that is the plan, going forward, as you suggested.

Q I'm curious, in the first category where you talk about document interoperability, and then when you were discussing that the U.S. visa process -- are you pushing the rest of the G8 to adopt U.S. visa issuance standards, including, say, the U.S. visa program? Are you telling the G8 that you would like to see them start photographing and fingerprinting people on arrival?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Let me parse the question.

Q I know they're two different things here. But as far as I was -- well, the impression I was under was that document interoperability, which I think might, or possibly could cover what you were talking about, had to do only with biometric passports and other travel documents, not necessarily the process by which one is granted a visa or a G8 country grants a visa to someone, or how they are treated when they arrived at a given airport by the immigration people.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That's right. The safety initiative focuses on the biometrics, the interoperability issue of passports. And that is what -- what should be the standards for, say, something like a smart chip in the future, and trying to agree upon the basic standards for that. The fingerprint issue is a hugely controversial issue. We have our own U.S. requirements for U.S. documents; we are working through that. And what this provides us is really a forum to discuss those issues with our G8 partners.

Did you want to add anything?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No. Just on the visa point, one of the things that other G8 countries have very much stressed is that the receiving state, at the end of the day, has to control their visa process. So there is an interest in expediting visa processes, and we are talking about that as one of the principles. But the bottom line remains that the receiving state has to set these policies. And the United States was not the country that argued most strenuously for that principle.

Q -- included in these 28 -- visa issuance procedures and the handling of people when they arrive at an airport, i.e., fingerprinting and photographing, is not a part of the 28 points?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Visas are not specifically, but I consider a visa a travel document. So I think all -- I think travel documents are on the table.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Any additional questions?

Q I asked this before, but I'm just going back to what you said about the need to ease the flow of travel. And you talked about the complaints you hear every day from the traveling public. Is there a sense that -- do you recognize that maybe the security measures that are being taken since September 11th have been a bit heavy-handed, or that just too broad? Have they taken the fun out of travel?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I'd start by saying this is clearly a pop quiz for me because I didn't hear your answer. So let's see if I pass, okay? (Laughter.) I would say to you that I would not describe the security measures as heavy-handed. What I would say to you is this is an initiative and an effort to try and direct them and focus them in a more tactical way so that they're applied and not interruptive -- they're applied appropriately to those who are deserving, and not to those who are really not the subject of our interest in terms of law enforcement intelligence.

[Back to Top]

Biometrics Is Coming
by Bernard P. Wolfsdorf

Provisions of the USA Patriot Act ("Patriot Act") and the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act ("Border Security Act") accelerated efforts to streamline visa processing and to identify and eliminate vulnerabilities in the visa processing system. As part of these efforts, biometric identifiers will be widely used in nonimmigrant and immigrant visas as well as passports. The introduction of biometric identifiers is likely to wreak havoc on the existing consular processing system.

Section 303 of the Border Security Act mandates the use of biometric identifiers in all U.S. visas by October 26, 2004. A biometric or biometric identifier is an objective measurement of a physical characteristic or personal behavior trait of an individual, which when captured in a database, can be used to verify identity or check against other entries in a database. Some examples of features that can be measured for these purposes include the face, fingerprints, hand geometry, handwriting, iris, retina and voice.

DOS, in conjunction with DHS, DOJ and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) studied the potential of biometric technologies in screening visa applicants and determined that the biometric identifier will consist of facial recognition (digital photographs) and fingerprint (two index fingerprints) technologies. These biometric identifiers can be used to conduct background checks and confirm the identity of visa applicants, and to ensure that an applicant has not received a visa under a different name.

DOS began deployment of the Biometric Visa Program in September 2003. As of April 2004, over 125 of the 211 consular posts have been collecting biometrics on all visa applicants, with worldwide deployment required by the congressionally mandated deadline of October 26, 2004. [1] According to DOS, the inkless fingerprint scanning generally takes approximately 30 seconds. As soon as the fingerprints are enrolled, they are sent electronically, along with the digital photograph and biographic data, to the Consular Consolidated Database (CCD) in Washington. The CCD relays the fingerprint files to DHS's Automated Biometric Fingerprint Identification System (IDENT) [2] system over a reliable, direct transmission line, which sends the results back to the CCD for relay back to the post. The current turnaround time is approximately seven to eight minutes. To date, seven pilot posts (Sanaa, Riyadh, Kuwait City, Jeddah, San Salvador, Hong Kong and Recife) are checking against the IDENT database and DOS is bringing the others on-line as quickly as possible. For those pilot posts, the visa cannot be issued until a response of no derogatory information found is returned from the IDENT system. Until that information from IDENT is received, the visa system is locked with regard to that visa application. For the remaining posts, the IDENT checks are being reviewed in the Department and posts are notified of any hits.

If the fingerprints match fingerprints provided by the FBI in the IDENT lookout database, the IDENT system returns to the post an FBI file number. At present, consular posts do not have access to the FBI record associated with that file number. As an interim procedure, DOS is processing such cases through the National Visa Center, where an FBI official receives and analyzes the FBI's records and then forwards the information to the post. If there is no match in the IDENT system, then the visa applicant's fingerprints are stored in the US-VISIT database in IDENT and a fingerprint identification number (FIN) is returned to the post. Once the visa has been issued, the nonimmigrant visa system sends to the DHS' Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS) the issued visa data, including the visa applicant's photo and fingerprint identification number.

US VISIT

The Biometric Visa Program commences with consular posts abroad and complements and reinforces DHS' new program, the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology program (US-VISIT) - an automated entry/exit system launched on January 5, 2004. Upon arrival in the United States, a foreign national who is subject to US-VISIT is inspected by CBP inspectors at a port-of-entry. The individual's travel documents are scanned, a digital photograph and inkless fingerprints of both index fingers are taken. If a foreign national has received a nonimmigrant visa from a post collecting biometrics, BCBP inspectors will have access to three windows through the database. The first contains the same digital photograph that was taken as part of the initial visa application at a consular post and the CBP inspector is able to tell if the traveler has altered the photo on the visa. If the visa is a complete counterfeit, nothing will appear on the CBP inspector's screen. The second screen contains the biographic data and the third reflects if there is a fingerprint on file. If the applicant has been fingerprinted as part of the visa application process at a post abroad, the BCBP officer will use the FIN to match the visa in the file with IDENT and will compare the visa holder's fingerprints with those on file. This one-to-one fingerprint comparison is designed to ensure that the person presenting the visa at the port-of-entry is the same person to whom the visa was issued. If there are no fingerprints, the officer will collect the 2 index prints and add it to the record. The individual's name is also checked against the Interagency Border Inspection Service (IBIS) database and the wants and warrants section of the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database. IBIS contains certain terrorist watch list information from the TIPOFF system maintained by DOS. Both the IBIS and NCIC checks are text-based checks and not biometric checks.

Once the foreign national is enrolled in US-VISIT, the individual's arrival information will be stored in the IDENT biometric database. The enrollment process takes approximately 10-15 seconds. The speed of this process is attributed to the fact that BCBP officers only run a text-based name check at the time of admission. The IDENT security check, which is interfaced with the applicable biometric database, only occurs after the foreign national is admitted to the U.S. If BCBP ran the IDENT checks during the admissions process, it would approximately five minutes to every US-VISIT enrollment, which would wreak havoc at any port-of-entry.

Visa Waiver Country Applicants

Section 303 (c) of the Border Security Act also contained a separate provision requiring the use of biometric identifiers for passports of applicants from Visa Waiver Program (VWP) countries. This biometric identifier requirement was chosen to coincide with a second requirement that requires VWP travelers to present a machine-readable passport (MRP) when applying for visa-free entry into the United States.[3] It is therefore important to note that the machine-readable passport requirement is a separate obligation to the biometric
requirement.[4]

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) [5] determined that facial recognition, in the form of a facial image stored in a contactless chip embedded in passports as the preferred biometric identifier. VWP countries must establish a program to issue ICAO-compliant passports by October 26, 2004. Travelers from VWP countries, whose passports are issued on or after October 26, 2004, must present a machine-readable passport with the appropriate biometric identifier or must otherwise apply for a nonimmigrant visa at a consular post in order to enter the United States after October 26, 2004.

Unlike the MRP requirement which applies to all VWP arrivals beginning on October 26, 2004, the biometric requirement applies only to VWP travelers whose passports were issued on or after that day. A passport issued on or before October 25, 2004, will be valid for VWP entry to the U.S. after October 26, 2004 as long as it is machine-readable. If it is not machine-readable, the VWP traveler must obtain a nonimmigrant visa. A passport issued on or after October 26, 2004 must not only be machine-readable, but must also contain the biometric identifier, or the traveler is not eligible to use the VWP and must obtain a nonimmigrant visa.

There is no waiver available for the production deadline to issue ICAO compliant passports with the appropriate biometric identifiers. Although all VWP countries are making varying degrees of progress toward compliance with the requirement to have a program in place to issue biometric passports, only one or two countries may have production capability in place by October 26, 2004.[6] None of the larger countries, (Japan, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy or Spain) will begin issuing passports with the ICAO biometric by October 26, 2004.[7] Japan and the United Kingdom anticipate that they will begin in late 2005; others may not come on-line until 2006. Most of these countries simply cannot overcome the hard-technology hurdles of designing, testing, and rolling out biometric passports on a large scale. Given these legitimate concerns, on April 2, 2004, the DHS and DOS announced that they have asked Congress to pass legislation that would extend the deadline for another 2 years to allow countries to comply with this mandate.

Biometrics Will Affect Consular Processing

The implementation of the biometric requirements by October 26, 2004 will severely impact the choices that visa applicants have when applying for a nonimmigrant visa.

