[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 114 (Thursday, August 5, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10470-S10471]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. REID:
  S. 1552. A bill to eliminate the limitation on judicial jurisdiction 
imposed by section 377 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


                 Legal Amnesty Restoration Act of 1999

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Legal Amnesty 
Restoration Act of 1999.
  This legislation would repeal the limitation on judicial jurisdiction 
imposed by an obscure, but very lethal provision of the Illegal 
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. Tucked 
into that massive piece of legislation was a provision, Section 377, 
which, in effect, stripped the Federal courts of jurisdiction to 
adjudicate legalization claims against the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service. Through this limitation, Section 377 has caused 
significant hardships, and denied due process and fundamental fairness, 
for hundreds of thousands of hard working immigrants, including several 
thousand in my home State of Nevada.
  As a direct result of the 1996 legislation, the Ninth Circuit Court 
of Appeals, with its hands tied by the 377 language, issued a series of 
rulings in which it dismissed the claims of class members and revoked 
thousands of work permits and stays from deportation. In Nevada alone, 
up to 18,000 people had been affected. Good, hard-working people who 
have been in the United States and paying taxes for more than ten 
years, suddenly lost their jobs and the ability to support their 
families.
  I say to my colleagues that I have met with many of these people on 
several occasions, and I have been, firsthand, the pain that this cruel 
process had caused. Men and women who once knew the dignity of a 
decent, legal wage have been forced to seek work underground in the 
effort to make ends meet. Families who lived in homes have been 
disrupted by an inability to pay the mortgage. Parents who had 
fulfilled dreams of sending their children to college have seen those 
dreams turn into nightmares. Children who know that something is 
desperately wrong by the simple fact that Mom and Dad have not been 
working for almost a year.
  Mr. President, allow me to add a brief history of what has caused 
these most unfortunate consequences. During the 99th Congress, we 
passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. This law 
provided a one-time opportunity for certain aliens already in the 
United States who met specific criteria to legalize their status. In 
order to do so, these aliens had to show that they had resided 
continuously in the United States since January 1, 1982.
  The statute established a one-year period from May of 1987 to May of 
1988, during which the INS was directed to accept and adjudicate 
applications from persons who wished to legalize their status. In 
implementing the congressionally-mandated legislation program, however, 
the INS created new criteria and a number of eligibility rules that 
were nowhere to be found in the 1986 legislation. The result was that 
thousands of persons who were in fact eligible for legalization were 
told they were ineligible or were blocked from filing legislation 
applications.
  Several class-action lawsuits were initiated, and several federal 
district courts entered interim relief orders blocking deportations 
while the additional INS restrictions were debated in the courts. These 
orders also typically required the INS to grant class members temporary 
employment authorization pending a final resolution of the legal cases. 
However, by the time the Supreme Court ruled in 1993 that the INS had 
indeed contravened the 1986 legislation, the one-year period for 
applying for legalization had obviously passed.
  The Court, therefore, divided these people into three different 
classes for the purposes of determining their standing to sue for the 
opportunity to submit a legalization application. These Classes are 
summarized as follows:
  Class I: Class members who actually attempted to file applications 
with the Immigration and Naturalization Service, but were physically 
prevented from doing so. This policy has led to the term ``front-
desked'' class members.
  Class II: Class members who did not actually attempt to file an 
application, but for whom the INS's ``front-desking'' policy was a 
``substantial cause'' for their failure to apply.
  Class III: Class members who were discouraged from even visiting an 
INS office because of the INS's very publicized effort at misinforming 
them that they were ineligible and should not even apply.
  While conceding that it had unlawfully narrowed eligibility for 
legalization, the INS was clearly dissatisfied with the Supreme Court 
decision. Consequently, the agency employed a different, much more 
clever approach. Rather than affording the people within these classes 
due process of law, the INS succeeded in slipping an obscure amendment 
into the massive 1996 Illegal Immigrant Reform and Responsibility Act 
which, in effect, stripped the federal courts of their jurisdiction 
over the claims of Class II and Class III

[[Page S10471]]

members. That provision was Section 377, and is now, unfortunately, the 
law of the land.
  Mr. President, as I stated earlier, my legislation would repeal 
Section 377 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act of 
1996. This course of action would allow the courts, including those 
with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals where Nevada is situated, to 
reinstate the work permits which were revoked effective September 30, 
1998. The restoration of these work permits is critical, for it would 
allow those immigrants who satisfy the specified criteria to 
financially support themselves and their families through legal 
employment while they seek legalized status.
  In order to ensure that the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
implements the legalization program mandated by the Congress in 1986, 
my legislation would change the date of registry from 1973 to 1984. 
Those immigrants who were wrongfully denied the opportunity to legalize 
their status will finally be afforded that which they deserved thirteen 
years ago. Ironically, it was also during 1986 that the Congress last 
changed the date of registry.
  Making this change, quite simply, just makes sense. We changed the 
date in 1986 because we recognized that undocumented immigrants who had 
been in the United States continuously for more than fifteen years were 
highly unlikely to leave. Furthermore, illegal, undocumented immigrants 
do not pay their fair share of taxes. This was precisely the rationale 
considered by the 99th Congress when it debated and passed the 
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986; legislation intentionally 
circumvented by the INS.
  Finally, Mr. President, my legislation would extend the date of 
registry through 1990 for a narrow class of persons who have been 
subjected to fraudulent or illegal activity on the part of INS 
officials or employees. This aspect of my bill is very important to the 
immigrant community in Nevada as several local INS officials have been 
convicted, indicted and/or accused of illegal activity in the process 
of granting or denying benefits to immigrants.
  Mr. President, I don't pretend that my legislation will solve all the 
problems of our immigration and legalization procedures. However, there 
comes a time when a strong, moral government of the people must make 
every effort to correct the mistakes of the past. My legislation simply 
recognizes that the United States government, through the Immigration 
and Naturalization Services, made some serious errors which, in the 
name of due process and fundamental fairness, must be remedied.
                                 ______