SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
64–398
2000
ADOPTED ORPHANS CITIZENSHIP ACT AND ANTI-ATROCITY ALIEN DEPORTATION ACT
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
IMMIGRATION AND CLAIMS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 2883 and H.R. 3058
FEBRUARY 17, 2000
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Serial No. 53
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin
BILL McCOLLUM, Florida
GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
BOB BARR, Georgia
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
JAMES E. ROGAN, California
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
MARY BONO, California
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
JERROLD NADLER, New York
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
ZOE LOFGREN, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
MAXINE WATERS, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., General Counsel-Chief of Staff
JULIAN EPSTEIN, Minority Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chairman
BILL McCOLLUM, Florida
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
ZOE LOFGREN, California
BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
GEORGE FISHMAN, Chief Counsel
JIM WILON, Counsel
LAURA BAXTER, Counsel
CINDY BLACKSTON, Professional Staff
LEON BUCK, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
HEARING DATE
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
February 17, 2000
TEXT OF BILL
H.R. 2883
H.R. 3058
OPENING STATEMENT
Smith, Hon. Lamar, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims
WITNESSES
Betancourt, Edward A., Director, Office of Policy Review and Interagency Liaison, Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State
Castello, James, Associate Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice
Cox, Susan Soon-Keum, vice president, Public Policy and External Affairs, Holt International Children's Services
Evans, Maureen, executive director, Joint Council on International Children's Services
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Foley, Hon. Mark, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida
Krieger, Richard, president, International Educational Missions, Inc.
Ratliff, Gerri, Director, Business Process & Re-Engineering Services and Acting Director, Office of Congressional Relations, Immigration and Naturalization Service
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Betancourt, Edward A., Director, Office of Policy Review and Interagency Liaison, Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State: Prepared statement
Castello, James, Associate Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice: Prepared statement
Cox, Susan Soon-Keum, vice president, Public Policy and External Affairs, Holt International Children's Services: Prepared statement
Evans, Maureen, executive director, Joint Council on International Children's Services: Prepared statement
Foley, Hon. Mark, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida: Prepared statement
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Krieger, Richard, president, International Educational Missions, Inc.: Prepared statement
Ratliff, Gerri, Director, Business Process & Re-Engineering Services and Acting Director, Office of Congressional Relations, Immigration and Naturalization Service: Prepared statement
Smith, Hon. Lamar, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims: Prepared statement
ADOPTED ORPHANS CITIZENSHIP ACT AND ANTI-ATROCITY ALIEN DEPORTATION ACT
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2000
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Immigration
and Claims,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:35 a.m., in room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Lamar Smith and Edward A. Pease.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Staff present: George Fishman, chief counsel; Jim Wilon, counsel; Bill Griffith, Pearson fellow; Kelly Dixon, clerk; Leon Buck, minority counsel; and Nolan Rappaport, counsel.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SMITH
Mr. SMITH. The Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims will come to order.
I have several thanks to issue before we begin. One is to Congressman Ed Pease of Indiana to my right. Were it not for his presence, we wouldn't be able to have this hearing today, because two members' presence is required. So a special thanks to Ed Pease who, along with Congressman Mark Foley who will be testifying on the first panel, are probably the last two Members of Congress in town. We appreciate their presence.
I am tempted to ask, because we have a fair amount of interest this morning: How many people are here because there is nothing else going on? [Laughter.]
Mr. SMITH. And how many people here are interested in the first bill and how many in the second bill—more in the second than the first.
We will proceed, and because we are not going to be interrupted by votes or anything else, I hope we will be able to proceed directly through the hearing and be finished within a hour or thereabouts. I have the only opening statement today and then we will proceed with our witnesses.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This morning we will hear testimony on two bills, H.R. 2883, the Adopted Orphans Citizenship Act and H.R. 3058, the Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act.
Regarding the issue of citizenship for adopted children, the Immigration and Nationality Act currently provides a mechanism for granting U.S. citizenship to the children of American citizens who were born outside the United States, including children adopted by American citizens.
Many adoptive parents would like to see a more streamlined process for naturalizing the adopted children of U.S. citizens born outside of the U.S. They point to several problems with the current law. One, the process is redundant. Although U.S. citizen parents submit numerous documents to the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Department of State in connection with the child's immigrant visa application, they must resubmit many of the same documents again in connection with the child's citizenship application.
Two, the process takes too long. Parents should be able to complete the process within a few weeks or months. However, lengthy backlogs at the INS have caused the process to take a year or longer in some instances. In cases involving children who are approaching their 18th birthday, the delay could result in some children losing the opportunity to acquire citizenship under provisions of the law.
Three, the process is dependent and unnecessarily so, upon the parent acting on behalf of the child. While most U.S. citizen parents try to ensure their foreign-born children acquire citizenship before reaching the age of 18, some fail to take the necessary action required under current law. In such instances, the children, through no fault of their own, find themselves disadvantaged because they are not citizens.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
H.R. 2883 would amend the current law regarding the acquisition of citizenship by the adopted children of U.S. citizen parents. The bill would automatically extend citizenship to the adopted alien child of a U.S. citizen in the following circumstances:
The adopted person must be unmarried and under the age of 18. The person must be physically present in the United States, be admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident, and have met the requirements for the admission of an adopted child to a U.S. citizen. The person must seek documentation as a United States citizen under the age of 18.
Today, we will hear from witnesses from the Departments of Justice and State regarding H.R. 2883. We will also hear from representatives of the adoption community.
[The bill, H.R. 2883, follows:]
106TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 2883
To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to confer United States citizenship automatically and retroactively on certain foreign-born children adopted by citizens of the United States.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
Mr. SMITH of Texas (for himself, Mr. LAHOOD, Mr. PAUL, Mr. NETHERCUTT, Mr. KUYKENDALL, and Mr. SHAYS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A BILL
To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to confer United States citizenship automatically and retroactively on certain foreign-born children adopted by citizens of the United States.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ''Adopted Orphans Citizenship Act''.
SEC. 2. ACQUISITION OF UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP BY CERTAIN ADOPTED CHILDREN.
(a) AMENDMENTS TO THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.—Section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401) is amended—
(1) by striking ''and'' at the end of subsection (g);
(2) by striking the period at the end of subsection (h) and inserting ''; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
''(i) an unmarried person, under the age of 18 years, born outside the United States and its outlying possessions and thereafter adopted by at least one parent who is a citizen of the United States and who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than 5 years prior to the adoption of the person, at least 2 of which were after attaining the age of 14 years, if—
''(1) the person is physically present in the United States with the citizen parent, having attained the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence;
''(2) the person satisfied the requirements in subparagraph (E) or (F) of section 101(b)(1); and
''(3) the person seeks documentation as a United States citizen while under the age of 18 years.''.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to persons adopted before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.
The second bill on which we will hear testimony today is H.R. 3058, the Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act introduced by Representative Foley of Florida, who is with us today.
Recent media reports state that some aliens who allegedly participated in human rights violations in their home countries have taken refuge in the United States. Former officials from repressive regimes in countries such as Haiti and Yugoslavia have apparently escaped justice and established comfortable lives in American communities, sometimes right next to other immigrants who are victims of their repression.
Human rights violators may be able to take refuge in the United States because their conduct was not criminal in their home countries or because their wrongdoing is not known to U.S. law enforcement authorities.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service is the Agency primarily responsible for locating and deporting aliens based on their past wrongdoing. Another, more specialized branch of the Justice Department is the Office of Special Investigations which was created in 1979 to track down Nazi war criminals. The OSI's mission has been winding down as the few remaining Nazi war criminals pass away due to illness and old age.
H.R. 3058 has three provisions. The bill would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make aliens who have committed acts of torture inadmissible and removable. H.R. 3058 would also establish OSI as a permanent Agency responsible for investigating, removing, denaturalizing or prosecuting aliens guilty of Nazi persecutions, genocide or torture. Finally, the bill would authorize additional appropriations for OSI.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
At least three issues have been raised by H.R. 3058. First, some advocates have suggested expanding the bill beyond torture to include other kinds of repression and wrongdoing. Second, some have advocated going beyond deportation to make alien war criminals susceptible to criminal prosecution in the United States as well. Finally, there is the issue of which Agency is the appropriate one to enforce the bill's provisions. Advocates of the Office of Special Investigations, including American Jewish organizations that value OSI's Nazi-hunting mission, think highly of OSI's work and maintain close affiliations with OSI. These organizations favor the approach taken by H.R. 3058 and claim the INS has been ineffective in dealing with foreign war criminals.
Others argue that immigration enforcement should be carried out by the Immigration and Naturalization Service which has the necessary jurisdiction and expertise. Splitting the jurisdiction between INS and OSI could complicate enforcement actions where, for example, alleged war criminals try to claim asylum or other immigration benefits.
[The bill, H.R. 3058, follows:]
106TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 3058
To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide that aliens who commit acts of torture abroad are inadmissible and removable and to establish within the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice an Office of Special Investigations having responsibilities under that Act with respect to all alien participants in acts of genocide and torture abroad.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
OCTOBER 12, 1999
Mr. FOLEY (for himself and Mr. ACKERMAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide that aliens who commit acts of torture abroad are inadmissible and removable and to establish within the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice an Office of Special Investigations having responsibilities under that Act with respect to all alien participants in acts of genocide and torture abroad.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ''Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act''.
SEC. 2. INADMISSIBILITY AND REMOVABILITY OF ALIENS WHO HAVE COMMITTED ACTS OF TORTURE ABROAD.
(a) INADMISSIBILITY.—Section 212(a)(3)(E) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(E)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
''(iii) COMMISSION OF ACTS OF TORTURE.—Any alien who, outside the United States, has committed any act of torture, as defined in section 2340 of title 18, United States Code, is inadmissible.''.
(b) REMOVABILITY.—Section 237(a)(4)(D) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(4)(D)) is amended by striking ''clause (i) or (ii)'' and inserting ''clause (i), (ii), or (iii)''.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to offenses committed before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS.
