MRS > Migration Policy and Public Affair Office > Changing the 1996 Immigration Laws
Auxiliary Bishop of Miami
Member, Committee on Migration
National Conference of Catholic Bishops/
U.S. Catholic Conference
July 28, 1999
I am Bishop Thomas G. Wenski, Auxiliary Bishop of Miami, Florida, and member of the Committee on Migration of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. I am here today on behalf of the U.S. Catholic Bishops, who are deeply concerned about the impact recent changes in immigration law have had on individuals and families who have immigrated to the United States. My specific focus today is on the combined effect of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) and certain provisions of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996. These laws mandate the detention of certain immigrant populations and detention and deportation of non-citizens who are found guilty of criminal offenses while in the United States.
We acknowledge and recognize the right and duty of the government to provide for the public safety and welfare of its citizens. Certainly, this duty and obligation requires that certain dangerous individuals in removal proceedings should be held in detention pending a resolution of their proceedings rather than permitted to remain in the country at large.
But along with this duty should come an obligation to assess whether each individual in detention and/or deportation proceedings is actually a threat to the safety of our country. Human rights considerations, respect for basic dignity, and the practicalities of cost and efficiency mandate that individuals in proceedings who are not threats to the public safety should not be detained. Unfortunately, all too often, current law does not allow this balancing test to take place. In short, we believe the provisions enacted in 1996 went too far. Taken collectively, they:
- undermine basic human dignity and human rights;
- unnecessarily separate and divide families;
- violate fundamental notions of fairness and equal protection under the law, time-honored concepts upon which our nation was founded; and
- have created an artificial "crisis" in the capacity for detaining truly violent individuals.
Some might ask why the Catholic Church would have an interest in this issue. We are here today, in part, because of the numerous requests the Church receives from immigrant families each week to help loved ones who have languished in detention for several months and even years after having served a criminal sentence, or who are being deported because of a minor crime. Many families have resided in the United States for many years and built equities in their communities, paying taxes and otherwise contributing to the rich fabric of our nation. Their loved ones, either a father, brother, mother, or sister, have also resided in the United States for long periods of time and contributed to their communities. In our view, these persons should have their situation reviewed on a case-by-case basis and should not be subjected to a one-size-fits-all approach.
Let me share an experience we have had in Miami with our current immigration law. Several parents of long-term detainees recently held a hunger-strike in Miami to protest the detention of their adult children, who cannot be deported to their country of origin and are languishing indefinitely in prison. After 48 days of a hunger-strike which basically risked their parent's lives, and ongoing negotiations with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), our government finally agreed to review these cases. 5 of the 6 of the detainees were eventually determined not to be a threat to our society and were released. Why must parents go to such great lengths to attain a simple review of their children's cases? Why must families remain separated, especially when the incarcerated family member has served their sentence and is no threat to society?
In our view, current law is overly harsh in its treatment of non-citizens who have been found guilty of crimes after entering the United States. We have several areas of concern with regard to the due process and detention provisions of the 1996 immigration law and make the following recommendations:
- Repeal the mandatory detention provisions of the 1996 law and restore the pre-1996 rules to restore flexibility to the system;
- Give immigration judges the authority to grant release decisions to indefinite detainees. In the alternative, require INS to establish a centralized authority to review these cases and make release decisions.
- Require the release of asylum-seekers after they have established a credible fear of persecution, unless there exist exceptional and compelling reasons for detaining them.
- Repeal the retroactivity of the 1996 law as it applies to non-citizens who have committed crimes in the past; limit the definition of ‘aggravated felony' to pre-1996 law; restore 212(c) discretion to immigration judges in removal proceedings so that immigrants may at least present an application for a waiver of their deportation based on hardship and rehabilitation.
- Repeal expedited removal, which allows INS inspection officers to summarily remove asylum-seekers without review by an immigration judge.
As a nation trying to address new issues, we sometimes overreach. It is only human. However, with the benefit of hindsight and accumulated evidence, statesmanship demands that we revisit our laws and correct those things which are unjust. Immigrants who come to the United States are by and large law-abiding individuals who contribute to the economic and social strength of our nation. The 1996 laws spreads the misconception that all immigrants are to be considered suspect and feared. The U.S. Catholic bishops believe that the 1996 IIRIRA and AEDPA laws far exceed fundamental notions of fairness and due process, separates and destroys families, and undermines the human dignity and rights of the person. We respectfully ask our federal elected officials to reevaluate these laws and consider our recommendations for their reform.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.