[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 30, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E810-E811]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 INDEFINITE DETENTION OF ASYLUM SEEKERS

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, April 29, 2003

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, many things have changed since 
the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on our country.
  But one thing that has not changed is the importance of respecting 
the Constitution and its limits on the powers of the national 
government.
  That is the point of a recent editorial in the Rocky Mountain News 
concerning the Attorney General's assertion of authority to 
indefinitely detain people seeking asylum in America, regardless of the 
rulings of the courts.
  I am also troubled by the Attorney General's actions, and I share the 
editorial's view that ``The government has every right to deport 
illegal immigrants, but if it's going to detain them for any lengthy 
period, it has to accord them certain rights.
  For the benefit of our colleagues, here is the full text of the 
editorial:

             [From the Rocky Mountain News, April 29, 2003]

                   U.S. Can't Just Throw Away The Key

       Attorney General John Ashcroft has given himself the power 
     to lock up indefinitely, without hearings, whole classes of 
     illegal immigrants even if he does not deem them individually 
     to be a threat to national security.
       The decisions about which illegal aliens should be locked 
     up properly belong to the immigration courts, and certainly 
     should not be made on a wholesale basis.
       In asserting this new power, Ashcroft overrode an appeals 
     panel of immigration judges that had upheld a lower court 
     decision granting bond to an 18-year-old Haitian who entered 
     the country illegally last fall. Ashcroft said he wasn't 
     trying to block the right to seek asylum, only to deter 
     ``unlawful and dangerous mass migrations by sea.'' While the 
     intent may be laudable, it's a

[[Page E811]]

     stretch to label it a matter of national security--even if 
     Ashcroft is right in describing Haiti as a staging ground for 
     some Muslim immigrants from the Mideast who are trying to get 
     into the United States.
       The Constitution says no person shall be deprived of life, 
     liberty or property without due process of law. It doesn't 
     make exceptions for noncitizens or people without the proper 
     paperwork. Our protections for civil liberties are one of the 
     reasons refugees are drawn to this country.
       Some argue that the Founding Fathers never anticipated the 
     war on terrorism and such issues as illegal immigration. 
     Maybe so, but they had a lot of experience with arbitrary use 
     of government authority. The government has every right to 
     deport illegal immigrants, but if it's going to detain them 
     for any lengthy period, it has to accord them certain rights.

                          ____________________