(a) AMENDMENT OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.—Section 103 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1103) is amended by adding at the end the following:
''(g) The Attorney General shall establish within the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice an Office of Special Investigations with the authority of investigating, and, where appropriate, taking legal action to remove, denaturalize, or prosecute any alien found to be in violation of clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of section 212(a)(3)(E).''.
(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Justice for the fiscal year 2000 such sums as may be necessary to carry out the additional duties established under section 103(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (as added by this Act) in order to ensure that the Office of Special Investigations fulfills its continuing obligations regarding Nazi war criminals.
(2) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.—Amounts appropriated pursuant to paragraph (1) are authorized to remain available until expended.
Representative Foley deserves great credit for bringing our attention to such an important human rights issue. Congressman Foley, we welcome you this morning. If you will proceed, we will hear your testimony.
I ought to explain to the audience that we are trying to do two bills concurrently, but the second bill doesn't have any sponsors here to testify, so we will hear your testimony, and then the second panel, which consists of government witnesses, will actually address both bills. Then we will take up one bill at a time.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The other point to make is that you are welcome to join us up here after you testify. While I cannot recognize you for questions, you can submit questions to me which I will ask witnesses.
Again, welcome and please proceed.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND CLAIMS
This morning , we will hear testimony on two bills,
H.R. 2883, the ''Adopted Orphans Citizenship Act,'' and H.R. 3058, the ''Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act.''
H.R. 2883
Regarding the issue of citizenship for adopted children, the Immigration and Nationality Act currently provides a mechanism for granting U.S. citizenship to the children of American citizens who were born outside of the United States, including children adopted by American citizens.
To qualify, the following conditions must be fulfilled:
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
1) At least one parent must be a U.S. citizen, either by birth or naturalization;.
2) The child must be physically present in the U.S. pursuant to a lawful admission.
3) The child is under the age of 18 and in the legal custody of the citizen parent.
4) If the child was adopted , the child must have met the definition of ''child'' under the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act which provide for the admission of adopted children.
5) The citizen parent must have met certain physical presence requirements.
Many adoptive parents would like to see a more streamlined process for naturalizing the adopted children of U.S. citizens born outside of the U.S. They point to several problems with the current law:
1) The process is redundant. Although U.S. citizen parents submit numerous documents to the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Department of State in connection with the child's immigrant visa application, they must resubmit many of the same documents again in connection with the child's citizenship application.
2) The process takes too long. Parents should be able to complete the process within few weeks or months. However, lengthy backlogs at the INS have caused the process to take a year or longer in some instances. In cases involving children who are approaching their 18th birthday, the delay could result in some children losing the opportunity to acquire citizenship under this provision of the law.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
3) The process is dependent the parent acting on behalf of the child. While most U. S. citizen parents try to ensure that their foreign-born children acquire citizenship before reaching age 18, some fail to take the necessary action required under current law. In such instances the children, through no fault of their own, find themselves disadvantaged because they are not U.S. citizens.
H.R. 2883 would amend the current law regarding the acquisition of citizenship by the adopted children of U.S. citizen parents. The bill would automatically extend citizenship to the adopted alien child of a U.S. citizen in the following circumstances:
The adopted person must be unmarried and under the age of 18;
The person must be physically present in the United States, have been admitted to the U.S. as lawful permanent resident and have met the requirements for the admission of an adopted child of a U.S. citizen.
The person must seek documentation as a United State Citizen while under the age of 18.
The Department of Justice and the Department of State have expressed concern that H.R. 2883 is inconsistent with long-standing principles of nationality law:
1) It attempts to make individuals retroactively citizens ''at birth'' based on events and conditions occurring after birth.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
2) It favors adopted children over certain biological children of U.S. citizens, in that certain adopted children will receive citizenship at birth while biological children would not.
3) The retroactive conferral of citizenship on adopted children would create differences between adopted children and other persons who acquire U.S. citizenship by naturalization.
Today, we will hear from witnesses from the Departments of Justice and State regarding H.R. 2883. We also will hear from representatives of the adoption community.
H. R. 3058
The second bill on which we will hear testimony today is H.R. 3058, ''Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act,'' introduced by Representative Foley of Florida.
Recent media reports state that some aliens who allegedly participated in human rights violations in their home countries have taken refuge in the United States. Former officials from repressive regimes in countries such as Haiti and Yugoslavia have apparently escaped justice and established comfortable lives in American communities, sometimes right next to other immigrants who were victims their repression.
Human rights violators may be able to take refuge in the United States because their conduct was not criminal in their home countries or because their wrongdoing is not known to U.S. law enforcement authorities.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service is the agency primarily responsible for locating and deporting aliens based on their past wrongdoing. Also, if an alien has obtained U.S. citizenship by concealing his past wrongdoing, the INS may denaturalize and then him.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Another, more specialized branch of the Justice Department is the Office of Special Investigations, which was created in 1979 to track down Nazi war criminals. The OSI's mission has been winding down as the few remaining Nazi war criminals pass away due to illness and old age.
H.R. 3058 has three provisions. The bill would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make aliens who have committed acts of torture inadmissible and removable. H.R. 3058 would also establish OSI as a permanent agency responsible for investigating, removing, denaturalizing, or prosecuting aliens guilty of Nazi persecutions, genocide, or torture. Finally, the bill would authorize additional appropriations for OSI.
At least three issues have been raised by H.R. 3058. First, some advocates have suggested expanding the bill beyond torture to include other kinds of repression and wrongdoing. Some have also advocated going beyond deportation to make alien war criminals amenable to criminal prosecution in the United States as well.
Finally, there is the issue of which agency is the appropriate one to enforce the bill's provisions. Advocates of OSI—including American Jewish organizations that value OSI's Nazi-hunting mission, think highly of OSI's work, and maintain close affiliations with OSI—favor the approach taken by H.R. 3058 and claim that the INS has been ineffective in dealing with foreign war criminals.
Others argue that immigration enforcement should be carried out by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which has the necessary jurisdiction and expertise. Splitting the jurisdiction between INS and OSI could complicate enforcement actions where, for example, alleged war criminals try to claim asylum or other immigration benefits.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Representative Foley deserves great credit for bearing the standard on such an important human rights issue.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK FOLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. FOLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Pease, both of you, for making this possible for me today. I want to thank you and the members of your subcommittee for giving me the opportunity to testify before you today on the Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act.
On the Statute of Liberty is written ''Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.'' However, it says nothing about the United States welcoming purveyors of heinous crimes.
Let me read from the Miami Herald editorial which appeared yesterday in its full-run edition. ''Where are they now—the torturers, assassins and collaborators in crimes against humanity committed in the last 50 years. To the shame of the United States, they may live next door.'' I would like to submit that, with your permission, Mr. Chairman—the editorial and other important articles—for the record.
Mr. SMITH. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to is in subcommittee files.]
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FOLEY. This truly bipartisan legislation which I introduced with Gary Ackerman and Bob Franks now has 24 co-sponsors in the House. On the Senate side, Senator Patrick Leahy joined forces with Senator Hatch to pass the bill at the end of the last session. It is my hope that you and your subcommittee will also look favorably on the legislation and expedite its consideration.
The United States has always been a safe haven for those fleeing political persecution abroad and this policy should continue but brutal criminals who have gone on violent rampages in Haiti, Yugoslavia and Rwanda have been able to gain entry to the United States through the same doors that we have opened to deserving refugees. We need to slam the doors shut on these thugs and rid our country of those who have already managed to make their way here.
I didn't become aware of the need for this until I learned last year that Carl Dorelien, a key member of the brutal military dictatorship that ruled Haiti from 1991 to 1994, is now living in comfort in my own congressional district. He even won the Florida lottery, $3.7 million, and amazingly he described to the Boston Globe that his current standard of living is a step down from his former life in Haiti.
Initially, I assumed this case was just an isolated and bizarre episode but once I began to look into the issue more, I soon realized that we have a big problem on our hands.
Richard Krieger, who you will hear from today, and whose nonprofit organization is dedicated to exposing and ridding our country of war criminals living in the U.S., brought my attention to the fact that the U.S. is becoming a haven for brutal human rights abusers. According to the Center for Justice and Accountability in San Francisco, at least 50 alleged human rights violators are currently living in the United States. And these are just the ones who have been identified.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In 1998, Canada began an aggressive campaign to locate and act against human rights abusers who found their way into their country. As of July 1999, the Canadian Government indicated that 400 cases are being processed toward removal, 307 suspected war criminals have been denied visas and 23 were deported. That is a total of 700 war criminals that Canada has detected.
Based on Canada's figures and taking into account the much bigger population of the United States and other socioeconomic factors, I think the Center for Justice and Accountability's claim that we have as many as 7,000 human rights abusers living in this country is a fair contention.
We owe it to our country and to ourselves to locate and take action against these modern-day war criminals. After all, statutes like Megan's Law allow communities to find out if known sex offenders move into the area. These same communities, however, could be oblivious to the fact that a brutal thug who went on a rampage in places like Haiti or Kosovo is living anonymously among them.
Canada seems to have been successful in tracking down modern-day war criminals and so can we. The U.S. Justice Department has a model program, the Office of Special Investigations, (OSI), that we can build upon to deny entry to those who have abused human rights in their home countries.
OSI was created to hunt down, prosecute and remove Nazi war criminals who secretly slipped into the United States. Since OSI's inception in 1979, 61 former Nazis have been stripped of U.S. citizenship, 49 have been deported and more than 150 have been denied entry into the United States.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Clearly, OSI has been extremely successful. The snag is that it is only authorized to track down Nazi war criminals and no one else. As a Congress, we need to give OSI specific statutory authority to ensure we have an effective means of dealing with the new generation of international war criminals who want to spend their golden years in the United States. That is why I joined with Gary Ackerman and Bob Franks in introducing the House companion bill to Senator Leahy's Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act, H.R. 3058.