With the anticipated introduction of the new biometric requirements, consular posts will require the physical presence of virtually all applicants to comply with the fingerprinting and photo requirement. Consular resources will be impacted because consular officers are required to take the fingerprints, supervise the process and follow up on the IDENT checks after the interview. These delays will likely mark the end of same-day visa issuance, placing additional burdens on consular officers without the necessary corresponding staff increases at posts to meet the increased demands in a timely manner. Based on these additional procedures, posts anticipate that they will not be able to issue visas on the same day, except in emergency situations. In addition to processing delays, applicants will face significant changes and delays in the scheduling of interview appointments.

Additionally, posts in VWP countries will likely face additional scheduling and processing backlogs based on the two VWP requirements (machine-readable passports and biometric passports) mentioned previously. DOS estimates that the demand for nonimmigrant visas will increase significantly over FY 2005 to over five million applications, nearly double FY 2003's workload. DOS has already acknowledged that it will not have the capacity to handle the increase in the workload[8] caused by the anticipated surge in applications. However, if Congress provides relief from this deadline, it may alleviate some of the pressure on consular posts in VWP countries.

We expect that the biometric requirements will also affect TCN processing in Canada and Mexico, which have also begun to implement the Biometric Visa Program for the collection of biometrics. All the Canadian posts started collecting biometrics in January 2004. The post in Ciudad Juarez began collecting biometrics in March 2004; Nogales is scheduled to start in July 2004 and Tijuana in August 2004. These border posts have already begun to warn TCN applicants that visa issuance could possibly take 2-3 days as a result of the biometrics requirements, although they expect the majority of visas to be issued within a day.

Finally, the requirement for use of biometric identifiers in visas by October 26, 2004 will ultimately end the visa revalidation program. Although DOS has not issued guidance, it is likely to stop receiving visa revalidation applications in summer of 2004 to allow the 10 to 12 weeks to process any remaining applications by October 26, 2004. Despite suggestions to evaluate the option of using Application Support Center-type facilities to capture the photographs and fingerprints, it is unlikely that DHS will have capacity to take on the additional obligations on behalf of the DOS.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1]DOS began issuing biometric immigrant visas in February 2004, beginning in Hong Kong and will also have the Biometric Visa Program deployed at all posts by October 26, 2004. The process for the biometric immigrant visa is very similar to the nonimmigrant visa process. The visa itself will be printed on a tamper-resistant document. There will be a reliable datashare with DHS so that a CBP inspector at a port-of-entry can verify the identity of the traveler and the authenticity of that individual's status as a new immigrant.

[2]The IDENT system is a legacy INS database, based on two fingerprints and a digital photograph. The IDENT system was created in 1994 and widely deployed from 1997 to 1998. It originally contained a recidivist database and a lookout database including all foreign nationals apprehended by the INS.


[3]On October 7, 2003, the DOS granted a postponement until October 26, 2004, as the date by which VWP travelers from 21 countries must present a tamper-resistant machine-readable passport incorporating biometric identifiers at a U.S. port of entry to be admitted under the VWP program. The countries for which postponements have been granted include Australia, Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Each country to which a postponement was granted made a formal request and certified that it is making progress toward ensuring that machine-readable passports are available to its nationals and it has taken appropriate measures to protect against the misuse of its non-machine-readable passports. Five other eligible countries did not request a postponement of the effective date because virtually all of their citizens already have machine-readable passports. These countries include Andorra, Brunei, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg and Slovenia. As of October 1, 2003, visa waiver travelers from these five countries must present a machine-readable passport or a nonimmigrant visa. Belgium was not eligible to receive this extension and must possess a machine-readable passport or U.S. visitor visa.


[4]A machine-readable passport is one that can be "read" mechanically when swiped through a passport reader. It contains two lines of text on the bottom of the data page which, when read, populate the bio-data fields for Consular Officers or CBP officers.


[5]ICAO is a specialized agency of the United Nations, founded to "secure international cooperation and the highest possible degree of uniformity in regulations and standards, procedures, and organization regarding civil aviation matters.


[6]Australia and New Zealand may make the October 26, 2004 deadline. Some countries have indicated that implementing a biometric program may have been possible by the deadline, but they are putting on the brakes because of questions of interoperability (can a U.S. POE scanner read a Danish biometric chip?) that remain unresolved.


[7]Even the United States will not be able to comply with this deadline and will likely only introduce the new biometric U.S. passport by then end of 2005.
For example, in FY 2003, Japan (including Tokyo, Osaka, Kobe and Naha) processed approximately 111,000 nonimmigrant visas. These posts estimate that between October 26, 2004 and the introduction of their biometric bearing passport, projected for November 2005, between 1.2 to 1.5 million Japanese will need nonimmigrant visas. Most posts however, expect that once VWP countries begin issuing passports with biometrics, the increased workload will disappear and drop back down to current levels.

[Back to Top]

Not Just Any Immigration Case (Green Cards For John Lennon And Yoko Ono)

Leon Wildes represented John Lennon and Yoko Ono from 1972 through 1976 and secured lawful permanent residence for them, despite much contrary legal authority, Lennon v. United States 527 F. 2nd 187 (1975).

Each year, Professor Wildes has students in his Immigration Law class study the case, and at the end of the semester, he delivers a lecture that contains many personal anecdotes. The following article comes from one of those lectures.

I received a call in mid-January 1972 from Alan Kahn, who had been a classmate of mine at law school. He was house counsel to Apple Records--the recording company used by the Beatles and John Lennon. Kahn said, "Leon, I think that you'll have a very interesting day if you have some time. We have real heavyweights here, John Lennon and his wife, Yoko Ono, who have some immigration problems, and I thought of calling you." What he didn't tell me was that he probably had called a number of other immigration lawyers, because when I met John Lennon and Yoko Ono later that day, their questions were so informed that it was quite clear that I wasn't the first lawyer being consulted.

I'm embarrassed to say that I said, "Alan, tell me, who is John Lennon?"

He said, "Leon, never admit that you asked me that question."

On the way down to the Lennons' Village apartment, he showed me a 1968 Certificate of Conviction issued by a British court, in which Lennon was convicted of possession of cannabis resin. I had no idea what cannabis resin was.

We arrived at a quaint apartment on Jane Street. In the back was a kitchenette, beyond which was a door leading into a bedroom, which I later learned was two stories high and was furnished with a huge TV set that was on all the time, with the sound turned off. Most of the Lennons' business was done in and around that great big bed. There I was to meet many of their newfound American friends.

Yoko was the first to emerge--a diminutive woman, obviously very bright--and she started telling me her situation. She explained that she had come to the United States to find and get custody of her nine-year-old daughter, Kyoko, from a previous marriage (to Tony Cox, an American citizen). She had sought the girl for some time and had twice been on the verge of receiving court orders awarding her custody, only to have Cox abscond with Kyoko each time.

She also found time to tell me that she was a rather well known conceptual artist--"con" art, it was called at the time. It seemed important to her to get across to me that she was somebody. Maybe that was a result of her living in the shadow of a very important person.

John emerged from the bedroom. He was fidgety and nervous, but warm and nice at the same time. He brewed tea for us all and started telling me his story.

The Case

He said that he had come to the United States on a waiver of inadmissibility, which was available for temporary trips. He cited the humanitarian reason of accompanying his wife to testify in the custody proceedings for Kyoko. He also told me of his conviction for possessing marijuana. He said, "The first thing I want you to know, Leon, is that I didn't do anything wrong. I had no drugs in my possession. The police planted them on me just as they planted them on Mick and George." I was supposed to know who Mick and George were.

He also told me that he had been tipped off that the police were going to raid the apartment where he was staying, although he hadn't known exactly when. He had cleaned the apartment, which belonged to some other musicians, and was not on drugs at the time and did not have any around, so he felt at ease.

When the police did come, they broke the door in and charged John with possession of cannabis and obstructing justice. Obstructing justice, he explained to me, was "trying to get your trousers on so you can get to the door." He didn't get there fast enough, and they believed that he was using the time to hide something. They came with the dogs--and also with the drugs--conducted their search, and arrested everybody.

John was advised by his counsel to plead guilty to possession of cannabis and pay the fine. I said, "Just a moment. You were told to plead guilty?" He said, "That's what they told me, and I had good counsel. Of course, Leon, lawyers always give you the right advice, right?"

I registered that, although he obviously had told the lawyer he wasn't guilty of anything, the lawyer had told him to plead guilty. Perhaps there was something unusual about the British statute.

I asked, "What is cannabis?"

He replied, "Cannabis is a plant."

Then I asked, "What is cannabis resin?"

"Oh," he said, "that's hash."

"Is that marijuana?"

"Oh no," he said, "much better than marijuana!"

I recalled some criminal cases in which people were charged with possession of one drug and succeeded in getting the indictments dismissed because they were actually in possession of another. There was, to my mind, some distinction between the two, and I kept that fact in the back of my mind.

Finally, he said, "You know, they're passing a new law in England now, the Uniform Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, which says that if five years go by without a reconviction for the same type of offense, that's it! They erase the conviction for British purposes." He was referring to a legislative removal of a conviction, but I realized that such a removal does not generally have the same effect under US immigration law. However, there was little law on the subject, and the issue could be an interesting one.

After hearing John's and Yoko's stories, I knew that they really weren't asking for too much. Yoko said that they were trying to stay for just a couple of more months, but would require an extension to do so. They had less than two weeks before they would have to leave the country or face deportation.

I said, "If all you're looking for is more time to stay and search for Kyoko--and I've never seen a more compelling reason for an extension than having two child custody cases pending and trying to locate your own child--I would be happy to look over the extension papers. I'm quite certain we can get you a couple of months."

Then John said, "But Leon, that's all I can hope for. I understand that I can never become a US resident, and if they deport me, I can never come back. That's what happens when the charge is being deportable for conviction of a drug offense." He seemed to be repeating advice received from other lawyers.


