[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 32 (Wednesday, March 6, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1233-S1234]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Chambliss, and Mr. Roberts):
  S. 478. A bill to clarify that the revocation of an alien's visa or 
other documentation is not subject to judicial review; to the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, back in 2003, the Government 
Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, issued a 
report that revealed that suspected terrorists could stay in the 
country after their visas had been revoked on grounds of terrorism 
because of a legal loophole in the wording of revocation papers. The 
GAO shed light on a serious problem in our visa policies that posed a 
threat to our national security. The GAO found that many individuals 
were granted visas, but later, the FBI and intelligence community 
suspected ties of terrorism. The FBI didn't share the derogatory 
information with our consular officers in

[[Page S1234]]

time. Consular officers had one tool at their disposal, and that was to 
revoke the visas. But, many of the individuals had made it to the 
United States.
  What the GAO found was that even though the visas were revoked, 
immigration officials couldn't do a thing about it because the 
revocation didn't go into effect until after the alien departed. They 
were handicapped from locating the visa holders and deporting them. 
Today, our immigration agents may not be able to locate the individual 
even if they could deport them.
  The GAO report opened our eyes and showed us how revocations were not 
being used effectively, and how terrorists could exploit a loophole to 
stay in the country. Since the GAO report was issued, I have attempted 
to plug this hole in the system. Today I am reintroducing a bill to 
give the Department of Homeland Security a critical tool that allows 
the Secretary to issue revocations and remove aliens from the United 
States without the hurdles they currently face.
  Let me elaborate. Under current law, visas approved or denied by 
consular officers abroad are non-reviewable. We give our consular 
officers great latitude to protect the country and make a determination 
if an applicant is eligible for admission into the United States. This 
is known as consular non-reviewability. In 1950, the U.S. Supreme 
Court, in Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, determined that ``it is 
not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by 
law, to review the determination of the political branch of the 
Government to exclude a given alien.''
  Justice Minton, in his decision, stated, ``At the outset we wish to 
point out that an alien who seeks admission to this country may not do 
so under any claim of right. Admission of aliens to the United States 
is a privilege granted by the sovereign United States Government. Such 
privilege is granted to an alien only upon such terms as the United 
States shall prescribe. It must be exercised in accordance with the 
procedure which the United States provides.''
  The doctrine of non-reviewability is a long-standing one that allows 
the Department of State to keep foreign nationals from entering the 
United States. But, the doctrine should be applied in instances when a 
person is granted a visa, enters in the country, and the Government 
subsequently revokes that visa.
  There are some national security implications at stake. The ability 
to deport an alien on U.S. soil with a revoked visa is nearly 
impossible today if the alien is given the opportunity to appeal the 
revocation. So, in effect, the State Department doesn't use their 
authority to revoke. In fact, I am told they aren't doing it at all 
when the alien, even a potential terrorist, is in the country. They 
need a change so that foreign nationals are not able to freely roam our 
communities when they shouldn't be here in the first place.
  Secretary Chertoff, former Secretary of the Department of Homeland 
Security agreed that the policy needed to be changed. When Secretary, 
he said,

       The fact is that we can prevent someone who's coming in as 
     a guest. We can say, ``You can't come in overseas,'' but once 
     they come in, if they abuse their terms and conditions of 
     their coming in, we have to go through a cumbersome process. 
     That strikes me as not particularly sensible. People who are 
     admitted as guests like guests in my house--if the guest 
     misbehaves, I just tell them to leave; they don't get to go 
     to court over it.

  What's more, allowing judicial review of revoked visas, especially on 
terrorism grounds, could jeopardize the classified intelligence that 
led to the revocation. It can force agencies such as the FBI and CIA to 
be hesitant to share information. Why would our intelligence community 
share information with the State Department if they knew State wouldn't 
revoke a visa when the alien is in the U.S.? Current law could be 
reversing our progress on information sharing. Intelligence officials 
need to share information with immigration and consular officers to 
prevent terrorists from entering the United States and to impede their 
mobility.
  My bill would give the U.S. Government the ability to expedite the 
deportation of suspected terrorists by applying the same ``non-
reviewability'' standard for revocation decisions. It would treat 
revocations similar to visa denials. My bill gives the Federal 
Government the ability to deport an alien who has already entered the 
United States but shouldn't have ever been granted a visa.
  Terrorists took advantage of our system before 9/11. We can't let 
that happen again. We should not allow potential terrorists and others 
who act counter to our laws to remain on U.S. soil and run to the 
courts and seek relief from deportation. We need to ensure that the 
government has all the tools at its disposal to keep the homeland safe.
  I urge my colleagues to support my bill.
                                 ______