Our bill would bar admission into the United States and authorize the deportation of aliens who have engaged in acts of torture abroad. It would provide statutory authorization for and expand the jurisdiction of the OSI within the Department of Justice to investigate, prosecute, and remove any alien who participated in torture and genocide abroad, not just Nazis, and authorize additional funding to ensure the OSI has adequate resources to fulfill its current mission of hunting Nazi war criminals.
Torture is already defined in the Federal criminal code and means any act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon another person within his custody or physical control. Under this definition, torture includes both those who use or issue the orders to torture innocent people as well as those who implement these orders.
Consequently, the Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act would cover those thugs like Carl Dorelien who, as head of the personnel for the Haitian Army, oversaw the brutal campaign that led to the deaths of approximately 5,000 Haitians between 1991 and 1994.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, I implore you to support the Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act so we can prevent other Carl Doreliens of this world from infiltrating our country and retiring in communities like mine in Port St. Lucie, Florida.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Foley follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARK FOLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the members of your Subcommittee for giving me the opportunity to testify before you today on the Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act. This truly bipartisan legislation which I introduced with Gary Ackerman and Bob Franks now has 24 cosponsors in the House. On the Senate side, Senator Leahy joined forces with Senator Hatch to pass the bill at the end of last session. It is my hope that you and your Subcommittee will also look favorably on the legislation and expedite its consideration.
The United States has always been a safe-haven for those fleeing political persecution abroad and this policy should continue. However, brutal criminals who have gone on violent rampages in Haiti, Yugoslavia and Rwanda have been able to gain entry to the United States through the same doors that we have opened to deserving refugees. We need to slam the door shut on these thugs and rid our country of those who have already managed to make their way here.
I didn't become aware of the need for this until I learned last year that Carl Dorelien—a key member of the brutal military dictatorship that ruled Haiti from 1991–1994—is now living in comfort in my own congressional district. He even won the Florida lottery and—amazingly—has described his current standard of living as ''a step down'' from his former life in Haiti.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Initially, I assumed this case was just an isolated and bizarre episode. But, once I began to look into the issue more, I soon realized that we have a big problem on our hands. Richard Krieger, who we will hear from today and whose non-profit organization is dedicated to exposing and ridding our country of war criminals living in the United States, brought my attention to the fact that the U.S. is becoming a haven for brutal human rights abusers.
According to the Center for Justice and Accountability in San Francisco, at least 60 alleged human rights violators are currently living in the United States. And these are just the ones who have been identified.
In 1998, Canada began an aggressive campaign to locate and act against human rights abusers who found their way into the country. As of July, 1999, the Canadian government indicated that 400 cases are being processed toward removal, 307 suspected war criminals have been denied visas, and 23 were deported. That's a total of 700 war criminals that Canada has detected.
Based on Canada's figures—and taking into account the much bigger population in the United States and other socio-economic factors—I think the Center for Justice and Accountability's claim that we could have as much as 7,000 human rights abusers living in this country is a fair contention.
We owe it to our country—and ourselves—to locate and take action against these modern-day war criminals. After all, statutes like Megan's Law allow communities to find out if known sex-offenders move into the area. These same communities, however, could be oblivious to the fact that a brutal thug—who went on a rampage in places like Haiti or Kosovo—is living anonymously among them.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Canada seems to have been successful in tracking down modern-day war criminals—and so can we. The U.S. Justice Department has a model program—the Office of Special Investigations (OSI)—we can build upon to deny entry to those who have abused human rights in their home countries.
OSI was created to hunt down, prosecute, and remove Nazi war criminals who secretly slipped into the United States. Since OSI's inception in 1979, 61 former Nazis have been stripped of U.S. citizenship, 49 have been deported, and more than 150 have been denied entry into the United States.
Clearly, OSI has been extremely successful. But the snag is, it's only authorized to track down Nazi war criminals and no one else. As a Congress, we need to give OSI specific statutory authority to ensure we have effective means of dealing with the new generation of international war criminals who want to spend their golden years in the United States.
That is why I joined with Gary Ackerman and Bob Franks in introducing the House companion bill to Senator Leahy's Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act (H.R. 3058). H.R. 3058 would:
bar admission into the United States and authorize the deportation of aliens who have engaged in acts of torture abroad;
provide statutory authorization for and expand the jurisdiction of the OSI within the Department of Justice to investigate, prosecute and remove any alien who participated in torture and genocide abroad—not just Nazis; and
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
authorize additional funding to ensure that OSI has adequate resources to fulfill its current mission of hunting Nazi war criminals.
''Torture'' is already defined in the Federal criminal code and means any act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon another person within his custody or physical control. Under this definition, torturers include both those who issue the orders to torture innocent people as well as those who implement those orders. Consequently, the Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act would cover those thugs like Carl Dorelien who—as Head of Personnel for the Haitian army—oversaw the brutal campaign that led to the deaths of approximately 5,000 Haitians between 1991 and 1994.
Mr. Chairman, I implore you to support the Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act so that we may prevent other Carl Doreliens of this world from infiltrating our country so they can retire peacefully in beautiful communities like Port St. Lucie in my district.
Thank you.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Foley. I just have a couple of quick questions for you.
The first is a subject you mentioned a while ago, the OSI, Office of Special Investigations, which is called for in your bill as being the enforcement Agency. You can expect that the INS will testify in a few minutes that they would like to have the jurisdiction to investigate these types of human rights abuses. Why is the OSI a better office in this case than the INS?
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FOLEY. Again, I am interested in listening to the debate and hearing all sides but the OSI has been operational. As I testified, they have been largely successful in pursuing Nazi war criminals. They know what they are looking for, they know the type of people and they know the communities oftentimes in which they reside.
Rather than recreating or expanding or creating a new area of jurisdiction, it seems to me to be most appropriate—since they are functional, they are working and they have been skilled in the task of seeking these people—that they would continue in the same vein with this added category.
Mr. SMITH. A second question, the bill as I understand it is primarily limited to torture. Are there reasons that it should be limited to torture, or should we consider expanding the jurisdiction to include other types of human rights violations?
Mr. FOLEY. I would be delighted to expand the category. Obviously, this is the initial response to what I think is an egregious situation where this gentleman is living in my district among many other Haitians who sought America for freedom to get away from his dictatorship and brutality and to find out now that he is living in a gated community with $3.7 million in tax dollars that have come vis a vis the lottery. I think that is humiliating and demeaning to those who are now in our country.
I would welcome any attempts to expand the jurisdiction of the bill and the crimes covered under the bill.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Foley.
Does the gentleman from Indiana have any questions?
Mr. PEASE. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. I just wish to thank Representative Foley for bringing this to our attention. The materials you provided are very helpful, though they are very distressing. I appreciate the time you have spent on this legislation. I will be supporting you in any way I can.
Mr. FOLEY. Thank you very much.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Pease.
Mr. Foley, you are welcome to join us up here, as I mentioned.
We will now go to our second panel consisting of several Government witnesses. They are: Gerri Ratliff, Director, Business Process & Re-Engineering Services, and Acting Director, Office of Congressional Relations, Immigration and Naturalization Service; Edward A. Betancourt, Director, Office of Policy Review and Interagency Liaison, Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State; and James Castello, Associate Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice. We welcome you all. We will begin when you are ready with Ms. Ratliff's testimony.
STATEMENT OF GERRI RATLIFF, DIRECTOR, BUSINESS PROCESS & RE-ENGINEERING SERVICES AND ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. RATLIFF. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my name is Gerri Ratliff. I am the Director of Business Process & Re-engineering Services at the Immigration Services Division, INS. I am also excited to be the new Acting Director of INS Congressional Affairs. Today is my fourth day on the job. I am here at this moment under my old hat of working on Immigration Services issues.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss H.R. 2883, the Adopted Orphan Citizenship Act. We appreciate the subcommittee's interest in the views of the INS.
Our Nation has a unique history of generosity in granting the precious benefit of citizenship to millions of individuals from every country around the world. The INS views its role in administering the naturalization and citizenship statutes as one of our most important responsibilities.
We do recognize the need for legislation to reduce the current complexity of citizenship laws for children. However, INS cannot support H.R. 2883 for several reasons.
First, it would retroactively grant citizenship at birth to adopted children who were not citizens at birth. Second, it ironically even creates additional differences in the acquisition of citizenship by various categories of biological and adopted children, even children who have the same parents.
Third, the bill could create the perception that individuals who acquire citizenship by naturalization are in essence second class citizens. There is a fundamental distinction in the law between the acquisition of citizenship at birth and the acquisition of citizenship by conferral after birth which we call naturalization.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
H.R. 2883 blurs this distinction by attempting to confer citizenship retroactively to birth based on actions taken after the child's birth. As a result, the bill creates a legal fiction in which the child is deemed always to have been a U.S. citizen, although the United States did not have a claim to the allegiance of the child at any time prior to the child's naturalization.
H.R. 2883 also does not streamline the current citizenship provisions for children. If enacted, some adopted children would automatically become citizens at birth but other adopted children and even some biological children ironically would receive citizenship after birth and only after their parents took affirmative steps to apply for naturalization on their behalf.
Further, in some cases an adopted child could be considered to have been a citizen at birth, not only before the adoption but even before his or her adoptive parents became naturalized citizens themselves.
H.R. 2883 strains to place adopted children into a ''citizens at birth'' category in which they simply factually do not fit. This action could crate the perception that adopted children who currently are subsequently naturalized don't enjoy the same rights and privileges as children born to U.S. citizens.
However, when individuals acquire U.S. citizenship, they do receive all the rights associated with that status regardless of whether their citizenship was acquired by birth in the United States or abroad or voluntary naturalization. To imply even unintentionally that naturalized citizens do not share all these privileges sends an unfortunate message to the millions of proud Americans who are naturalized.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The only exception to this principle is that naturalized citizens cannot run for President under Article 2 of the Constitution which limits that office to native born citizens. However, the Supreme Court has never definitively ruled on this issue and we believe that H.R. 2883 would not and could not resolve these questions.
