ABA Calls for Overhaul of Immigration

February 14, 2006 Volume: 152 Issue: 31

ABA calls for overhaul of immigration,

By Patricia Manson, Law Bulletin staff writer

Meeting in the hometown of one of the immigration courts’ harshest critics, American Bar Association delegates have called for far-reaching changes in the way the United States treats foreign nationals within its borders.

The ABA’s policy-making House of Delegates on Monday approved a package of resolutions supporting a comprehensive overhaul of the U.S. immigration system.

Delegates took up the proposals shortly after hearing ABA President Michael S. Greco of Boston, himself an immigrant from Italy, call for the nation to extend justice to all newcomers.

Kicking off the debate, Robert J. Grey Jr. of Richmond, Va., told delegates that a nation is judged by the way it treats its least powerful inhabitants.

”The United States has long been a beacon for freedom and liberty throughout the world,” said Grey, the ABA’s immediate past president. ”If we are to maintain that posture in this global society, our immigration system needs to be a model for the entire world.”

The resolutions were submitted by the ABA Commission on Immigration.

They included one supporting the right to counsel in deportation proceedings and another opposing the detention of individuals involved in such proceedings absent a finding that they constitute a flight risk or a threat to public safety or national security.

Delegates also adopted a resolution urging the government to make it easier for refugees and asylum seekers to obtain protection in the United States.

The House in another resolution supported processes that would allow victims of rape, torture, human trafficking and other crimes to seek lawful immigration status and public benefits.

Delegates also called for immigration reform promoting national security while creating legal avenues for the admission of workers needed in the country.

In another resolution, delegates supported a fair and efficient system of administering immigration laws ”that has sufficient resources to carry out its functions in a timely manner.”

Delegates also called for the protection of the due process rights of individuals when their immigration applications are being considered and when their cases are being heard by the Immigration Court or the Board of Immigration Appeals.

And delegates urged that immigration judges be free from the control of any cabinet-level official in the executive branch of the U.S. government.

The ABA House of Delegates is not alone in calling for changes in the way the executive branch handles cases involving asylum seekers and other immigrants.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals over the past few years has displayed increasing impatience with the adjudication of cases by the Immigration Court and the BIA as well as the defense of BIA rulings by the U.S. Justice Department’s Office of Immigration Litigation.

For example, the Chicago-based 7th Circuit in December in Klodiana Pasha v. Alberto R. Gonzales, No. 04-4166, said the performance of those executive-branch agencies ”is too often inadequate.”

At the ABA meeting, the House also called for a halt to what one delegate said was essentially the automatic deportation of non-citizens convicted of a crime.

Delegates urged Congress to return to state and federal judges the authority to recommend that such an individual not be deported if the judge believes removal is not warranted.

And delegates called on governments on the state, territorial and federal levels to use the pardon power to provide relief in appropriate cases to non-citizens facing deportation.

Susan Gaertner, the district attorney in St. Paul, Minn., said removal is not always the right step when an individual is found guilty of a low-level crime.

”As district attorney, my responsibility is to seek justice,” Gaertner said. ”And to divide families, sever community ties and deport someone who has committed a very minor offense is not justice.”

Delegates approved the resolutions on the final day of the ABA’s midyear meeting.

Resolutions do not become ABA policy unless they are adopted by delegates. Some resolutions are amended before they are put to a final vote on the floor of the House.

KJ