I said, "John, I'm not absolutely sure that you are unable to get residence. First of all, I see a question with respect to the substance that you were convicted of possessing. It's possible that you might not have even needed a waiver of inadmissibility to come in temporarily. The statute says that 'narcotic drugs or marijuana' convictions cannot be overcome. Your conviction was for hash, which is not marijuana or a narcotic. Second, there's something about this statute in England under which you were convicted that rubs me the wrong way. I can't understand why a top criminal attorney in England advised you to plead guilty." I also saw the Uniform Rehabilitation Act as having potential for a new determination because it was a new statute, and there would not yet have been a determination under American law. Eventually, these were the points that I cited in the Court of Appeals some five years later, when Chief Judge Irving R. Kaufman ruled that the conviction need not be recognized under US immigration law and ordered the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to adjudicate Lennon's residence case without considering the conviction.

The Legal Strategy

I explained to the Lennons how I would handle their case. "If you are as important as everybody says you are, I may be able to put the government in a very embarrassing public posture. I could file two petitions, one for each of you, as 'outstanding persons in the arts or sciences whose presence in the United States is deemed by the Attorney General to be in the national interest.' The government might have to approve these petitions." Yoko smiled immediately.


I continued, "Then I would apply for residence for both of you. Let the government deny John's case and grant Yoko's--since there seems to be no reason to deny her application. This would place the government in the uncomfortable position, perhaps, of forcing you, Yoko, to choose to stay here with your child or go back to England with your husband. They're not going to look good doing that. Now, if all you need is a temporary extension, you don't need me. Mr. Kahn can have me review any extension application he drafts."

All of a sudden, the atmosphere in the room changed. And I will never forget that moment: they looked at each other and said in unison, "We need you!" That's when I knew I was being retained.

From that point on, life was changed for me. I went down to see the INS district director, Sol Marks, and asked him about an extension application. I had known Sol for over 20 years. We commuted on the train together in the summers and he would solve half my immigration problems on the trip. He is a very knowledgeable, capable man who had been with the Service for 38 years.

He called me the next day and said, "Leon, because it's you, you can get a one-month extension. Don't ask me any questions. These people will never get another extension" (in haec verba--that's what he told me). "And Leon, tell them to get out."

I went back to Jane Street, where I soon would become a frequent visitor. I practiced immigration law in my own office from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. The Lennons would get up at 9 p.m. and stay up until dawn, often at the recording studio. I would go to their apartment after dinner to meet witnesses and go through papers, and, if I needed a secretary, they would have somebody available.

We decided to file two outstanding-artist petitions. We started contacting people for reference letters. By simply mentioning my clients' names, I could get through to nearly everyone. Yoko said she would be happy to get letters from Andy Warhol, Clive Barnes, Jasper Johns, Stanley Kubrick, Elia Kazan, Claes Oldenburg, Leonard Bernstein, and Virgil Thomson. If you're a collector of signatures, you would have valued my files at a million dollars!

I completed two magnificent applications and told Sol Marks that we were filing outstanding-artist petitions and that my clients had no intention of leaving the country. His immediate response was a letter enclosing Orders to Show Cause commencing deportation proceedings.

After filing the petitions, I received no adjudication. Two months later, under the Freedom of Information Act, I asked for permission to see all the government's files on Lennon. I appeared at INS one day, and found a table full of files for my review, but my petitions were not there. I smelled a rat and began to make a lot of noise for a very quiet lawyer. The petitions finally showed up in a sealed manila envelope--totally untouched.

I knew that if I didn't have an adjudication of those two petitions, I would not be able to apply for residence for my clients at the deportation hearing, which was coming up in a few days. So for the first of four occasions in this one case, I filed suit in Federal District Court for mandamus along with an application for an injunction against the deportation proceedings, pending adjudication of the two filed petitions. The preliminary injunction was granted and a court hearing scheduled.

Deportation as a Political Strategy

By the hearing date, I had still received no opposing affidavits from the government. It was strange, because in my affidavit requesting the injunction, I alleged that there was a government conspiracy to remove Lennon for political reasons.

Later, I uncovered documents, under the Freedom of Information Act, that showed that Lennon was being selectively prosecuted for political purposes by the Nixon administration. A memo dated February 4, 1972, was forwarded to former Attorney General John Mitchell and Bill Timmons of the White House by Sen. Strom Thurmond, describing Lennon as a threat to the US government and the reelection campaign of Richard Nixon because of Lennon's affiliations with members of the Radical Left, which was then trying to stimulate voter registration of 18-year-olds. The presidential election in 1972 was the first one in which 18-year-olds could vote, making 18- to 20-year-olds a very important constituency. I also uncovered a memo in which Marks is advised by Washington to deny all applications, to revoke the Lennons' voluntary departure privilege, and to schedule the deportation hearing for March 16, 1972--strong evidence of prejudgment of the case for political purposes.

At the hearing, Judge Whitman Knapp called both counsels forward and said that the United States Attorney had received a call from Sol Marks saying that he would adjudicate the papers that day. The judge said, "You know I can't order him to either approve or deny. He still has discretion to rule on these petitions." I was satisfied, and my suspicions of a government conspiracy were confirmed by the fact that the INS did not file affidavits in opposition to my claim of a government conspiracy to remove Lennon.

However, I said that I was unwilling to release the injunction against the deportation proceeding until "I see the decisions and until you, Your Honor, and I have original approvals or denials. At least with a denial, I know what my remedies are." The judge agreed, and I got another adjournment of the deportation case. Later that day, both petitions were finally approved. John and Yoko had been declared "outstanding artists whose presence in the US was, in the opinion of the Attorney General, prospectively beneficial to the national culture"! It was truly ironic, because Attorney General Mitchell was one of the parties most active in attempting to deport John Lennon.

They could now apply for permanent resident status in their deportation proceeding. Even though the government thought that it would look bad denying those petitions, it still believed that it could proceed with deportation because in its estimation, no one with a drug conviction could qualify for permanent residence. If I could prove otherwise, I would be creating an unbelievable precedent.

The Hearings

My clients, like all clients, were very nervous about hearings. They didn't know what to wear; they were afraid to testify; they were afraid of all the tricks the INS was capable of pulling.

Preparing for our first hearing in the deportation case, I called my opposing counsel, Vinnie Schiano at the Immigration Service, and told him how nervous John and Yoko were. He said, "Bring them up to my office, and we'll calm them down before we go into the hearing." They were soon very much at ease in the prosecuting attorney's office, for he was quite an expert on Beatles music. Soon Vinnie whispered to me, "Leon, I don't think they realize that I'm the prosecuting lawyer." I said, "John, Yoko, it's time to go into the hearing now, and you can feel relaxed because Vinnie here, he's the prosecuting lawyer." Lennon immediately grabbed a handkerchief from his pocket, dropped down on his knees, and started shining Schiano's shoes!

It became my practice to choose their clothing for all court appearances. For one hearing, I got to their apartment at 6:30 a.m. and asked them: "What clothes do you have that look alike?" It took us a little while, but they both had black suits, black ties, and white shirts. I dressed them up like two matching dolls and I said, "I want you to hold hands in the courtroom. I don't care who tells you not to do so. Sit together on one side of the table and don't budge. I'll sit on the other side of the table. If they say something about separating you, I want to see the saddest faces you can make." We survived the government's motion to sever the two deportation cases and try them seperately; their cases were to be tried together.

At another hearing, I needed to prove that cannabis resin was not marijuana. I was told by my friend Alan Dershowitz that Dr. Lester Grinspoon of Harvard Medical School was one of the best doctors in the country and an expert on marijuana. I called Dr. Grinspoon and asked, "Is cannabis resin marijuana or what?"

"Oh," he said, "cannabis resin is not marijuana. It's hashish!"

"Dr. Grinspoon, name your fee. I need your testimony."

He said, "I'm very sorry. You can cite my book, but I don't testify any more."

I was very disappointed, and tried to reach some other doctors. Then I got a call from Dr. Grinspoon. "Mr. Wildes, I haven't testified in years, but I have a special personal situation. I have a 12-year-old son who has terminal leukemia. Since we first spoke, I found out that he idolizes John Lennon. If you can get me some things autographed by John Lennon, I will be happy to testify at my usual rates."

I promptly left my office and bought lots of Lennon paraphernalia and had John autograph it all. I met Dr. Grinspoon the next evening at the Plaza Hotel with the whole pile of autographed stuff in anticipation of his testimony.

The immigration judge allowed the testimony even though it was not customary in deportation proceedings, because Grinspoon was obviously such an important physician.

Working the Press

The case continued, hearing after hearing after hearing. Nearly every night, I'd meet with the Lennons at their apartment or recording studio, the Record Plant, to work on the case. I was about Yoko's age, 42, and I bought my first pair of jeans and let my hair grow. John Lennon bought an "immigration suit"--it looked something like what I'm wearing now--and got a shorter haircut.

In March 1973, Immigration Judge Ira Fieldsteel finally reached a decision in the case. I got a call from my old friend Sol Marks, who said, "Leon, I'm having a press conference at which the decision will be read. We're inviting you and Mr. Schiano, the prosecuting attorney, to be there and comment on the decision." In his 38 years with INS, Sol Marks had never held a press conference. Did he know something that I didn't?

Needless to say, I didn't trust the district director as much as I once had. I called my clients and asked them to round up journalists from the music and underground press. I wanted to feed each friendly reporter a question to be asked of Sol Marks at his press conference.

For the press conference, John and Yoko sent Sol a big bouquet of yellow roses. He was never so flustered. Nobody had ever sent this guy roses! All my new friends from Rolling Stone and the other journalists started asking their questions.

The decision of the immigration judge was announced. Yoko was granted permanent-resident status, and John's application was denied because of his conviction.