It has been suggested that the retroactive citizenship approach of this bill is necessary to conform with State laws on adoption. However, we believe that our approach is more consistent with adoption laws that create and terminate legal relationships as of the date of the adoption but do not attempt to change legal relationships retroactively or try to rewrite the past.
We would be more than happy to work with Congress on alternative ways of streamlining the naturalization of adopted children. We support legislative language such as the adoption provisions of H.R. 3667 recently introduced by Congressmen Delahunt and Gejdenson which would eliminate the currently required second documentation process for parents to naturalize the child they have just adopted. The adopted child would become a U.S. citizen automatically upon entry into the United States as a legal permanent resident.
This legislation also untangles the complex provisions of the law by creating a standard set of conditions for both foreign-born adopted and biological children of U.S. citizens to acquire citizenship.
In conclusion, we strongly support efforts to streamline the acquisition of U.S. citizenship by adopted children and simplify the related provisions of the law. Unfortunately, we believe that H.R. 2883 as currently drafted does not achieve its stated goal of treating adopted and biological children the same, fails to streamline the current citizenship procedures and could even offend some naturalized citizens by the implication that they do not enjoy the same rights as citizens from birth.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the INS to the subcommittee. I will be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ratliff follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF GERRI RATLIFF, DIRECTOR, BUSINESS PROCESS & RE-ENGINEERING SERVICES AND ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Gerri Ratliff. I am the Director of Business Process and Reengineering, Immigration Services Division, and currently Acting Director of the Office of Congressional Relations. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss H.R. 2883, the ''Adopted Orphans Citizenship Act.'' We appreciate the Subcommittee's interest in the views of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).
Our nation has a unique history of generosity in granting the precious benefit of U.S. citizenship to millions of individuals from every country around the world. The INS views its role in administering the naturalization and citizenship statutes enacted by Congress as one of its most sacred responsibilities. We fully support adoptions and legislation that will address the current inequities in acquisition of citizenship by both biological and adopted children. We also support legislation that will reduce the complexity of citizenship law for children and streamline the documentary requirements for both biological and adopted children to receive citizenship. We share these goals with the sponsors of H.R. 2883.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The INS, however, cannot support H.R. 2883 for several reasons. First, it is inconsistent with long-standing, fundamental principles of United States nationality laws. Second, rather than addressing inequities, H.R. 2883 creates and further perpetuates differences in acquisition of citizenship by various categories of biological and adopted children. Third, H.R. 2883 creates the perception that individuals who acquire citizenship by naturalization are in essence ''second-class'' citizens. I would like to review our concerns, and then discuss an alternative approach that we believe reaches our common goal without some of the difficulties raised by H.R. 2883.
Section 101(a)(23) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) defines naturalization as ''the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.'' As the customary norms of citizenship law have developed over the centuries, a nation may legitimately claim the allegiance of an individual in one of three ways: 1) birth on its soil (jus soli); 2) birth to a citizen parent (jus sanguinis); or 3) a voluntary choice after birth by a qualifying individual (naturalization). As is typical of many nations, U.S. citizenship law combines elements of each of these three principles. Citizenship by birth is conferred automatically, based on conditions that exist at the time of birth, and is not a matter of voluntary choice.
H.R. 2883 blurs the fundamental distinction between the acquisition of citizenship at birth and the acquisition of citizenship through conferral after birth, or ''naturalization'' by attempting to confer citizenship retroactively to birth based on actions taken after an alien's birth. In addition to contradicting the statutory definition of naturalization, H.R. 2883 creates a legal fiction in which the alien child is deemed always to have been a United States citizen. However, the United States did not have a claim to the allegiance of the child at anytime prior to the alien child's adoption. While after the adoption it is entirely fitting and proper that the adopted child be considered equal to the adoptive parents' natural children for citizenship and other purposes, we do not believe it is appropriate to attempt to extend the claim retroactively back to birth. It would be illogical to take away an orphan's inheritance from his or her birth parents based on a later adoption on the theory that the adoption retroactively terminated the legal relationship with the birth parents, neither should we attempt to change the legal rights and obligations of citizenship retroactively based upon subsequent events.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Current law has inequities in acquisition of citizenship by adopted and biological children. We support and have proposed language to repair these inequities, but cannot support the language of H.R. 2883 that puts into place additional distinctions. H.R. 2883 amends only section 301 of the INA and leaves in place the other provisions of the INA that address citizenship for children under the age of 18, specifically sections 320, 321 and 322 of the INA. Section 301 provides for citizenship at birth and is based on the actions of the parents (such as residence) prior to birth of the child. Section 301 does not apply to adopted children. Sections 320 and 321 provide for citizenship after birth and is based on actions of the parents and child that have occurred after the child's birth, namely naturalization of one or both parents and the child attaining lawful permanent resident status. Section 320 and 321 both apply to adopted and biological children. Section 322 provides for citizenship by application and is based on actions of the parents and child that have occurred after the child's birth such as residence and the child's temporary admission to the United States in a lawful status. Sections 320 and 321 make a child a citizen after birth automatically upon fulfillment of conditions, but section 322 requires an affirmative naturalization application. (Please see attached charts for a detailed explanation of these provisions). By placing the provisions of H.R. 2883 in section 301 of the INA, it attempts to make alien children retroactively citizens ''at birth'' based entirely on events and conditions occurring after birth.
To understand the impact of H.R. 2883 on citizenship acquisition, particularly on adopted children, one must view H.R. 2883 in conjunction with the current provisions of the INA listed above. H.R. 2883, along with current sections of the INA, would allow some adopted children to become citizens at birth, while other adopted children would receive citizenship after birth. In addition, certain adopted children acquiring citizenship after birth would receive citizenship automatically, while other adopted children would receive citizenship only after their parents took affirmative steps to apply for citizenship on their behalf. Further, it is entirely possible that an adopted child, through this legal fiction created by H.R. 2883, could be considered to have been a citizen ''at birth'' not only before the adoption, but even before his or her parents became naturalized citizens. Finally, H.R. 2883 provides that certain adopted children will receive citizenship at birth, while biological children, potentially of the same United States citizen parents, would not.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Although we understand that the intent of H.R. 2883 is to place adopted children in the best possible legal position, we are concerned about the implication that naturalization is somehow a less desirable means of obtaining U.S. citizenship. To strain, as this bill does, to place these adopted children into a ''citizens at birth'' category into which they simply do not factually fit creates the perception that adopted children who are subsequently naturalized do not enjoy the same rights and privileges as children born to United States citizens. Our nation has repeatedly emphasized that when individuals acquire United States citizenship, they receive all the rights and privileges associated with such status, regardless of whether citizenship was acquired by birth in the United States, birth abroad, or voluntary naturalization. To imply—even unintentionally—that naturalized citizens may not share all these rights and privileges sends an unfortunate message to millions of proud Americans who are naturalized.
The only exception to the principle that naturalized citizens stand on an equal footing with native-born citizens is the limitation of eligibility for the office of President of the United States to ''natural born'' citizens in Article II of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has never definitively interpreted this clause as applied to biological children born in the United States or born abroad, or adopted children who acquire citizenship under the INA. H.R. 2883 would not and cannot resolve questions as to its meaning. Further, enacting H.R. 2883 merely to attempt to place some adopted children on a better legal footing raises a highly speculative constitutional claim and is unwise. Based on the lack of judicial action on this point, H.R. 2883 would not answer this question or solve the issue of ineligibility of foreign born children adopted by U.S. citizen parents to serve as President of the United States.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It has been suggested that the retroactive citizenship approach of H.R. 2883 is necessary for conformity with state laws on adoption. On the contrary, we believe that our approach is more consistent with adoption laws that create and terminate legal relationships as of the date of adoption but do not attempt to change legal relationships retroactively. We agree that legal adoptions should be fully respected and honored, and that adopted children should be considered in all respects equal to birth children once the adoption has taken place. However, our emphasis and focus should be on providing that equality once the adoption has occurred, rather than trying to rewrite the past by potentially voiding and lawful actions that occurred before the adoption based upon the legal relationships that existed at that time.
INS would be happy to work with Congress on alternative ways of streamlining the acquisition of United States citizenship by the adopted children of United States citizen parents. The INS, in close consultation with the Department of State, has proposed legislative language in our views letter on H.R. 2883. The most significant benefit of our proposal is that it would eliminate the U.S. citizen parents' need to complete an entirely separate and second documentation process to acquire citizenship for the child they have just adopted. Under our proposal, upon the adopted child's entry into the United States as a lawful permanent resident, he or she would be a citizen automatically. No application would be required although, if desired, an application could be made to the Department of State for an U.S. passport or to the INS for a certificate of citizenship, as evidence of the acquired citizenship.
Our legislation also provides for fair treatment of all biological and adopted children in terms of acquisition of United States citizenship by redrafting sections of Title III of the INA. We believe that this alternate legislation untangles the complex and duplicative provisions of the INA relating to the acquisition of citizenship by children. It eliminates inequities in the current law by creating a standard set of conditions for foreign-born adopted and biological children of United States citizens to acquire citizenship. This legislation also eliminates in most instances the necessity for the INS to adjudicate citizenship applications on behalf of children adopted by United States citizen parents.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In conclusion, the INS strongly supports efforts to streamline the acquisition of United States citizenship by adopted children of United States citizen parents and eliminate inequities in the INA in acquisition of citizenship by various categories of adopted children and U.S. citizen children born abroad. Unfortunately, we believe that H.R. 2883 would create additional distinctions between adopted and biological children.
Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the INS to the Subcommittee. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Ratliff.
Mr. Betancourt?
