From the Chair
By Michael S. Greco
America was created by immigrants. We are all indebted to them for the democracy that we cherish, for the richness of a society that blends cultures from around the world, and, perhaps most important, for a system of laws that protects our most fundamental rights. How ironic it is, then, that the rights of today's immigrants to the United States are under siege and that today's political leaders and others, many of whom are descended from immigrants, labor to limit and even eliminate due process rights that originated with their immigrant ancestors. This issue of Human Rights looks at the deplorable condition of immigrants' rights in twenty-first century America and what needs to be done to correct it.
For more than twenty years, the Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities has been at the forefront of ABA action on behalf of immigrants and immigrants' rights. In 1982, IRR proposed ABA policies endorsing the principles that all persons should have the right to full and effective assistance of counsel of their choice in proceedings related to their expulsion from the U.S.; that all persons subject to administrative orders of exclusion or deportation or to denial of asylum claims should have the right to appeal to an independent administrative body; and that persons subject to deportation, exclusion, or asylum proceedings should have specific, enumerated rights.
In 1983, the ABA adopted a series of policies proposed by IRR and other groups to address these and other concerns. The policies called for the ABA to oppose legislation that would:
- restrict judicial review or limit adjustment of status in immigration or naturalization cases;
- limit rights, including rights to administrative appeals, of persons subject to exclusion, deportation, and asylum proceedings;
- grant the executive branch overly broad powers, including the power to restrict rights to travel and to seek judicial review in any declaration of an immigration emergency;
- authorize state and local police to exercise the powers of immigration officials or enforce federal immigration law; and
- establish employer sanctions as an immigration control measure or limit immigrants' or naturalized citizens' ability to appeal denial of labor certificates or access to equitable remedies for employment grievances.
In 1988, IRR and the ABA Young Lawyers Division first raised the issue of language rights protection; in 1997, the ABA approved a statement of principle that federal, state, territorial, and local governments should permit the use of languages in addition to English to improve communication with government, promote understanding of duties and responsibilities under the law, and provide access to the justice system. Most recently, IRR joined with other ABA entities and national minority bars in opposing any diminution of legal permanent residents' rights to contribute to political campaigns in the same way that the law permits other citizens to contribute.
Since the 1980s, as immigration has increased and political opposition to immigrants' rights has risen, ABA policies advocated by IRR have been essential to the ABA's ability to fight for these rights in the courts and in Congress.
In 1996, the ABA was a leader in opposing changes of unprecedented scope in federal immigration laws in the 104th Congress. The ABA's Coordinating Committee on Immigration Law (Coordinating Committee), which IRR helped establish in the 1980s, marshaled ABA leaders and members to speak out against proposals to restrict or end the due process rights necessary for immigrants to receive fair treatment in asylum, deportation, detention, and status proceedings.
Despite all efforts, new federal immigration laws were enacted in 1996, and the lives of immigrants, applicants, asylum seekers, and detainees were profoundly affected virtually overnight. More significantly, the changes had an immediate and detrimental impact on the families of these individuals, particularly children, whose own status and well-being in the U.S. were bound inextricably to their parents', even if the children themselves were born or adopted in the U.S. Limits on judicial review and other practices that the ABA opposed in the 1980s now were federal law. The legislation also included disturbing measures, among others, to create a special court to receive secret evidence against aliens in deportation proceedings, impose new and onerous financial obligations on immigrants' sponsors, and restrict legal immigrants' and refugees' access to public benefits.
Both the 105th and 106th Congress, recognizing that some of the 1996 provisions were simply wrong or unworkable, enacted some important, though modest, reforms in the law. But much remains to be done. Four cases affecting immigrants' rights are awaiting decision in the U.S. Supreme Court this term. A new administration and a new Congress have just begun their work, and their agendas are not yet known.
The role of the ABA and IRR, however, is clear: to continue to advocate for basic human rights and due process protections for all individuals in this country. In December, past IRR Section Chair and current ABA President Martha W. Barnett testified before the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights to address the plight of mandatorily detained adults and children "who come to our country seeking freedom, justice, and a better way of life" and find themselves instead "deprived of liberty with inadequate access to legal assistance, summarily deported, and barred from appealing to the courts." The IRR Section and the ABA Coordinating Committee proposed policies considered by the ABA House of Delegates at the ABA's 2001 Midyear Meeting in San Diego in February, that address use of secret evidence, gender persecution, and other fundamental concerns. The IRR Section's Task Force on Immigration soon will issue its recommendations for further Section action. American Bar Association and IRR advocacy will continue in Congress and the courts to provide greater assurance of fairness and due process in all matters affecting immigrants and refugees.
This issue of Human Rights provides a comprehensive look by experts at the status of current immigration law and policy as of January 2001. It is a disturbing portrait. I hope that you will read each article with care, and that you will be moved to work with IRR to change what is wrong and do what is right for immigrants in America.
