[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 143 (Wednesday, October 22, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10937-S10938]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     INS PURSUIT OF CRIMINAL ALIENS

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like today to speak briefly about 
an issue that pertains in large measure to the Subcommittee on 
Immigration, which I chair.
  In the last several months, a number of incidents have come to our 
attention involving the pursuit by the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service of aliens, sometimes legal immigrants with American citizen 
spouses and children, for deportation based on one crime committed 
years ago. These crimes have on occasion been crimes like forgery, and 
some individuals have apparently been pursued where they did not even 
have a conviction.
  I would like to make a few brief remarks on this because I, along 
with Republicans and Democrats, made efforts last Congress through the 
illegal immigration bill to improve the INS' poor record of removing 
deportable criminal aliens.
  Our goal was to deport convicted criminal aliens starting with the 
thousands currently serving in our jails and prisons. I believe that 
law-abiding people, not hardened criminals, should be filling our 
priceless immigration slots. Yet, until last year's bill, only a tiny 
percentage of deportable criminal aliens were actually being deported.
  This happened because of a number of weaknesses in the immigration 
enforcement system. First, there were only very limited efforts to 
identify deportable criminal aliens, particularly in our State and 
local prison systems. This meant that the INS was not even learning 
about the vast majority of deportable criminal aliens.
  Second, where deportable criminal aliens were identified and where 
deportation proceedings were begun, those aliens were frequently 
released into the community and, not surprisingly, were never heard 
from again.
  Finally, in those rare instances in which deportation proceedings 
were begun and criminal aliens were detained, they were able to take 
advantage of delaying tactics and loopholes in our immigration law to 
significantly increase their chances of staying in the country or, at a 
minimum, lengthening their stays. In addition, the INS was often 
limited in its ability to remove criminal aliens due to the definition 
of deportable crimes under the old laws. Given the reality of the plea 
bargaining process, we wanted to broaden INS's ability to deport 
serious criminals who should be deported where they might have pled 
down to a lesser offense.

  We took steps to address each of these flaws in the system. We 
increased INS's resources so they could identify deportable criminal 
aliens. We enhanced detention requirements to reduce the risk of 
flight. We removed criminals' abilities to delay deportation, and we 
closed loopholes in our immigration laws. We also increased the number 
of crimes for which criminal aliens could be deported, both to reflect 
the realities of our criminal justice system and to enhance the INS's 
abilities to go after hardcore criminals who should not be permitted to 
remain in the country.
  Through all of this, we had assumed that the INS would focus their 
limited resources and manpower on deporting more serious criminals who 
had more recently committed crimes, especially those currently in 
prison. However, either because of an inability to set priorities, 
difficulty in interrelating the many different sections of the new 
immigration bill, or a combination of both, the INS seems to be 
pursuing some seemingly minor cases aggressively--by even, we are told, 
combing closed municipal court cases and old probation records--while 
letting some hardened criminals in jail go free.
  Accordingly, I will be conducting investigative hearings of the 
Immigration Subcommittee to determine why this is happening and what is 
needed to clearly establish the right priorities. This particularly 
concerns me given the INS's continuing inability to detain and process 
deportable criminal aliens despite all the enhanced enforcement 
authority we gave them in last year's immigration bill.
  Let me speak for a moment about a report issued just last month by 
the inspector general of the Department of Justice, which provides just 
one example of the troubling concerns about the INS's handling of 
criminal aliens. The inspector general's report dealt only with the 
Krome detention facility in Miami, which has attracted a great deal of 
attention and which ought to be one of the better run detention 
facilities at this point. While the IG's report covered a wide range of 
issues at that facility, what he found with respect to the release of 
criminal aliens is quite disturbing.
  For example, the inspector general found that from a sample of 28 
criminal aliens released into the community in June of 1997, 9 of the 
28 had ``known criminal records or indications of potential serious 
criminal history'' and 4 of the 28 had ``insufficient evidence in the 
files to indicate a criminal history check was even performed before 
release,'' something the INS's written policies require.
  Here are some of those aliens that INS released:
  A criminal alien who was convicted in 1994 of conspiracy to commit 
aggravated child abuse and third-degree murder in connection with the 
killing of a 5-year-old child. She had committed bank fraud in 1982, 
and her INS file clearly indicated that she had been convicted of an 
aggravated felony. She was released by the INS this past June without 
deportation proceedings being initiated.
  Another alien was convicted in 1988 of cocaine trafficking, an 
aggravated felony, and was imprisoned in Florida. In 1994 the alien was 
processed by the INS and released on his own recognizance. Deportation 
proceedings were never completed. Although the INS served him with a 
warrant for arrest in June of 1997, they released him on bond the next 
day.
  Yet another alien had several convictions in 1992 related to drugs, 
tax evasion and engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise. In 1982 
the alien had entered the country without proper documentation and was 
placed into exclusion proceedings but was not detained. He only came to 
the INS's attention again after the 1992 convictions. As a result of 
those convictions, he was initially sentenced to 12 years in Federal 
prison, which was later reduced to 88 months. In June of 1997 he was 
taken into custody by the INS upon his release from Federal prison. 
Unfortunately, once again the INS just let him go. He was released the 
same month.

  These are just a few examples, but they highlight the urgent need for 
oversight into the identification and removal of deportable criminal 
aliens. We simply must ensure that our immigration priorities are set 
properly so we can guarantee that dangerous and deportable criminal 
aliens are not permitted to remain on our streets and in our 
communities.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Immigration 
Subcommittee to address these issues.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). The Chair recognizes the 
distinguished Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, Senator Byrd from West Virginia had, 
through a unanimous consent request, reserved time for himself and for 
two other authors of a major amendment to the transportation bill to 
speak.
  In the interim, Senator Breaux, I think, was scheduled to speak for 7 
minutes. Senator Breaux is not here. So, rather than hold up the 
Senate, what I would like to do is to go ahead and speak out of order, 
and I ask unanimous consent to be able to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S10938]]



                          ____________________