STATEMENT OF EDWARD A. BETANCOURT, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF POLICY REVIEW AND INTERAGENCY LIAISON, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr. BETANCOURT. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my name is Edward Betancourt. I currently serve as Director of the Office of Policy Review and Interagency Liaison in Overseas Citizens Services in the Department of State's Bureau of Consular Affairs. I have worked with citizenship issues within the Department of State for more than 20 years.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to provide the views of the Department of State on H.R. 2883, the Adopted Orphans Citizenship Act. I will limit my remarks to 5 minutes and submit a formal statement for the record.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Department of State agrees that citizenship procedures for children adopted abroad should be simplified but we have serious concerns about the approach taken by H.R. 2883. When we seek to amend our citizenship laws, we must take great care to ensure that the result is fair and equitable. We believe H.R. 2883, though well intentioned, will produce inequities and other undesirable consequences.
We strongly support the alternative draft legislation that was proposed by the Department of Justice amending sections 320 and 322 of the Immigration Nationality Act rather than section 301 of the act.
The present process for adopting foreign born children already includes a rigorous and thorough examination of the relevant circumstances prior to the issuance of the immigrant visa. We do not propose to alter this process in any way. We do, however, support statutory changes that would permit an adopted child who qualifies for an immigrant visa to acquire U.S. citizenship much more expeditiously than is currently permitted.
In this sense, we are in agreement with one of the important aims of H.R. 2833. Specifically, the Department believes that U.S. citizenship should be conferred automatically upon adopted children born overseas upon fulfillment of the conditions set forth in the draft legislation proposed by the Department of Justice.
While the Department of State strongly advocates diminishing the procedural burdens placed on adoptive parents seeking U.S. citizenship for their children, we feel it is important that measures toward this end should be taken within the context of our naturalization statutes rather than those pertaining to citizenship at birth.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This would be consistent with the INA's definition of naturalization as the acquisition of citizenship after birth by any means. Thus, the incorporation of these measures within chapter 2 follows logically from the provisions of section 321 and 322 pertaining to the naturalization of adopted children.
One of our greatest concerns about H.R. 2883 is that it would make citizenship for adopted children retroactive to birth. In the view of the Department to confer citizenship at birth upon an adopted child born overseas is to engage in a legal fiction that would create undesirable inequities between adopted children and other persons who acquire U.S. citizenship through naturalization and would, in effect, create two classes of naturalized citizens—those who acquire citizenship retroactively to birth and those who do not.
H.R. 2883 would also disadvantage biological children. It would bestow greater benefits upon adopted children with no connection to the United States at birth than the INA currently gives to certain biological children born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent who do not automatically acquire U.S. citizenship from that parent because of the latter's inability to meet the physical presence requirements of chapter 1, title III.
Another of our concerns about H.R. 2883 is that retroactive conferral of citizenship upon a class of adopted children might be viewed by the child's country of origin as an unwarranted interference that could prejudice future adoptions from that country by American citizens.
We understand and support fully in our daily operations abroad a concept that must underlie all citizenship legislation, that it is totally unacceptable to discriminate in any way against U.S. citizens based upon the manner in which the person acquired U.S. citizenship. Whether a person who is a U.S. citizen had that status at birth does not in any way affect our treatment of that person. We stress in our consular training and at every appropriate opportunity the need to combat discrimination of this kind.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Our vigorous efforts in this area will continue of course regardless of the fate of H.R. 2883 given the importance we attach to the equitable treatment of all U.S. citizens whether they acquire U.S. citizenship by birth or naturalization.
Thank you very much. I welcome questions from the chairman or any member of the subcommittee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Betancourt follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF EDWARD A. BETANCOURT, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF POLICY REVIEW AND INTERAGENCY LIAISON, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to provide the views of the Department of State on H.R. 2883, the ''Adopted Orphans Citizenship Act.''
Let me first introduce myself. I currently serve as Director of the Office of Policy Review and Interagency Liaison in Overseas Citizens Services in the Department of State's Bureau of Consular Affairs. I have worked with citizenship issues at the Department for more than twenty years.
The Department of State supports foreign adoptions and agrees that citizenship procedures for children adopted abroad should be simplified, but we have serious concerns about the approach taken in H.R. 2883. When we seek to amend our citizenship laws, we must take great care to ensure that the result is fair and equitable. We believe H.R. 2883, though well intentioned, will produce inequities and other undesirable consequences. We strongly support the Department of Justice's alternative draft proposal amending sections 320 and 322 of Chapter 2 of Title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), rather than Section 301 of Chapter 1 of Title III.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We believe the current procedures for naturalizing adopted children pursuant to Title III of Chapter 2 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) can and should be simplified. The present process for adopting foreign-born children already includes a rigorous and thorough examination of all relevant circumstances prior to issuance of the immigrant visa. We do not propose to alter this process in any way.
We do support, however, statutory changes that would permit an adopted child who qualifies for an immigrant visa to acquire U.S. citizenship much more expeditiously than is currently permitted. In this sense, we are in agreement with one of the important aims of H.R. 2883. Specifically, the Department believes that U.S. citizenship should be conferred automatically upon adopted children born overseas upon the fulfillment of the conditions set forth in the draft legislation proposed by the Department of Justice.
While the Department of State strongly advocates diminishing the procedural burdens placed on adoptive parents seeking U.S. citizenship for their children, it is important that measures toward this end should be taken within the context of Chapter 2 (''Nationality Through Naturalization'') of Title III and not be incorporated, as envisioned by H.R. 2883, within Chapter 1 (''Nationality At Birth And By Collective Naturalization'') of this same title.
Citizenship can be acquired at birth either by birth in the U.S. or through birth to a U.S. citizen parent or parents able to transmit citizenship. Citizenship can also be acquired after birth by fulfillment of certain requirements. According to Section 101(a)(23) of the INA, naturalization is defined as the acquisition of citizenship after birth by any means. Thus, the incorporation of measures to eliminate procedural hurdles to citizenship for adopted children within Chapter 2 follows logically from the provisions of Section 321 and 322 pertaining to the naturalization of adopted children.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One of our greatest concerns about H.R. 2883 is that it would make citizenship for adopted children retroactive to birth. In the view of the Department, to confer citizenship at birth upon an adoptive child born overseas is to engage in a legal fiction that would create undesirable inequities between adopted children and other persons who acquire U.S. citizenship through naturalization, and would, in effect, create two classes of naturalized citizens: those who acquire citizenship retroactively to birth and those who do not.
H.R. 2883 would also disadvantage biological children. It would bestow greater benefits upon adopted children with no connection to the U.S. at birth than the INA currently gives to certain biological children born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent who do not automatically acquire U.S. citizenship from that parent because of the latter's inability to meet the physical presence requirements of Chapter 1 of Title III.
For example, a child born overseas to a U.S. citizen parent who is unable to transmit citizenship at birth in accordance with paragraphs (c), (d), (e), or (g) of Section 301 or paragraphs (a) and (c) of Section 309 of the INA, can apply for a certificate of citizenship under Section 322 of the INA. Such citizenship does not relate back to the child's birth and is deemed to have been obtained through naturalization. Similarly, a child born outside of the U.S. to an alien parent and U.S. citizen parent who is not capable of transmitting citizenship can conceivably naturalize as a U.S. citizen in accordance with INA Section 320. Again, the individual acquires citizenship via the naturalization process as set forth in Chapter 2 of Title III of the INA. Such citizenship only becomes effective at the time of the alien parent's naturalization.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Another of our concerns about H.R. 2883 is that retroactive conferral of citizenship upon a class of adopted children might be viewed by the child's country of origin as an unwarranted interference that could prejudice future adoptions from that country by American citizens.
We understand, and support fully in our daily operations abroad, a concept that must underlie all citizenship legislation: that it is totally unacceptable to discriminate in any way against U.S. citizens based upon the manner in which the person acquired U.S. citizenship. Whether a person who is in fact a U.S. citizen had that status as of birth does not in any way affect our treatment of that person.
Thus, when we offer consular protection or assistance to a U.S. citizen abroad, it is irrelevant to us whether the U.S. citizen was naturalized, born within the United States, or born abroad to U.S. citizen parents. Similarly, provided we are satisfied that the person is in fact a U.S. citizen, we have no reason to inquire how long the person has been a citizen or at what age he or she acquired U.S, citizenship. We do, however, believe that the law should be consistent with the facts, and that citizenship actually acquired after birth should not be extended through a legal fiction back to a time when it did not in fact exist.
We stress in our consular training and at every appropriate opportunity the need to combat discrimination of this kind. Our vigorous efforts in this area will continue, of course, regardless of the fate of H.R. 2883, given the importance we attach to equitable treatment of all U.S. citizens—whether they acquire U.S. citizenship by birth or naturalization.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you very much. I welcome any questions either you or any Member of the Subcommittee may have.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Betancourt.
Mr. Castello?
STATEMENT OF JAMES CASTELLO, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. CASTELLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am very pleased to be here. I am James Castello from the Deputy Attorney General's Office. I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss with you H.R. 3058, the bill Congressman Foley described earlier.
The Department of Justice supports efforts to enhance our ability to remove individuals who have committed acts of torture abroad. The Department recognizes that our current immigration laws do not provide strong enough bars for human rights abusers. We very much appreciate Congressman Foley's efforts, your efforts in holding this hearing today and we look forward to working with you on legislation of this type.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service—I want to make clear I am testifying on behalf of the Department but I wanted to talk a little about what INS has been doing in this area—has long used its resources under its existing mandate in an attempt to deny human rights abusers safe haven in the United States.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Until now, the legal tools necessary to hold human rights abusers accountable for their action have been limited. So while the Department welcomes the efforts of this bill to provide an additional tool to combat torturers who are present in the United States, it feels strongly that other forms of human rights abuse should also be addressed.
In addition, the Department has concerns about removing jurisdiction over cases relating to human rights abuse from the INS. The Department is developing a draft legislative proposal of its own to address our concerns that we hope to be able to share with you in the near future. As I said, we hope to work with the subcommittee on legislation of this type.