"Mr. Marks, did you have to bring this deportation proceeding?" "Oh yes. I'm required by law to do it." "Is there a procedure by which you might have avoided doing so, called the 'non-priority' program?" "No, there's no such procedure." "Were you told or encouraged by Washington to do this for any political reason?" "Oh no, it was my own idea." He lied through his teeth! When I examined him in a federal court deposition, he admitted that his answers to those questions were untruthful.

Later that week, we held our own press conference because it was time to file our appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). I arranged for it to be held at the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. Many high-profile people from the arts spoke. I gave a presentation on the law, what had been going on, and what we knew.

John and Yoko, full of surprises, as ever, asked me to stop the proceedings for just a moment. They took out tissues and started waving them, and declared in unison that they were hereby declaring the state of "Nutopia," a state with no borders, no laws, no exclusionary proceedings, no deportation proceedings, and no immigration lawyers! (I wasn't so sure that I was happy about the last part of the declaration.)

Today, if you visit Yoko at the Dakota, you will see a sign on the back entrance to her apartment that reads, "Embassy of the State of 'Nutopia.' "

Federal Court Times Four

This case took me to federal court on four occasions, during the five-year period of its litigation. The first lawsuit (Lennon v. Marks, 1972) resulted in securing the approval of the Lennons as "outstanding artists."

The second (Lennon v. Richardson, 73 Civ 4476, 1973) was under the Freedom of Information Act, in which I had requested documentation relating to the "non-priority program," a humanitarian program that was not a part of the statute or regulations, and simply a matter of secret law. In discovery proceedings, I was successful in learning about the existence of the program, by which aliens who were fully deportable--including those with multiple convictions for serious drug offenses, murder, and rape--were nevertheless permitted to remain in this country because of extreme hardship. As a result of the suit, I was successful in obtaining such "non-priority" status for John Lennon, and the program was made available to other aliens who might wish to apply.

The third Federal District Court action (Lennon v. United States, 73 Civ 4543, 1973) was the one in which I sued Attorney General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Kleindienst, Immigration Commissioner Farrell, District Director Marks, and others, alleging selective prosecution.

Finally, I appealed the Deportation Order to the Board of Immigration Appeals and argued Lennon's case in Washington. The BIA affirmed the Deportation Order and I appealed their decision to the US Court of Appeals (Lennon v. United States 527 F. 2nd 187, 1975).

About two weeks before the Court of Appeals entered its decision, reversing the BIA decision to deport Lennon, we won our application for "non-priority" classification, so that John would be permitted to remain in the United States, even without obtaining permanent residence. We went to federal court four times, winning each case on the basis of a strategy conceived at my first meeting with John and Yoko more than five years earlier.

Lennon Gets His Green Card

You can imagine my feeling after five years of almost daily work on this case. I called John and said, "John, you remember I told you we're probably not going to win this case, but that we might survive long enough for the law to be changed? I'm now calling to tell you that we actually won it!" Lennon was astonished: "Leon, what do you mean, won? Yoko is in the hospital about to give birth, and tomorrow is my birthday, and now you tell me we won?! Please stay at your desk, and Yoko will call you when I get to New York Hospital and you can explain it all to her."


I had been explaining things to Yoko all along. She was my veritable co-counsel in the case. She understood every nuance of every case I ever cited. John was brilliant; but when it came to these technical things, he relied upon Yoko completely.

Yoko called and said, "Oh, that's wonderful, Leon! Why don't you and your wife come over to the hospital as soon as you get the actual decision, and we'll read it together." She was interested in every word.

We went to the hospital and spent about two and a half hours there. They were elated. After asking Yoko's permission, John finally said, "Leon, did you know that all this time big lawyers like Edward Bennett Williams have been trying to get this case? Do you know why we stuck with you? You're the best immigration lawyer in the world. You're the only lawyer I understand and the only lawyer my wife is crazy about. You know, Yoko fires lawyers all the time. We also stayed with you because her tarot-card reader said 'Stay with Leon. He's going to win the case for you.' "

To which I replied, "Thank God for tarot-card readers."

My wife and I didn't get home until about 2 a.m., and I was bleary. It was about 5:30 a.m. when the phone rang and the voice on the other end said, "This is John."

I was half asleep and asked, "John who?"

"John Lennon, and I have a beautiful boy!" He said it just the way he wrote it in his song, "Beautiful Boy," which is one of my favorite Lennon songs. We had become very close, and although he wasn't my normal kind of friend, and I wasn't his normal kind of friend, we had a very warm relationship.

The next day, I went to buy John a present. It was his birthday. It was also his child's birthday. He had just become a father. He had won his case. He would have his final hearing, get a green card, and be able to travel and perform again! He would be free again.

I stopped at Mark Cross, not far from my office. What do you get for John Lennon? As I walked into the store, I saw in the showcase a passport cover emblazoned with the great seal of the United States. "I'll have that passport case," I said.

Some time later, I visited John and Yoko--they had moved from Jane Street to the fancier Dakota. I was waiting for them in their magnificent living room, where the furniture and carpeting are all white, as is the grand piano. When John and Yoko came in, I was at the piano playing a "beginner" piano song that I had recently learned from my kids' piano teacher.

John said, "Leon, I didn't think you knew how to play the piano. You know, I don't know how to play. All I can do is pick out chords."

I answered, "I wouldn't feel too badly about it--you're doing fine."

When Yoko walked in, John turned to her and said, "When Sean gets old enough to learn how to play the piano, I'm going to take lessons, too, just like Leon."

Can you imagine, if that beautiful man had lived more than five years after he had gotten his green card, what magnificent music he would have continued to bless us with?

Just imagine!

[Back to Top]

Congress Unlikely to Change Immigration Laws This Year
By Bruce Alpert
Newhouse News Service

WASHINGTON -- Once a top priority of the Bush administration and a hot-button issue in Congress, an overhaul of the nation's immigration laws appears unlikely to happen this year.

Dozens of bills that aim either to impose new limits or to give legal status to tens of thousands of illegal workers are expected to be left on the table when Congress adjourns this summer, victims of election-year politics and the war on terrorism. With emotions running high and lawmakers eager to avoid votes that might be used against them on the campaign trail, debate will likely be put off until after the November elections.

The expected delay triggered a mini-rebellion by some House Republicans who favor more restrictions. Five GOP House members last month withheld their support for a routine motion to bring up a popular highway spending bill, an effort that failed to stop eventual enactment.

President Bush hasn't had any more success with his proposal to give workers in the United States without legal status three-year work visas if they pay a fee. His proposal isn't going anywhere, nor is an alternative offered by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to allow foreign workers into the country to fill jobs that Americans won't take after the positions are advertised for two weeks.

After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, carried out by 19 Middle Eastern men in the United States with a variety of visas, the hope among some, and fear among others, was that America would shut down or significantly reduce the flow of immigration, both legal and illegal. It hasn't happened.

In the year after the attacks, the federal fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2002, the number of legal immigrants allowed into the United States totaled 1.064 million, almost the same as the year before, and more than 200,000 more than in 2000. Although enforcement against illegal immigration has stepped up significantly, immigration experts say that at least 350,000 people continue to enter the United States illegally each year.

But more people have been deported for criminal violations and some visa applicants, particularly those from the Middle East, face more screening and delays before they're given permission to work or attend college in the United States.

"It takes longer and there is more scrutiny, but in fairness to the government my sense is that once the government is satisfied that a person has clean hands, it moves on to other cases," said Lawrence Fabacher, an immigration lawyer in New Orleans. "It's a little bit more trouble, maybe more inconvenience for those applying, but I would say most people understand if they feel it isn't ham-handed."

Neither side on the immigration issue is satisfied with the status quo.

Dan Stein, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, said that continued high levels of immigration, both legal and illegal, not only threatens American security but also strains the resources of schools and local governments. He said liberal immigration policies allow businesses to pay low wages while locking Americans out of the job market.

"The government and media seem to accept massive population growth as an inevitability that we are powerless to control. It is not inevitable; it is a choice that we are making through our immigration policies," Stein said.

But Angie Kelly, deputy director of the National Immigration Forum, which argues for more liberalized immigration laws, said the country would be better off, both on security issues and economically, if the United States gave legal status to undocumented workers. These are the people who Kelly says fill the agricultural, service and child care jobs so important to the domestic economy.

She applauded Bush for proposing legal status for undocumented workers, although she noted that he hasn't been pushing the proposal aggressively after it generated criticism from members of his own Republican Party.

"It is quite a broad proposal covering all undocumented workers, but, on the other hand, the administration did not exactly rush up to Capitol Hill with a piece of legislation. That hasn't gone unnoticed."

Senate and House Democrats were set to introduce a package of immigration bills Tuesday. The Democrats' plan would give green cards and permanent status to immigrants who have been in the United States at least five years and can prove they've worked for at least two years. It would also loosen quotas so that more immigrants could bring relatives into the United
States. But it would cut back companies' ability to bring "guest workers" into the United States.

None of the bills is expected to be acted on this year, but they give the Democrats political cover with key constituent groups before the November elections.

Rep. David Vitter, R-La., a member of the Immigration Reform Caucus, describes both the Bush proposal and the Democratic alternative as an amnesty program that "signals that it basically pays to break the law."

Vitter, who is running for the U.S. Senate with Bush's support, said he's frustrated that Congress hasn't done more since the Sept. 11 attacks to enforce immigration laws. He argues for a dual approach of combating illegal immigration while improving services for people seeking legal status.

Others argue that stricter enforcement is the best solution. The United States has increased enforcement financing sixfold since the 1990s, expanding the border patrol, for instance, from 2,000 agents to 12,000. But that hasn't stemmed the flow of undocumented workers, which many immigration experts say remains fairly constant at about 350,000 a year. A current estimate for the number of undocumented residents in the United States is about 9 million.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said that the best approach bridges the gap between those advocating building "a wall around our country" and those calling for "unconditional, complete amnesty."

