October 6, 2004 Letter to Senators Warner and Allen
PO Box 8208
Alexandria, VA 22306-8208
October 6, 2004
The Honorable John William Warner
United States Senate
225 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-4601
The Honorable George F. Allen
United States Senate
204 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-4604
Dear Senators Warner and Allen:
As part of the debate on S. 2845 (the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004), several amendments could be considered that would have dire consequences for civil liberties generally and the rights of immigrants in particular. These controversial measures go far beyond the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations, would have dire negative consequences, and should not be considered in the context of this national intelligence reform bill. I strongly urge you to oppose each of the following measures if they come up for a vote.
1. Senator Kyl (R-AZ) has offered a number of amendments that would undermine civil liberties and the rights of immigrants. Two amendments are of particular concern. The first amendment (Kyl #3801) would gut one of the key recommendations of the 9/11 Commission’s report: the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board and related officials. These provisions are critical to the protection of privacy and civil liberties given the consolidation of government power contemplated by this bill and must be retained in full. The Kyl Amendment would make the Board an ineffective protector of civil liberties.
The second objectionable amendment from Senator Kyl is a PATRIOT II-type amendment (Kyl #3724). The 9/11 Commission specifically recommended that PATRIOT Act powers not be reauthorized or expanded absent a clear showing by the executive branch that the powers materially enhance security and that civil liberties concerns created by the powers are adequately addressed.
2. Senators Sessions (R-AL), Cornyn (R-TX), Miller (D-GA), and Ensign (R-NV) have offered a CLEAR Act-type amendment (Sessions #3871). This measure seeks to deputize local law enforcement as immigration agents, a terrifying prospect for immigrant communities. This measure goes far beyond the 9/11 Commission recommendations and would serve to undermine rather than further the security of our communities and nation.
3. Senator Schumer (D-NY) has offered an amendment (Schumer # 3892) that would impose unrealistic biometric requirements on both U.S.-issued visas and foreign-issued travel documents. These measures would undo the considerable progress already made to improve the security of travel documents and would impose unachievable deadlines that would not enhance our security but would instead lead to delays and confusion in the international community.
4. Senator Grassley (R-IA) has offered an amendment (Grassley # 3850) that would make the revocation of a visa a ground for removal. Moreover, the Grassley measure would prohibit administrative and judicial review of such a revocation. As such, a visa could be revoked based on false information (or other errors) and the visa holder would be removable from the U.S. without any opportunity to challenge the basis for the removal. This assault on meaningful review of a decision that may completely upend the life of a foreign national who has lawfully entered this country contravenes basic tenets of due process.
5. Senator Cornyn (R-TX) has offered an amendment (Cornyn # 3803) expanding the consequences for human smuggling. Everyone supports increased efforts to stop professional smugglers who, for financial gain, inhumanely subject desperate immigrants to horrific and dangerous conditions. However, current immigration law does not go far enough in making a distinction between the abhorrent business of trafficking in human cargo and that of loved ones seeking family reunification. This amendment will only exacerbate the flawed trafficking provisions contained in our immigration laws. As such, I urge opposition to measures that increase the penalties for violation of immigrant smuggling laws without narrowing the definition of immigrant smuggling to include only those instances where the primary motivation is financial gain.
Sincerely,
James Landrith