Let me give a bit of a background on our recent efforts in this area. In December 1998, the President issued an Executive order to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Executive order was basically aimed at making sure all the relevant executive agencies carry out their responsibilities under our various international treaty obligations in the area of human rights.
Pursuant to that Executive order, an interagency working group was formed which is chaired by the NSC. It has representatives from the State Department, the Justice Department, the Defense Department and the Labor Department.
The order also asked each of the relevant Cabinet officials to designate in his or her department a single contact officer who would be responsible for overall coordination of the implementation of the order. The Attorney General has designated me as the contact officer for the Department of Justice.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So when we in the Justice Department set about implementing the Executive order, looking at the areas in which we should focus our efforts in implementing our human rights obligations, one of the first things we did was to form a working group within the Department of Justice which would be devoted to enhancing our ability to identify human rights abusers who have found their way into this country and to taking appropriate action against them. The INS is a key participant in that working group, as is the Criminal Division and the FBI.
Current law covers a few things as bars to admissibility to the United States. It also provides protection for people seeking refuge here, both asylum and refugee status for people seeking refuge here from persecution abroad.
To the extent feasible under current law, the INS does not knowingly extend legal immigration status to foreign nationals how are violators of human rights. In the event that information arises indicating that such individuals have been granted immigration status, the Department has a few options. Depending on the facts, these may include criminal prosecution, extradition or removal.
With respect to removal, the present state of the immigration law often does not provide the INS with the necessary tools to remove individuals from the United States. Right now only three types of human rights abuse could prevent someone from entering or remaining in the United States. These are genocide, severe violations of religious freedom and Nazi persecutions. Even these types of conduct are narrowly defined and I have gone into more detail in my written testimony as to exactly how those definitions are narrowed.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Even with the limitations in the current law, the Department continues to fight against human rights abusers and has taken actions to improve the handling of cases involving allegations of serious human rights abuse. In the regular course of its work, INS continues to screen applicants for admission to this country, to identify possible human rights abusers and it has defeated immigration claims of a significant number of human rights abusers and has additional cases under investigation.
To strengthen its efforts in this area over the past year and through the work of the working group I mentioned before, we have taken a number of steps. I want to briefly tick them off but have described them in more detail in my written testimony.
First, INS has designated two specialized units at headquarters here in Washington to handle cases involving human rights abusers. The National Security Unit of the Office of Field Operations is responsible for coordinating the field investigations of national security cases and these now include human rights abusers cases.
Most of the field agents handling these cases, by the way, happen to be the INS agents who are identified to joint terrorism task forces and they have a close working relationship with their counterpart agents of the Bureau.
Recently, after months of discussion, the INS and the FBI have signed a memorandum of understanding regarding the investigation and prosecution of human rights abuse crimes to make clear what the lines of communication are and to improve the coordination of investigation of these cases between the two agencies.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The INS Office of General Counsel has also recently created a National Security Law Division and this division is responsible for cases involving national security, including those relating to human rights. The consolidation of these cases in a distinct unit will facilitate the coordination and handling of these cases, both within and outside of INS.
In September of last year, the INS held a comprehensive training conference in Albuquerque, New Mexico for special agents who were assigned to investigate these cases. The presentations made there included presentations from the Center for Justice and Accountability, an organization Congressman Foley mentioned earlier. We agree with him that they have done some significant work. We have been working in cooperation with them.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Castello, are you nearing the end?
Mr. CASTELLO. Yes. Let me briefly turn to the bill. As I said, we welcome the efforts of Congressman Foley to expand the bars to human rights abusers. As I have also said, we are working on legislation which would go further and Mr. Chairman, you got to this in your question concerning torture to include some other things such as crimes against humanity, war crimes and so forth.
Mr. Foley's bill would also expand jurisdiction of the Office of Special Investigations and the Criminal Division of the Department to investigate and take enforcement action against aliens who have committed acts of torture and genocide.
Currently, OSI's jurisdiction generally pertains only to locating and investigating and when appropriate, denaturalizing and removing Nazis from the World War II period who are present in the United States. The Department opposes the proposed reallocation of those other responsibilities.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We think the criminal jurisdiction in this area should rest with the Terrorism and Violent Crime Section of the Criminal Division and we think the INS should continue to have responsibility for immigration cases in this area.
In closing, let me note that Congressman Foley, in describing the background for his bill, referred to OSI as an entity that was up and running and that was a strong argument he felt for designating OSI to move into the present day human rights abuser cases. I just want to point out that the INS has over 450 asylum officers who hear asylum claims every day, it has over 600 trial attorneys around the country who appear in immigration courts in asylum and other cases every day and it has over 2,500 investigators around the country. Therefore, we think the INS, given enhanced legal tools can continue to do this job.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Castello follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES CASTELLO, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Jackson Lee, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk to you today about H.R. 3058, the ''Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act,'' introduced by Congressman Mark Foley. The Department of Justice (the Department) supports efforts to enhance our ability to remove individuals who have committed acts of torture abroad. The Department also recognizes that our current immigration laws do not provide strong enough bars for human rights abusers. We very much appreciate Congressman Foley's initiative in this area, as well as this Subcommittee's willingness to hold this hearing on the matter.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has long used its resources under its existing mandate in an attempt to deny human rights abusers safe haven in the United States. Until now, the legal tools necessary to hold human rights abusers accountable for their action have been limited. The Department welcomes the efforts of this bill to provide an additional tool to combat torturers present in the United States, but feels strongly that other forms of human rights abuse should also be included. In addition, the Department has concerns about removing jurisdiction over cases relating to human rights abuse from the INS. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, the Department is developing a draft legislative proposal to address our concerns that we hope to be able to share with you in the near future. We are ready and willing to work with the Subcommittee and with the sponsor of H.R. 3058 to address these issues and move forward with comprehensive legislation.
HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSERS—IN GENERAL
On December 10, 1998, in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the President signed an Executive Order declaring that ''[a]ll executive departments . . . shall maintain a current awareness of United States international human rights obligations that are relevant to their functions and shall perform such functions so as to respect and implement those obligations fully.'' Exec. Order No. 13107, 63 Fed. Reg. 68,991 (1998). This Executive Order established an Interagency Working Group (IWG), chaired by the National Security Council, in which the Departments of Justice, State, Labor and Defense participate. The order also asks each relevant cabinet official to designate in his or her Department ''a single contact officer who will be responsible for overall coordination of the implementation of this order.'' The Attorney General has designated me to be the contact officer for the Department of Justice.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Early last year, the Department formed its own working group devoted to enhancing our ability to identify human rights abusers who have found their way into this country and to taking appropriate action against them. The INS is a key participant in this working group, which also includes the Criminal Division and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Through this process, the Department has determined that its ability to uphold its commitment to human rights obligations could be improved through legislation targeting human rights abusers.
Let me begin by outlining what current law covers and then tell you about some of the improvements in our handling of these cases that have come about through our working group on human rights abusers. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides protections for aliens fleeing from human rights abuses. As you know, the granting of asylum status and the admission of refugees to this country are two of the many mechanisms used by the United States to provide individuals with protection. The goal of these protection regimes is to grant status to those who meet the legal standards, to deny those who are barred, and to exercise discretion appropriately. To preserve the integrity of these protection regimes, it is imperative that those committing human rights abuses not be afforded status that is designed to protect victims of human rights abuses.
To the extent feasible under current law, the INS does not knowingly extend legal immigration status to foreign nationals who are violators of human rights. In some cases, however, individuals conceal their identities and their pasts in order to acquire such immigration status. In the event information arises indicating that such individuals have been granted immigration status through fraud, misrepresentation, or otherwise illegal acts, thorough investigations are conducted and appropriate action is taken. The Department currently has a number of options. Depending upon the facts, these may include criminal prosecution, extradition, or removal from the United States.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With respect to removal, however, the present state of the immigration law often does not provide the INS with the necessary tools to remove individuals from the United States, even when they have allegedly committed acts considered to be atrocious human rights abuses. Right now, only three types of human rights abuse could prevent someone from entering or remaining in the United States. The types of prohibited conduct include: (1) genocide; (2) particularly severe violations of religious freedom; and (3) Nazi persecutions. Even these types of conduct are narrowly defined.
For example, genocide applies only to actions committed against a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. To constitute genocide, those actions also have to be committed with the specific intent of destroying a protected group in whole or in part. Further, the genocide bar applies only to those ''engaged'' in genocide, which arguably does not include those who may have incited, assisted, conspired or attempted to engage in genocide. Similarly, to be barred for particularly severe violations of religious freedom, the individual must be a foreign official who has engaged in those violations in the last twenty-four months. Those who have ''ordered, incited, assisted or otherwise participated in'' persecution are statutorily barred from admission as a refugee and from obtaining asylum status or withholding of removal, but they are eligible to enter the United States, to adjust their status to lawful permanent residence, and to obtain United States citizenship.
Even with the limitations in the current immigration laws, the Department continues to fight against human rights abusers and has taken actions to improve the handling of cases involving allegations of serious human rights abuse. In the regular course of its work, INS continues to screen applicants for admission to this country to identify possible human rights abusers. In addition, INS has defeated immigration claims of a significant number of human rights abusers and has additional cases under investigation for possible action against aliens in this country on the basis of past human rights abuse. To strengthen its existing efforts, INS has taken additional steps in the past year which I would like to highlight.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
First, INS has designated two specialized units at the Headquarters level to handle cases involving alleged human rights abusers. The National Security Unit of the Office of Field Operations (formerly known as the ''Office of Counterterrorism'') is responsible for coordinating field office investigations of national security cases, including those involving alleged human rights abusers. Most of the field agents handling these cases work under the auspices of the Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTF's), which are local interagency task forces devoted to the detection and investigation of international terrorism. The FBI has the lead and directs all JTTF activity, but INS, the Customs Service, and state and local law enforcement agencies also play key roles. Thus, the INS and FBI are able to use their collective resources for the preemption and investigation of these cases.