"What America needs instead is a comprehensive and fundamentally strong immigration system that bridges the gap between our economic and security needs," Cornyn said. He advocates tough enforcement of current immigration laws, along with a "comprehensive, common-sense guest worker program."

But James Hollifeld, director of the John Tower Center for Political Studies at Southern Methodist University, said that not much is likely to move through Congress this year, what with both political parties concerned that any legislation either expanding or cutting back on immigration could generate voter backlash.

Neither Bush, nor Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, has made immigration a big campaign issue.

THE MAJOR PROPOSALS

Supporters of tighter controls on immigration have proposed legislation to:

* Reduce federal highway financing for states that allow undocumented aliens to get driver's licenses. Supporters argue that since some of the Sept. 11 hijackers obtained driver's licenses to enable them to take piloting classes and plan the deadly attacks, the government should deny licenses to all but legal residents. Supporters of allowing undocumented residents to get driver's licenses, including Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, say that licenses allow people to get to and from their jobs with the appropriate auto insurance, while providing authorities with a database of addresses that otherwise wouldn't be available. The bill is H.R. 3052.

* Reduce employment immigration visas, eliminate family-sponsored immigration visas and limit refugee and asylum admissions to 25,000 a year. That would let the United States get some control of its immigration policies, according to supporters, and take steps to better safeguard the country from the kind of terrorist cells that carried out the Sept. 11 attacks. Critics say the bill would separate families, while denying businesses needed workers and ending the U.S. tradition of providing opportunities long associated with a nation of immigrants. The bill is H.R. 946.

* Repeal laws that allow the government to issue H1-V visas for temporary workers. The continued high jobless figures, supporters of the repeal say, indicate such visas aren't necessary. Business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, say the U.S. economy depends on such workers to fill gaps in certain job categories. The bill is H.R. 2688.

* Require state and local police to enforce immigration laws. Supporters say it would reduce the number of undocumented workers who burden local schools and service agencies, while helping to remove people who are here illegally. Opponents say it would overtax local police, while costing government the trust of immigrant communities, making it less likely officials would get tips about terrorist activities. The bill is H.R. 2671.

Supporters of expanded immigration have proposed legislation to:

* Allow illegal immigrants to get three-year work visas if they prove they have a job or job offer and pay a processing fee. Supporters say it would reduce exploitation of workers, while ensuring a supply of people to fill agricultural, child care and service jobs undesired by Americans. Critics say it would serve only to give business and big farms access to cheap labor, depressing salaries for Americans and denying them jobs. The legislation has been proposed by President Bush but not yet submitted in bill form.

* Allow federal college assistance to undocumented residents who entered the United States before age 16, and at least five years ago. Supporters say it would ensure opportunities for people who have long resided in the United States and paid taxes by opening up college for their children. Critics say it rewards illegal activity, while taking resources away from legal residents who want their children to attend college. The bill is S. 811.

* Speed processing on a huge backlog of visa applications that some, including Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., say is keeping "husbands from being with their wives, and parents from being with their children." Critics say such a bill would make it easier for dangerous people, including terrorists, to enter the United States. The bill is H.R. 3918.

[Back to Top]

U.S. Visa Lottery Called a Threat
By Stephen Dinan
The Washington Times

The State Department's deputy inspector general said yesterday that despite new fraud protections, the diversity visa-lottery program, which issues 55,000 green cards to foreign nationals annually, is a prime opportunity for criminals and enemies of the United States to enter the nation.

"The bottom line is it's a program that can be taken advantage of by hostile intelligence officers or terrorists," said Anne W. Patterson, deputy inspector general for the State Department, before the immigration subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee.

The lottery's goal is to broaden the nation's pool of immigrants. Millions of people apply each year, from which about 110,000 names were selected in the 2004 lottery.

Those selected then must apply and go through the visa process. In the end, 50,000 green cards are issued by a general formula and 5,000 are issued for those who qualify through the Nicaragua Adjustment and Central American Relief Act.

With legal immigration topping 1 million people per year, the program accounts for a small fraction. But in the wake of the September 11 attacks, it has been criticized widely as a good way for terrorists to win entry to the United States and, once here, operate with few restrictions.

"This program remains a serious security threat," said Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte, Virginia Republican, who is sponsoring a bill to end the diversity lottery.

Nationals from some countries - those that already have high rates of immigration to the United States - are barred from taking part in the lottery, including Canada, Mexico, Haiti, Great Britain, Russia, mainland China, India, Pakistan, South Korea, Vietnam and the Philippines.

Yet those from nations on the State Department's list of states that sponsor terrorism, who generally are barred from applying for temporary visas, still are allowed to apply for the permanent visas through the lottery. In the 2004 lottery, 1,183 persons were registered from Sudan, 1,431 from Iran and 64 from Syria.

Also, fraud is widespread, with people filing multiple applications under different names to increase their chances of being selected. If they are selected under one of the false names, they then obtain fraudulent documents to back up their application.

Ms. Patterson said in 2002, 85 percent of winners from Bangladesh were rejected, indicating both a high level of fraud but a heightened awareness at that particular post.

Steven A. Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, said the visa lottery is the perfect means of immigration for a terrorist lucky enough to be selected.

Those that win don't necessarily have any allegiance or ties to the United States, he said, because the lottery relies entirely on luck, rather than on the relationships with a family member or employer that are used in the rest of the legal immigration system.

Also, a green card allows many more privileges than some temporary visas, such as the ability to enter and leave the United States at will.

"If one were to set out to design a visa that was ideal for terrorists, the visa-lottery system would be it," he said.

But Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas Democrat, criticized the witnesses who wanted to shut down the program, saying they want "to topple the Statue of Liberty."

She said she and the program's critics agree on one thing - "the immigration policies of the United States are in shambles." But she said piecemeal bills like Mr. Goodlatte's only serve to complicate things.

Ms. Jackson-Lee called for a broader immigration overhaul that would include legal status for some immigrants here illegally and would allow for easier unification of families.

One witness at the hearing, Charles Nyaga, a native of Kenya who applied in 1997 for the lottery and won, said he thinks the program does some good.

"I work two jobs. I pay my taxes," he said. "I believe the majority of the immigrants who are coming here are coming for a better life."

Still, he said, the program needs reform. He faces deportation because, although his name was selected, he said his application was lost by the defunct Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), so it wasn't approved within a year and his chance has expired.

The State Department has made some improvements in the program in recent months, Ms. Patterson said. She said the department now takes applications for the lottery online, and she said using digitally scanned fingerprints, a system that will be in place by October, will reduce fraud. She said the processing center in Kentucky, where applications are reviewed, has created an antifraud officer position and is trying to fill it.

Ms. Patterson also said she supports rejecting applications that come from states that sponsor terrorism.

But Jan Ting, a law professor at Temple University who was assistant commissioner of the INS from 1990 to 1993, said the program discriminates against large Asian nations, for example, and it should be scrapped.

"How can it make sense to give out 50,000 immigrant visas each year in a discriminatory lottry, when admissible spouses and minor children of [legal permanent residents] are kept out of the United States, making family reunification impossible?" Mr. Ting said.

Ms. Jackson-Lee pointed to D.C. United soccer player Freddy Adu, whose mother was selected in a visa lottery in the late 1990s from Ghana, as a success story from the program.

But subcommittee Chairman John Hostettler, Indiana Republican, said he didn't think that outweighed the case of Hesham Mohammed Hedayet, who killed two persons at the El Al ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport on July 4, 2002. The Egyptian-born man was in the United States because his wife was selected in the diversity lottery.

[Back to Top]

USCIS EXPANDS CUSTOMER SERVICE INITIATIVE

More Online Options Now Available to Check the Status of Applications

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announces the expansion of the Case Status Online system. This simple and customer friendly initiative now offers customers the ability to build a portfolio of up to 100 cases (application receipt numbers) and check those cases online at all times. This expansion will not only help individuals, it will also allow employers, immigration attorneys, and community based organizations to better monitor the status of cases for their employees or clients. Additionally, customers may also choose to have USCIS automatically send an e-mail informing them of any status change for a pending case. These services are offered in English and Spanish.

"This initiative further demonstrates USCIS’ commitment to improving customer service," said Eduardo Aguirre, Director of USCIS. "Customers will have the option of accessing information about their cases in a quick, convenient, and secure way."

Customers or authorized representatives (including family members, friends, attorneys, community based organizations, or employers) can access Case Status Online by establishing a user ID and password, and logging into a secure area online to create their portfolio cases. Since October 2002, numerous customers have avoided waiting in line at local offices by checking the status of their pending case online through the USCIS website, www.uscis.gov.

Customers can also check the status of their case by calling the USCIS National Customer Service Center at 1-800-375-5283.

Case Status Online is one of several USCIS web-based customer service initiatives. Last year, USCIS initiated Internet or E-Filing for certain immigration applications, including the renewal and replacement of "green cards" (Form I-90). USCIS plans to expand E-Filing to include other high volume forms. Customers can also make immigration appointments online by using InfoPass (in select areas). InfoPass offers customers an alternative to standing in line at local offices to meet with an Immigration Information Officer.

-USCIS-

On March 1, 2003, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) became one of three former INS components to join the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. USCIS is charged with fundamentally transforming and improving the delivery of immigration and citizenship services, while enhancing the integrity of our nation's security.

[Back to Top]

Governor Endorses Illegal-Alien Driving Bill
Gov. Jeb Bush favors giving illegal immigrants driver's licenses, as long as there are security measures to weed out criminals.
BY MICHAEL VASQUEZ AND GARY FINEOUT

TALLAHASSEE - Saying rigorous screening standards would ensure recipients ''won't be terrorists,'' Gov. Jeb Bush on Monday strongly endorsed issuing state driver's licenses to both illegal immigrants and foreign nationals who make Florida home for part of the year.

