March 18, 2000
ABROAD AT HOME / By ANTHONY
LEWIS
'Cases That Cry Out'
Related Articles
Op-Ed
Columns Archive
Forum
Join a
Discussion on Anthony Lewis
epresentative
Lamar Smith, Republican of Texas, is a principal author of the 1996
Immigration Act. He acknowledges now that it has had some unduly harsh
consequences, as in the case of the woman targeted for deportation
because she was convicted of pulling another woman's hair. But he
would like officials to handle those cases administratively rather
than have Congress amend the act.
"I think hardship cases are in the hundreds, not the thousands,"
Mr. Smith said when we talked the other day. "But I know they are
there, and I don't think those individuals should be deported."
The 1996 act calls for the deportation of aliens here legally as
permanent residents if they have committed any of a long list of
crimes, even before the act was passed. People who were brought here
as infants and have lived here for 20 years or more have suddenly
found themselves deported to a country they do not know.
Representative Smith suggested two ways for the government to stop
deportations that, though required by the statute, would be inhumane.
First, he called for the Immigration and Naturalization Service to
exercise prosecutorial discretion in hardship cases. That is,
immigration officials would simply decline to proceed with a
deportation case.
Over the last several months the I.N.S. has been drafting
guidelines for the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Officials
said they should be issued soon.
But the I.N.S. argues that it would be far better to have
immigration judges formally lift deportation orders after a hearing,
as was done before 1996. They warn that merely exercising
prosecutorial discretion would leave the alien in a legal limbo, still
technically deportable and perhaps barred from re-entering the country
if she goes abroad.
Asked about that, Mr. Smith said the I.N.S. could deal with the
problem by flagging on its computers the name of anyone for whom
discretion had been exercised. Then officials at the border would know
not to touch that person.
Second, Mr. Smith proposed that the attorney general use a
provision of immigration law that allows her to "parole" aliens into
the country for "urgent humanitarian reasons." Parole, he argued,
could be used to prevent deportation as well as to allow entry. He
wrote Attorney General Janet Reno about that idea on March 1.
"The Justice Department or I.N.S. could assign one staff member to
look at these cases for parole," Mr. Smith said. "He could probably
handle 10 cases a day."
I was struck by how Representative Smith wanted officials to apply
the law in an expansive way. In some cases I.N.S. officials have used
the law relentlessly, insisting on the deportation of individuals for
minor infractions.
"The government can always do what it wants to do in hardship
cases," the Congressman said. "We should not let the letter of the law
get in the way of the spirit."
Public attention to harsh consequences of the 1996 act has been
growing. Newspapers and broadcasters around the country have told the
stories of people caught up in the deportation provisions for minor
misdeeds committed long ago. As a result, members of Congress have
introduced a number of bills to amend the statute.
One bill, H.R. 1485, has 76 co-sponsors. It would provide a hearing
for aliens to seek relief from deportation if they were convicted of
crimes but sentenced to less than five years in prison.
Mr. Smith, who is chairman of the House Immigration Subcommittee,
said he would not move on that bill until he heard from Attorney
General Reno on his parole idea. He is hesitant to amend the 1996 act,
he said, because loopholes might be created that let criminal aliens
"stall deportation indefinitely."
"I acknowledge that there are humanitarian cases," he said. "I
don't want to see them treated harshly. But I would handle them on a
case-by-case basis."
He also said that a large number of "hardened criminal" aliens were
"still slipping through the cracks" and not being deported. "Why not
use your resources on them?" he asked. "Why are they spending their
time on cases that cry out for compassion? They'll never be able to
persuade me that they can't do that."