Recently, after months of discussion, the INS and the FBI signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding the investigation and prosecution of human rights abuse crimes. The MOU promotes the effective and efficient investigation and prosecution of human rights abuses by setting out the procedures to be followed and the respective responsibilities of each agency. This coordination between the FBI and the INS will conserve investigative resources and improve communications in connection with these cases.
The INS Office of General Counsel also recently created the National Security Law Division. This Division is responsible for cases involving national security, including those relating to alleged human rights abusers. This Division assists in the investigation and administrative prosecution of these cases. Previously, these cases were being handled among the other divisions of the office. The consolidation of these cases in a distinct unit will facilitate coordination in handling these cases both within and outside of the INS.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In September 1999, the INS held a comprehensive training conference for the special agents assigned to investigate these cases. The INS Office of General Counsel participated in the training and provided guidance on the legal issues surrounding human rights abusers present in the United States. Presentations were also made by three individuals from the Center for Justice and Accountability (CJA), a non-profit organization established to respond to the problem of human rights abuse by combining victim outreach and rehabilitation with legal advocacy and representation. CJA representatives discussed their experiences with victims of human rights abuse and their attempts to file domestic civil lawsuits against abusers. Such training reinforces that these cases are a priority for the INS and ensures that the agents handling them have the most up-to-date information available.
The Department's working group has also been charged with improving the acquisition and exchange of information and evidence on human rights abuse cases. Valuable information relevant to human rights abuse originates from many sources, both within the government or from outside sources. INS and the Department of State have accordingly signed a Statement of Mutual Understanding with Canada setting out the policies and procedures for the exchange of information between the two countries. This allows the United States Government to detect, apprehend and remove human rights abusers who may have come to the attention of the Canadian government. The Department has also met with representatives from Amnesty International and CJA to discuss common efforts, the parameters of a working relationship, and the type of information necessary for appropriate action to be taken.
H.R. 3058
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now let me turn to the bill under consideration today, H.R. 3058, which is entitled, the ''Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act.'' The Department welcomes the efforts of Congressman Foley and others in strengthening our immigration laws as they relate to torturers. Clearly, there is a need for legislative action to make human rights abusers inadmissible to and removable from the United States. We do, however, have concerns about the legislation.
First, by targeting only those human rights abusers who have committed torture, the bill is too limited. The Department believes that additional grounds of inadmissibility and removability relating to other types of human rights abuse should be added to the bill. Other types of conduct that should be included are persecution, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. As I mentioned earlier, the Department has been drafting more comprehensive legislation that would cover these additional forms of abuse. We hope to forward this draft bill for the Subcommittee's consideration by the end of this month.
Second, the bill would expand the jurisdiction of the Office of Special Investigations (OSI) in the Criminal Division of the Department to investigate and take enforcement action against aliens who have committed acts of torture and genocide abroad. OSI's jurisdiction generally pertains to locating, investigating, and, when appropriate, denaturalizing and removing Nazis from the World War II period who are present in the United States. (OSI also conducts these activities in connection with Axis-sponsored persecution perpetrated by Nazi Germany's European allies, as well as acts of persecution carried out by the forces of Imperial Japan.) The Department opposes this proposed reallocation of responsibilities. While OSI has done a commendable job of carrying out its important mission, the Department believes that authority to pursue criminal prosecution of torture and genocide cases should remain with the Criminal Division's Terrorism and Violent Crime Section. Moreover, we believe that the INS should continue to bear responsibility for immigration cases involving human rights abuses.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The INS is the Department's immigration expert. As a result, the INS already has extensive experience in making determinations about persecution and torture. In FY 1998, the INS adjudicated 85,737 affirmative asylum claims. In FY 1999, the INS adjudicated 55,316 affirmative asylum claims. For those fiscal years, The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) heard 25,058 and 24,261 claims, respectively. When INS adjudicates refugee, asylum and withholding claims, its officers must determine not only whether the alien has been or will be subject to persecution, but also whether the alien participated in persecution. In determining whether an alien has committed human rights abuses many of the same issues and factors, such as country conditions, would arise and need to be resolved. The INS Resource Information Center (RIC) is devoted to researching country conditions and preparing materials for INS officers adjudicating applications and for INS attorneys representing the agency position before EOIR. The RIC provides country conditions information on virtually all countries from which aliens claim asylum, withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Present day human rights abusers can be encountered at any point in their immigration history. For example, information that an individual may have engaged in human rights abuse may be discovered when INS adjudicates an application for admission to the United States, or when a defensive application for immigration relief is made during removal proceedings. Or the abuse may only come to light when an alien pursues a further benefit, such as permanent residence or naturalization. Many times allegations of human rights abuse may be reported by another individual or may be uncovered in an unrelated investigation. The INS is best situated to continue with responsibility for these cases, including the identification, arrest, charging, detention and eventual removal of present day human rights abusers.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Further, the INS already has the investigative experience and resources to take responsibility for human rights abusers. The Department anticipates that some of the evidence used against modern human rights abusers will derive from the nation's intelligence and law-enforcement agencies. In the course of litigating over 300,000 cases in immigration court each year, particularly in cases involving alien terrorists, the INS has developed communication and procedural protocols with those agencies that permit the review of classified and otherwise sensitive information. Again, as I said earlier, the INS and the FBI have signed an MOU relating to the investigation and prosecution of these cases.
The INS has a large network of agents and inspectors that provides the flexibility to investigate human rights abuse throughout the world. Immigration Inspectors are trained to admit admissible aliens to the United States and to deny those barred from entering. Also, there is a corps of asylum and refugee officers available to adjudicate relief applications for protection in the United States. These human resources allow the INS to respond to humanitarian crises as they occur, as was the case last year in Kosovo and in the early 1990's in Haiti. Many of these cases, however, against human rights abusers will be litigated in immigration courts. INS's National Security Law Division can draw on more than 600 attorneys, who represent the United States government daily in immigration court. In the course of this representation, INS trial attorneys have acquired a wide knowledge of international treaty obligations and a vast understanding of the country conditions that spawn human rights abuses all over the world.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, that concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to attempt to answer your questions at this time.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Castello.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. Ratliff and Mr. Betancourt, let me address my first questions to you. I will try to summarize your three areas of concern. One, H.R. 2883 attempts to make individual citizens retroactively citizens at birth based entirely on events and conditions occurring after birth; two, it blurs the distinction between acquisition of citizenship at birth and naturalization; and three, it favors adoptive children over certain biological citizens.
My question to you both is simply this. Even if that is all true, what are the negative consequences of those provisions?
Ms. RATLIFF. I think at the heart of the matter is that we are not raising merely a drafting objection. Yes, we want to see these provisions streamlined, not by amending section 101, but by amending section 320 and 322. However, it goes beyond what may sound like a technical drafting objection to sort of the heart of citizenship philosophy which really has two levels.
One, we cannot support creating a legal fiction where children become citizens at birth who were not citizens at birth, who had not fulfilled the requirements for their citizenship at the time of their birth; and second, the important perception that could flow from that legal fiction. Why is it so important to create this legal fiction? If a naturalized citizen sees that adopted children need to be created citizens at birth, even though they weren't, aren't they then going to feel it must not be good enough to be a naturalized citizen. Why is it that a naturalized citizen can't also pretend to be a citizen at birth? We are saying there is no difference between the rights and privileges of a citizen from birth or through naturalization, so there is no need to create this legal fiction and squeeze adopted children into section 301 who don't fit there.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Betancourt?
Mr. BETANCOURT. There is another point that we alluded to in our testimony. Adoption of children often occurs in a foreign country in a rather fragile environment in terms of the public perception of persons in that country. Countries often revisit their adoption laws and were the United States to extend citizenship retroactively to birth to children born in that country, there could be unpleasant consequences in terms of perception in that country, both officially and at a public level as to whether this represented some kind of statement about the adequacy of the citizenship that had been conferred by that country on its children. It may well be a perception issue but it could cause some difficulties.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Castello, in regard to H.R. 3058, I understood you to say that one of the advantages of having INS oversee the investigations is because I think you mentioned that INS has something like 2800 investigators around the country and so forth.
On the other hand, OSI has a good track record of having the appropriate expertise and of having done a good job in the past. Is that what it comes down to, personnel versus expertise, or is there some other reason why OSI is not the appropriate Agency or department to handle the investigations?
Mr. CASTELLO. No, I don't think it is just a comparison of personnel versus expertise. I want to say obviously the Department is very proud of the work that OSI has done. I think they have taken on a very difficult task with commendable efforts.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The INS does have a lot of expertise in this area. The Nazi era war crimes have tended to be a discrete unit of cases. They have a lot of historical documentation which we often do not have in the case of modern human rights abuser cases. A lot of the information that we acquire with respect to modern human rights abusers comes to us in the course of asylum hearings, for example. People say remarkable things in asylum hearings, not only about others but sometimes about themselves.
The INS adjudicates through its hearing officers or appears before the immigration judges in many thousands of cases every year. Through those cases, it has become very adept at judging what is persecution, what are human rights abuses and learning a lot about country conditions in individual countries. I think they are very well positioned to continue to take on this duty.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Castello.
I don't have any other questions.
The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Pease, is recognized for his.
Mr. PEASE. Mr. Castello, following up the chairman's question, I understand your position about the personnel that deal with asylum matters. It would appear to me though that those personnel most often deal with people who are oppressed rather than oppressors. Is that not the case?
Mr. CASTELLO. Most often, I think that is correct because as I said, we have thousands of asylum cases every year, but they do come in contact with people who we believe are human rights abusers.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. PEASE. Is it possible to share that information within units of the Department of Justice now? Do you need statutory assistance to be able to do that if you can't presently?
Mr. CASTELLO. We certainly can I think share information among jurisdictions. Like any large Agency, we always face the problem of coordination. We have worked very hard in the last year to improve the coordination within the INS.