Hundreds of thousands of people could be affected by the proposal, which is currently making its way through the Florida Legislature. Sen. Rudy Garcia, a Hialeah Republican pushing the measure in the Senate, says it would enable those stuck in immigration limbo to drive with valid licenses and get insurance while they work to become citizens.

''Our roads and streets will be safer because of this,'' Garcia said, adding that the sprawling nature of most Florida cities makes owning a car a necessity, and that the state, by not giving illegal immigrants licenses, ``almost tells these folks to break the law, because that's the only way they're going to be doing anything.''

Illegal immigrants wishing to obtain the licenses would have to submit to be cleared by background checks both in Florida and in their home countries. The state would rely on consular officials to sign off on background checks from abroad.

Foreign nationals who visit the state frequently to check up on homes or businesses would have to provide proof of ownership.

The driver's license question presents lawmakers with a potentially volatile election-year issue, one that could woo Hispanic voters but is also credited with helping defeat former California Gov. Gray Davis during last year's recall election.

Florida's proposal, however, calls for stricter screening requirements than the driver's license bill signed into law by Davis. Bush said his support for the idea would waver if security precautions were relaxed.

Bush also made it a point to say he was not encouraging more illegal immigration into the United States.

''We shouldn't allow them to come into our country to begin with,'' Bush said. ``But once they're here, what do you do? Do you say that they're lepers to society? That they don't exist? It seems that a policy that ignores them is a policy of denial.''

Skeptics remain in the Legislature, although it is unclear whether there are enough of them to defeat the driver's license proposal. Sen. Mike Haridopolos, a Melbourne Republican, voted against the bill when it had a committee hearing last week, but he was the only one out of 13 senators to do so.

The governor's endorsement Monday could give the idea a further boost. Rep. Gustavo Barreiro, a Miami Beach Republican, plans to introduce a similar bill in a House committee next week, which if approved would go straight to a full vote by all House members.

Haridopolos on Monday said he had no problem giving licenses to foreign nationals who live in Florida part of the time -- provided they had the necessary visas or other immigration documents. But illegal immigrants, he said, have ''basically cut in line'' by not waiting for their chance to come to the United States with government approval.

''You have to play by the rules,'' Haridopolos said. ``When they go to work for different companies they also take jobs away from people who went to our high schools, who went to our colleges.''

Several other states last year considered loosening restrictions on driver's licenses to allow illegal immigrants to drive. Hawaii and Kansas adopted laws last year making licenses easier for illegal aliens to obtain. Immigrant-rich Arizona is considering easing its rules this year.

At least seven states allow an identification number given out to tax filers to be used as an acceptable form of ID when obtaining a driver's license. Such numbers are available to anyone who pays federal income tax, regardless of their immigration status.

[Back to Top]

Immigrants Blast Rental Rule as Discrimination
Hernán Rozemberg
San Antonio Express-News Immigration Writer


It was the perfect setting to start their new life as a married couple - a nice apartment, decent rent, just down the street from the mosque.

About two weeks ago, Amina Rojas and Mohamed Abdel-Rahem filled out the rental application and even cut a security deposit check. They were all set to take the place in Richardson, a Dallas suburb.

Then the leasing agent at the apartment complex pulled out another piece of paper.

Abdel-Rahem, a permanent resident of the United States who was born in Egypt, had indicated in the application that he wasn't a U.S. citizen. So he was asked to complete another form with detailed questions on his immigration status.

The couple were shocked. The feeling quickly turned into anger.

"It was discriminatory," said Rojas, executive director of the Dallas-Fort Worth chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. "He wasn't treated like any other applicant."

Federal officials said the form doesn't violate fair housing laws, but immigrants still feel they're being unfairly targeted.

Countless immigrants have been presented with the form, which was introduced by the Texas Apartment Association two months after the 9-11 attacks.

Dubbed the "supplemental rental application for non-U.S. citizens," it was created as an option for property managers who clamored for ways to help boost national security and maintain financial piece of mind, according to the TAA.

Following 9-11, many landlords were questioned by the FBI about tenants who were terror suspects, but they didn't have any background information to help the investigation. That prompted landlords to quickly improve their applicant-screening process.

Asked whether the non-citizen form has helped its ongoing counterterrorism efforts, the FBI declined comment.

The Austin-based TAA, with 10,000 members managing more than 1.5 million rental units, said it hasn't received any discrimination complaints since circulating the form.

Neither has the National Apartment Association, which adopted the form and made it available to its 35 member states.

Some immigrant advocates say the matter has remained quiet because newcomers - especially those from the Middle East - still fear persecution and prefer to stay out of the limelight, even if it means accepting discriminatory treatment.

Paul Parsons, an Austin lawyer and chairman of the Texas State Bar's immigration committee, wrote a letter a month ago asking the TAA to do away with the form, equating its use to biased housing practices.

Even if property managers mean well by trying to address national security concerns, Parsons said, they still may end up causing undue harm to good applicants.

He noted that in some cases, immigrants could be in the country legally even after their visas expired. Others could be waiting for their already-approved legal documents to arrive, which sometimes takes months or even years.

Parsons said it's not up to landlords to be immigration enforcers.

In his letter he argued that "there is no congressional mandate or other law that requires the TAA to question potential tenants about their legal status. ... Our committee believes such questioning may lead to discrimination based on national origin."

The TAA sees no reason to quit using the form, writing back to Parsons that no laws are being broken and that the organization has received no allegations of wrongdoing.

But some immigrants have taken their grievances elsewhere.

The Austin Tenants' Council, a housing rights group, is looking into several complaints it has fielded on the non-citizen form.

The issue was first raised by Austin's immigrant affairs commission in 2002, said Mary Dulan, the council's fair housing director. After a commission meeting, immigrants began contacting the group's complaint hotline.

Dulan declined to discuss details because she's checking out the claims, but she said if any prove to be valid, they will be filed with the Housing and Urban Development Department.

If that happens, the governmental agency may change its current hands-off stance. So far, HUD has maintained that property managers haven't broken fair housing laws.

Citizenship is not an eligible category for housing discrimination, said Michael Fluharty, a HUD spokesman.

As long as no pattern of systematic abuse of the citizenship form is found, he said, the agency has no reason to meddle in the matter.

"We didn't approve it or disapprove it," Fluharty said. "All we said is that what they're asking doesn't fall under the Fair Housing Act."

The country's immigration enforcement branch also didn't see any misconduct. Just as employers can ask applicants for proof of legal status, so can landlords, said Chris Bentley, spokesman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

The lack of government concern over the form proves that immigrant advocates are trying to make an issue out of nothing, property managers say.

"If a landlord is going to discriminate, they don't need our form to do that," said Joe Sharp, vice president of the National Apartment Association, who lives in Georgetown and owns 13 properties in the Austin area.

"The only noise we've heard about this comes not from renters, but from a special interest group and the State Bar," Sharp said.

Though the form was partly created with looming concerns over renting to potential terrorists, its main objective is to make sure tenants' visas don't run out before their leases expire and allow property managers to track non-citizens if they cut out early, landlords say.

Sharp said he's used the form at all his properties without hearing any gripes. He said it's impossible to say how often the form is used, because it's up to each property to ask applicants to fill it out.

And he readily admits there's a big loophole: If immigrants check the citizen box in the general application, they won't get asked to fill out the supplemental form.

Yet many still prefer to tell the truth, including Abdel-Rahem, who presented his Social Security card and driver's license to prove his legality.

Though he didn't want to be interviewed, his wife said he remained upset, feeling unjustly targeted.

"I told the lady that he's legal, he's got documents," Rojas said, referring to the leasing agent. "She said they needed to have the information in file, in case they get audited by the government."

A manager at the complex, who declined to give her name, said by phone that the form simply ensures apartments aren't being rented to undocumented applicants.

"We have to cover our bases in every aspect," she said. "People that don't want to fill out the form most likely don't have documentation."

She couldn't explain Abdel-Rahem's case, which contradicted her conclusion. But she won't need to ponder it any further, as far as the couple are concerned.

Rojas is confident there are plenty of other landlords who will gladly take their money.

[Back to Top]

Demonstrators Swarm Around Rove's Home
By Steven Ginsberg
The Washington Post

Several hundred people stormed the small yard of President Bush's chief political strategist, Karl Rove, yesterday afternoon, pounding on his windows, shoving signs at others and challenging Rove to talk to them about
a bill that deals with educational opportunities for immigrants.

Protesters poured out of one school bus after another, piercing an otherwise quiet, peaceful Sunday in Rove's Palisades neighborhood in Northwest, chanting, "Karl, Karl, come on out! See what the DREAM Act is all about!"

Rove obliged their first request and opened his door long enough to say, "Get off my property."

"Seems like he doesn't want to invite us in for tea," Emira Palacios quipped to the crowd.

Others chanted, "Karl Rove ain't got no soul."

The crowd then grew more aggressive, fanning around the three accessible sides of Rove's house, tracking him through the many windows, waving signs that read "Say Yes to DREAM" and pounding on the glass. At one point, Rove rushed to a window, pointed a finger and yelled something inaudible.

Shortly thereafter, sirens shot through the neighborhood and Secret Service agents and D.C. police joined the crowd on the lawn. Rove opened his door long enough to talk to an officer, and the crowd serenaded them with a
stanza of "America the Beautiful."

The protest was organized by National People's Action, a coalition of neighborhood advocacy groups based in Chicago.

Leaders said they want Bush to advocate for the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, a bill that would permit immigrants who have lived in the United States for at least five years to apply for legal resident status once they graduate from high school. The measure would eliminate provisions of current federal law that discourage states from
providing in-state tuition to undocumented student immigrants.

Immigrant activists say that 50,000 to 65,000 undocumented students graduate from U.S. high school each year and that many students can afford college only at the reduced, in-state rates given to legal residents.

The bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee in the fall but has not been brought before the full Senate for a vote.

Asked for Bush's position on the bill, spokesman Jim Morrell said, "The president has laid out the principles he believes should guide immigration discussion, and he is willing to work with Congress."

When pressed to state Bush's specific position on the DREAM legislation, Morrell repeated his statement.

The coalition's leaders, who converge on Washington each year to advocate for various issues, said they targeted Rove because they could not get as close to the White House as they could to his house. Rove also is one of Bush's main advisers, and he did not reply to their requests for a meeting, leaders said.

"We want the DREAM Act, and Karl Rove is sitting on it," said Brenda LaBlanc, a member of Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement.

Coalition leaders said the demonstrators were to protest other policies at the houses of two Cabinet secretaries, Elaine L. Chao of Labor and Ann M.Veneman of Agriculture.

But what the group really wanted was a conversation with Rove, who declined
to comment to a reporter through a Secret Service agent.

And after about 30 minutes of goading by protesters in English and Spanish, Rove agreed to meet with two members of the coalition on the condition that the rest of the protesters board their buses and leave his street. The group obliged.

Rove opened his garage door and allowed Palacios and Inez Killingsworth to enter. The meeting lasted two minutes and ended with Rove closing the garage door on Palacios while she was still talking.

Palacios said that Rove was "very upset" and was "yelling in our faces" and that Rove told them "he hoped we were proud to make his 14-year-old and 10-year-old cry."

A White House spokesman said one of the children was a neighbor.

Palacios, trembling and in tears herself, said, "He is very offended because we dared to come here. We dared to come here because he dared to ignore us. I'm sorry we disturbed his children, but our children are disturbed every day.

"He also said, 'Don't ever dare to come back,' " Palacios said. "We will, if he continues to ignore us."

[Back to Top]

Immigrants Given Second Chance
By Tanya Weinberg
The South Florida Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale),Sixteen years after federal immigration officers turned them away, more
than 200,000 immigrants denied a shot at a congressional immigration amnesty have been granted the right to try again.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency is announcing today the terms of court settlements that will reopen a 1986 amnesty to those whose petitions were not considered.

About 250,000 immigrants, including thousands of Floridians, have documented claims that officials refused to accept their applications during the 1987-88 period. The applicants were told that trips they had taken abroad, however brief or urgent, conflicted with the continuous residence requirements Congress approved.

After 17 years of litigation, federal courts have ruled that these immigrants should have been allowed to apply and that the government must grant them another chance. A one-year application period will open in May.

For immigrant advocates, the lengthy litigation is a sign of institutional resistance to legalization efforts. For those who favor restricting immigration, the long battle demonstrates the open-ended nature of immigration amnesties and a warning against granting more.

For Mohammed Hamja, a Miramar shopkeeper who returned to Bangladesh for one month in the 1980s to visit his sick mother, the settlements offered hope, if not security.

"Do you think they'll make it a little bit easier?" he asked. "Maybe I'll have to wait another 10, 15 years?"

Hamja is one of about 100,000 who have been granted yearly temporary work permits as litigation dragged on.

After Hamja moved to Florida from New York in 1992, he married and now has two stepsons. He considers himself more American than Bangladeshi and says this country is great because here, hardworking people can get ahead. But he has been too afraid to visit his parents again because he does not want to lose the chance Congress granted him nearly two decades ago to become a permanent resident.

"It's very difficult, 15 years without my family," he said. "Still, we're waiting."

The Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security had no figures available on the cost of litigating the two cases that led to the settlements being announced today. But the Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law, which represented the plaintiffs, estimates the government spent more than $50 million related to the class-action suits, Catholic Social Services vs. Ridge and Newman/LULAC vs. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

"The court ordered back in 1988 that the INS should give these people another six months to apply. That's all they were asked to do," said Carlos Holguin, who litigated the cases for the center. "Instead, the government took it all the way to the Supreme Court, and it's been in the circuit court of appeals four times."

Officials at Citizenship and Immigration Services, which replaced part of the now-defunct Immigration and Naturalization Service, said they could not comment yet.

Capitol Hill watchers doubt a broad legalization program is politically viable this election season, although some think narrower bipartisan proposals, such as legalizing high school graduates here more than five years, or agricultural workers, may still have a chance.

[Back to Top]

Lou Dobbs Takes On the World
The good thing about his demagoguery: It can't be taken seriously.
Wall Street Journal
BY DANIEL HENNINGER

Not too long ago, the people who watch Lou Dobbs's evening business program on CNN tuned into see someone who looked just like Lou Dobbs ranting about free trade and corporations that outsource jobs--"Exporting America," he calls it. This didn't compute. The Lou Dobbs everyone thought they knew was a font of economic reason.

Every night of the week now, no matter how big or small the rest of the day's news, the Lou nobody knew finds time to kvetch about outsourcing, "cheap overseas labor" and about a Nafta free-trade agreement that flung open the door to "illegal aliens" whom he's happy to routinely identify as "Mexicans." On a recent program, as if he were doing talk radio at 2 a.m. in Youngstown, he said, "Many critics of Mexico's economy refer to what's called the maññana syndrome, putting off work until tomorrow," as his introduction to some unrelated remarks by Alan Greenspan.

He's got a Web site that lists "more than 350 corporations we've confirmed are exporting America." He reads letters from viewers who wonder "why are we importing beef." The new Lou mocks Adam Smith and David Ricardo--"economists who lived 200 years ago." He invites in liberal Democrats, such as Senators Hillary Clinton and Max Baucus, to share ideas on a "plan" to keep America's jobs "at home."

Old admirers are aghast. It's as if whatever made Linda Blair's head spin around in "The Exorcist" had invaded the body of Lou Dobbs and left him with the brain of Dennis Kucinich. No public figure has moved so far left so fast since the transfiguration of Arianna Huffington. So who is this wild and crazy guy in the dark suit, white shirt and dark tie and where did he come from? Since Lou Dobbs is on television, I can't answer who he is, but I think I know where he's coming from.

For starters, Lou Dobbs isn't an economist; he's a television performer. As such what Lou is doing would satisfy economic rationalists from Adam Smith to Milton Friedman. "Exporting America" has little to do with economics but everything to do with Lou Dobbs's economic self-interest.

Every program that appears on the broadcast networks and on 46 cable channels--from Animal Planet to all-news cable--is measured for audience size by A.C. Nielsen. And Nielsen purports to tell its network clients whether a program's audience rises or falls every 15 minutes. Because advertiser revenue tracks the mercury in Nielsen's audience barometer, TV executives can quote these ratings from memory--for their own and each competitor's programs. It is a competitive, brutal, even crazy market. But it's the market Lou Dobbs has to swim in.

While most TV viewers seem to understand the crypto-reality of the ratings when sitcoms get pulled off the air, even sophisticated viewers lull themselves into thinking cable news is, you know, news, that it's somehow above the grimy cash-flow imperative to "deliver audience" that rules prime-time on NBC or CBS. But if that were true, Connie Chung would still be on CNN.

Now, all that said, it is entirely possible that Lou Dobbs fell off his horse on the road back from Space.com, and now believes with the faith of Saul of Tarsus that outsourcing is the root of all evil. But as an economic rationalist, I have to believe that Lou Dobbs is ranting nightly about "cheap overseas labor" as a pure ratings play. It's about the money. And it makes perfect sense: Companies outsource to protect their market share, and Lou attacks outsourcing to protect his market share.

What's weird is what a lonely fight it turns out to be. On the programs I've watched, hardly anyone, including CNN, seems willing to join master and commander Lou on his three-masted outsourcing schooner.

This Tuesday, after Lou described "the shipment of hundreds of thousands of high-tech jobs to cheap foreign labor markets," a CNN reporter's piece on the outsourcing of computer jobs bowed in Lou's direction, then quoted an industry source who says they still can't meet the demand here for programmers. Later, after Lou teed up Ohio's manufacturing job losses, a CNN reporter found evidence to blame Ohio itself--its crummy educational performance and an uncompetitive tax structure with nine income-tax brackets. (If this amazing even-handedness keeps up, CNN will be the network letting us decide.)

Lou's guest was the hyper-liberal Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, once a stronghold of unionized mining. But Sen. Baucus was a globalized moderate compared to his host. After Lou grumbled about "corporate America" having responsibilities "that extend beyond a quarterly profit statement," the Montana liberal said, "We can't as Americans bury our heads in the sand, we cannot put up barriers." Lou ended the show by arguing with two letter-writers who disagree with him.

The next night, Lou's guest was Hillary Clinton, who like Sen. Baucus sensed the need to emigrate from Louville. Lou noted that "your husband's administration was a leading proponent" of free trade, as if outing an Albigensian heretic. Lou attacked something called Tata Consultancy in Buffalo, "a well-known outsourcer." "I know they outsource jobs," the senator replied with the patience of Job, "but they've brought jobs to Buffalo. You know, outsourcing does work both ways." Lou wanted to know if John Kerry has been strong enough on "stopping outsourcing." The senator offered a reassuring answer yes and added, "I'm not in favor of putting up fences around the country." As the show ended, Lou announced that the French Senate had voted to ban Islamic headscarves.

The ratings are up and we hope they stay up. On two hours earlier than "The Factor," Lou Dobbs doesn't get in the way of any basketball games. And unlike O'Reilly, "Exporting America" is a boatload of straight-faced fun. And I think Lou Dobbs knows it.

Mr. Henninger is deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. His column appears Fridays in the Journal and on OpinionJournal.com.

[Back to Top]

Backlog at U.S. Agency Complicates Immigrants' Lives
By Mary Beth Sheridan
The Washington Post

Yonas Haile is an American boy in every aspect but the one that counts. The gangly, 14-year-old student has grown up in Franconia playing basketball, tuning in to MTV and developing a taste for fried chicken. His father is a U.S. citizen, as are his three sisters.

But the Ethiopian-born teenager has no legal status, despite having submitted a voluminous application to become a permanent U.S. resident five years ago.

"We are very much worried," said his father, Aweke Haile, a Brooks Brothers salesman. Before long, he said, his son will want to get a driver's license, work and go to college -- but he lacks legal documents.

Yonas is one of millions of foreigners affected by a ballooning backlog in applications at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which has been struggling to incorporate a new system of anti-terrorism checks.

Even as President Bush presses for a giant new program for foreign workers, the current system is overwhelmed, according to immigration lawyers and workers. The backlog for such benefits as citizenship and green cards -- which allow foreigners to live and work in the United States indefinitely -- has grown about 60 percent in the past three years, to more than 6 million applications, according to a new GAO report.
 
Some question whether the immigration service can handle a sweeping new program.

"Over the last six to 12 months, we've crossed the line into crisis proportions," said Crystal Williams of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. "I've never seen backlogs to this extent."

Bush took office vowing to have every immigration application processed within six months of submission. And in fact, the immigration agency has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in an effort to reduce the delays. Nonetheless, processing time for many applications has grown -- in some cases to more than four years.

The main reason is the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The president's plan to slash the backlog "was just thrown out the door" as officials scrambled to increase security, said Russ Knocke, a spokesman for the immigration service, part of the Department of Homeland Security. Officials frantically ran extra checks on 3.2 million existing petitions, he said.

The immigration service then ordered that each new applicant be run twice through a database of lawbreakers, alleged terrorists and other potential undesirables, Knocke said. About 7 percent of the names on applications in the last fiscal year got "hits" requiring further investigation, and 2.3 percent were confirmed to be the people in the database, although the percentage with alleged ties to terrorism was "infinitesimal," he said.

"We obviously aren't happy about the backlog. But we aren't making any apologies. The commitment was, and continues to be, national security,"  Knocke said. He added that his agency has addressed those concerns sufficiently and is refocusing on cutting the backlog. In recent days, it has announced an increase in fees for immigration applications and requested a 60 percent increase in federal funds to attack the pile of petitions.

But immigration lawyers say the new security system continues to be unwieldy and slow. In addition, immigration officials are devoting extra scrutiny to the documents submitted with applications, for fear of inadvertently aiding a terrorist.

"What our members have seen is a tremendous spike in requests for additional information on the applications," said Williams, who added that much of it was redundant or unnecessary.

Mary Lynch, vice president of AFGE Local 2076, the union at the Vermont immigration processing center, which handles applications for a broad area including Washington, said staffing problems have added to the delays. The center is trying to add employees, but it often takes a year to get security clearances, she said.

"We don't have enough staff on board to do anything but keep our heads above water right now," she said. She added that security checks on applicants have resulted in a decline of about 50 percent in productivity.

The bureaucratic snarls can have painful consequences for immigrants, some of whom are in the United States and others abroad. Many already here are unable to leave the country while their documents are being processed. Young people might not be able to get into college without legal papers. In the worst cases, people can lose their jobs or be deported as they wait for
their green cards to come through.

Yonas has been lucky. He was placed in deportation proceedings years ago, but immigration officials have allowed him to stay because of his family situation.

"Still, we are nervous," said his father, a former businessman in Ethiopia, who accompanied his son to an interview in his lawyer's office. "There is no freedom unless you have the green card."

Like many immigrants, Yonas followed a long and tortuous path to residency. He arrived in 1989 in the arms of his mother, who sought asylum from Ethiopia's socialist government. She was denied, but because her older daughter was an American citizen, she was given permanent residency.

Yonas's father, who also got a green card, sponsored the boy in April 1999 for permanent residency, the first step toward citizenship. At the time, authorities said the application could take 21/2 years to process.

Nearly five years later, Yonas is still waiting.

In the past year, the average processing time for people who are sponsoring family members has doubled, to 51 months, according to the GAO report. Officials said that time period reflects the new security measures, some of which were implemented fully only recently.

The teenager's attorney, Alberto Benitez, argues that his client shouldn't have to wait so long. Because his father became a citizen in August, Yonas should be given higher priority, as normally happens with the children of Americans, the lawyer said.

"He's a 14-year-old boy. There's no reason for this to be delayed," said Benitez, who heads the immigration clinic run by George Washington University. But officials at the Vermont processing center have argued that it's too late to change the boy's petition, Benitez said.

Immigration officials say they don't bear all the blame for the glacial pace of processing. Knocke said about 500,000 applications have been slowed because immigrants were late in providing documents or failed tests and had to retake them. In addition to the processing delays, some foreigners must wait for years for their green cards because of annual caps set by Congress on how many immigrants each country can send.

But the immigration system is straining. It will have difficulty handling Bush's proposed new program without an infusion of personnel, according to immigration workers and lawyers. Administration officials have said the estimated 8 million illegal immigrants in the country could apply for temporary-worker visas under Bush's plan, which also would be open to foreigners coming to fill U.S. jobs. Some of those workers eventually could apply for green cards.

Lynch's union estimates that, with current staffing levels, it would take 10 years just to do the security checks on 8 million applicants. "Unless we have a better program for allocation of resources . . . it will sink us," she declared.

Knocke said the program would need adequate staffing. "That would have to be something that Congress takes into consideration" if it approves the new immigration plan, he said.

Even as the new program is debated, the backlog feeds on itself. Many immigrants awaiting green cards must apply annually for documents to work or to travel outside the country, increasing paperwork choking the system.

The Rev. Christopher Halliday is one of those caught in the paper chase. The Irish minister arrived at St. George's Episcopal Church in the Southern Maryland town of Valley Lee four years ago with a temporary religious worker's visa. He was promptly sponsored by the church, his employer, for permanent residence.

While waiting for his green card, Halliday has been able to get continued work authorization and annual permits to leave the country. But the latest travel permit for which he applied in October hasn't arrived.

"We can't move," he said, explaining that his old permit expired in January. He worries about not being able to visit his family in Ireland, including his 84-year-old mother-in-law and his brother-in-law, who had a stroke.

Halliday was dumbfounded when he learned recently why his travel papers were held up: The Vermont processing center has run low on the counterfeit-proof paper used for the documents.

"If this was somewhere in the middle of nowhere in the world, you might just about accept that was possible," he fumed. "But this is America."

[Back to Top]

IRS Announces Revisions to ITIN Applications


WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service today announced several steps to strengthen controls over the issuance of Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers. The changes will help ensure that ITINs are issued for their intended tax administration purpose for administering the tax code and not for other reasons, such as providing personal identification. In addition, the IRS is taking steps to help ensure that applicants can continue to obtain ITINs without undue burden.

Beginning today, new ITIN applicants must use a revised Form W-7, Individual Taxpayer Identification Number Application. ITIN applicants also must provide proof that the ITIN will be used for tax administration purposes. For applicants seeking an ITIN in order to file a tax return, the return must be filed along with the W-7.

“About one-quarter of the ITINs issued for tax return purposes never actually find their way onto a tax return,” said IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson. “The steps taken today ensure ITINs will be issued only to those seeking to comply with their tax obligations.”

Federal law requires individuals with U.S. income, regardless of immigration status, to pay U.S. taxes. The ITIN, a nine-digit number that begins with the number 9, was created for use on tax returns for those taxpayers who do not qualify for a Social Security Number. The IRS has issued 7 million ITINs since 1996.

However, some ITINs issued by the IRS do not appear in tax filings or tax reporting documents and may have been procured solely to serve as a form of identification. Earlier this year, the IRS issued letters to all governors and state motor vehicle departments advising that ITINs were not designed to serve as personal identification and would not be suitable for determining identification of applicants for driver’s licenses.

After a review of the ITIN program, the IRS will implement these changes effective immediately:

All new ITIN applicants will have to show a federal tax purpose for seeking the ITIN. For those seeking an ITIN to meet their income tax filing obligations, this will require attaching a federal tax return to the Form W-7 when they are ready to file their tax return with the IRS.

ITIN applications without proof of need for tax administration purposes will be rejected.

The IRS will reduce to 13 from 40 the number of documents it will accept as proof of identity to obtain an ITIN. The 13 acceptable documents are listed in the new Form W-7 instructions.

The IRS also will change the appearance of the ITIN from a card to an authorization letter to avoid any possible similarities with a Social Security Number card.

A small number of non-U.S. residents apply for an ITIN to report income under a tax treaty, and a small number of U.S. resident and non-resident applicants apply for an ITIN to report income from a U.S. bank or brokerage account. Neither type of applicant will be required to file a tax return along with their ITIN application. Non-resident applicants will be required to furnish evidence of their ownership of the asset that gave rise to the reporting obligation. Resident applicants will be required to furnish evidence of actual rather than intended ownership of the bank or brokerage account.

The IRS will continue to help individuals who seek ITINs comply with the tax laws. The IRS has found no indication of any differences in accuracy rates between tax returns filed with ITINs and tax returns filed with SSNs. The agency understands the need to continue to monitor challenges posed by ITINs, and will do so over the course of time.

The IRS will continue to review ways to improve Form W-7 and will conduct a public comment period until June 15, 2004. The IRS will be publishing an announcement in the Internal Revenue Bulletin that will ask for comments on the revised form and the application process. Internal Revenue Bulletin 2004-2, to be published on Jan. 12, 2004, will give instructions on when and how comments may be submitted.

Additional information is available at IRS.gov where English and Spanish versions of the Form W-7 are available. A list of frequently asked questions (FAQs) also is available.

Related Items:

ITIN Frequently Asked Questions
Form W-7, Application for IRS Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (PDF 100K)
Forma W-7, Solicitud de Número de Identificación Personal del Contribuyente del Servicio de Impuestos Internos (PDF 100K)

[Back to Top]