If we were to pass, for example, Mr. Foley's bill in its current incarnation, I think what we would see is among all the cases INS is currently looking at for human rights abuses, if they thought the allegation involved torture, then they would suddenly shift it over to a unit that is not even within INS, it is in the Criminal Division. We just feel that it makes much more sense to have a cadre of people in the INS who are in touch with all the different proceedings in which human rights abuse information may come to light and then can focus their efforts.
Mr. PEASE. What is the current status of coordination between OSI and the INS?
Mr. CASTELLO. There is obviously coordination on the cases that OSI handles because sometimes OSI has a need for assistance. For example, INS has detention authority, so there certainly is coordination between OSI and INS.
In terms of developing the cases, the work there has been focused really within OSI and there has been a great deal of documentary evidence that has been accumulated by OSI from the Nazi era.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. PEASE. Assuming the bill passes and the additional responsibility was created, would it not be necessary to add additional personnel in the units you are suggesting just as it would be important to add them in OSI? It doesn't appear to me that we are going to avoid, nor should we avoid, adding personnel in either scenario that is presented today.
Mr. CASTELLO. Congressman Pease, no agency says that it doesn't want more money, so you put me in an awkward position, but I think given the resources we have right now, INS is working on a significant number of cases and OSI is also working on a significant number of cases. They are working at full level right now. Whether more resources would be useful, I leave that to the Members of Congress.
Mr. PEASE. I want to ask some questions of the other witnesses. If there is time left, I will come back.
Ms. Ratliff, I do understand the philosophical argument you made about distinctions between naturalized citizens who are made citizens retroactively and other naturalized citizens, but I am thinking of the practical experience in my own State, at least when I was still practicing law, I don't know if it still is, in adoptions. That is that we do create a legal fiction, at least in my State, and issue birth certificates after an adoption that lists the adoptive parents as the parents of the child at the time of birth.
How does the Department reconcile your argument with that practice which I assume obtains in most States?
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. RATLIFF. I am not an adoption law expert and I don't know if what you are describing in your home State applies in every State but I do know that is true at least in some States, they do issue birth certificates retroactively, but we still feel that in general, the trend of State adoption laws is not to completely rewrite the past, but to treat the child the same as a biological child from the date of adoption. There are factual aberrations such as the one you are pointing out with the birth certificate but in general, the overarching adoption philosophy is to not completely erase the past. In fact, there even is a trend to honor that child's original heritage and not wipe it out, not pretend it never happened. We are just trying to strike the right balance between treating the child equally and not inappropriately retroactively creating this legal fiction.
We agree there is a balance there but we really do feel that our legislative proposal strikes the better balance between those two competing factors.
Mr. PEASE. Mr. Betancourt?
Mr. BETANCOURT. We have searched to see if there is some specific, tangible benefit that would accrue by making citizenship retroactive. I can understand certainly in the adoption area there would be but we haven't been able to identify a particular, specific benefit that would be accorded that would not otherwise be present.
Mr. PEASE. Fair enough, but it seems to me that the philosophical argument you make could be reversed with the argument that children born in the United States and adopted at least in my State have a birth certificate issued that lists their adoptive parents, and the naturalized citizen then would be treated differently from those who are American born. So there is still going to be a distinction in the perception between the two unless they are all treated the same, at least in my State.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It just seems to me the philosophical argument can go in the other direction as easily as the way you have presented it?
Mr. BETANCOURT. There is a certain tension in effect between citizenship law and adoption law. It is true, different premises.
Mr. PEASE. Mr. Castello, since we are on the subject of potentially broadening OSI's authority, do you think even if we didn't do the things Congressman Foley proposes, which as I said I support, do we need to be doing other things in the existing law to assist the OSI's work in its Nazi cases? Have you found you have need for statutory change to strengthen your ability to do the things you are currently doing?
Mr. CASTELLO. I am not aware of any proposals from the Criminal Division to expand their current jurisdiction.
Mr. PEASE. Could you check and see if they have run into circumstances where they believe there are individuals that should be pursued but because of the way the statute currently is drafted or limited in its scope, they are unable to proceed and if that is the case, advise the committee?
Mr. CASTELLO. Sure. In further answer to your earlier question, one of the ways in which we have tried to reach out and improve our coordination on these human rights abusers cases is to develop a closer working relationship with our counterparts in Canada. One thing that has been interesting has been to see the way they have developed their program.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For the Nazi era war criminals, the lead agency in Canada is the Department of Justice but for the human rights abusers of the contemporary era, the lead agency has been Citizenship and Immigration Canada which is a separate agency in Canada.
They have found somewhat the same thing we have that when it comes to the wide range of human rights abuses in the current era, that it makes sense to have immigration officials take the lead.
Mr. PEASE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Pease.
Let me thank the witnesses as well for your testimony today.
We will now go to the third panel consisting of: Susan Soon-Keum Cox, vice president, Public Policy and External Affairs, Holt International Children's Services, and Maureen Evans, executive director, Joint Council on International Children's Services.
We welcome you both, and Ms. Cox, we will begin with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN SOON-KEUM COX, VICE PRESIDENT, PUBLIC POLICY AND EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, HOLT INTERNATIONAL CHILDREN'S SERVICES
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. COX. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here today and to testify on behalf of H.R. 2883, the Adopted Orphans Citizenship Act. I especially wish to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your important role in this significant legislation. I can tell you on behalf of the international adoption community, we are very pleased to have you so involved in this issue.
My name is Susan Soon-Keum Cox and I am vice president of Public Policy for Holt International Children's Services in Eugene, Oregon. Holt International pioneered intercountry adoption from Korea in the mid-1950's and in that time, we have placed about 50,000 children for adoption.
Intercountry adoption has become an accepted global institution which unites homeless children with permanent, loving families. It is a process which requires compassion, commitment and enormous perseverance on the part of parents adopting children from abroad.
An ongoing issue for intercountry adoptees and the families who adopt them is the necessity to always validate that you are real. Children adopted internationally are almost always of a different culture and ethnicity of their adopted family. This very fact makes their adoption very publicly unique.
For adopted children to truly be equal and full participants in their family as their nonadopted children, they must be assured the same rights and benefits. This includes, of course, the privileges of citizenship in their adopted country.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There are few acquisitions more precious or more valued than that of citizenship. However, for international adoptions, adoptees securing citizenship requires enormous effort, time and expense. The present process of naturalization for adopted children is cumbersome, not only for the adoptive families but for the governmental authorities required to implement them.
There is no benefit to the present system, there is no value added, no additional safeguards or protections. It is another layer of bureaucracy that creates a barrier to internationally adopted children of U.S. citizen parents becoming full participants in our society.
The current process also contradicts the intent of sending countries who assume that children who leave for the purposes of adoption will share with their adoptive parents the citizenship of their newly-adopted country and nationality.
As someone who is adopted, it is difficult to adequately express the great determination and longing that adoptees feel to be considered as real as any other family who comes together. Adoptive parents are consistently called upon to prove that the relationships of their family are somehow not less than those families who come together by birth. Providing automatic citizenship is an enormous step in the right direction.
I also wish to express sound support for H.R. 3667, the Citizenship Act of 2000 introduced by Representative Bill Delahunt. This legislation further extends the right of automatic citizenship to all children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents whether by birth or by adoption. This provides equity to all children and respects the true relationships both legal and emotional of children to their parents without distinction of how this family was formed.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Like most adoptees, I prefer to be considered as an individual outside the restrictions identified purely by adoption.
Another aspect of this bill aids adoptive families and the special relief provided is for foreign born children of U.S. citizens who failed to complete the naturalization process before they turned 18. H.R. 3667 responds to the concerns that have been expressed about the retroactive citizenship provisions in 1485 and H.R. 2883.
H.R. 3667 provides for automatic citizenship as of the date on which the statutory criteria had been made. In the past few years, there have been a number of very positive advances in adoption reform which benefits adoption practice, most importantly, the children who need adoptive families. From an internationally adopted perspective, granting automatic citizenship for adopted children is the highest priority and has strong support throughout the adoption community.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I very much want to thank you for your important role in this effort.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cox follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUSAN SOON-KEUM COX, VICE PRESIDENT, PUBLIC POLICY AND EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, HOLT INTERNATIONAL CHILDREN'S SERVICES
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of H.R. 2883, The Adopted Orphans Citizenship Act. I especially wish to acknowledge Senator Don Nickels and Representative Lamar Smith for their efforts on behalf of this significant legislation.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
My name is Susan Soon-Keum Cox, I am Vice President of Public Policy and External Affairs for Holt International Children's Services in Eugene, Oregon. I have been an adoption professional for more than twenty years. I am a member of the Adoption Advisory Committee of The Child Welfare League of America, a member of the Ethics and Practice Committees of The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, was president for four years of the Joint Council on International Children's Services, the largest affiliation of state licensed, not-for-profit international adoption agencies in the U.S. For eight years I was a member of the board of directors for the North American Council on Adoptable Children, and in 1993 I participated at the Hague representing the adult adoptee perspective.
Holt International pioneered intercountry adoption from Korea in 1956 following the Korean War. In the years since Holt has placed 50,000 children with adoptive families. Since the 1950s, approximately 200,000 children have been adopted worldwide with 150,000 of those children being adopted in the U.S. Last year more than 16,000 children were adopted internationally by U.S. citizen parents.
Intercountry adoption has become an accepted global institution which unites homeless children with permanent loving families. It is a process which requires compassion, commitment and enormous perseverance on the part of adoptive parents wishing to adopt a child from abroad. In addition to the adoption requirements of a domestic adoption, international adoption requires considerable additional processing, bureaucracy and accountability.
An ongoing issue for intercountry adoptees and the families who adopt them, is the necessity to validate that your family is ''real.'' Children adopted internationally are generally of a different race and ethnicity from their adopted family. This makes the fact that they are adopted uniquely public and can become an uncomfortable challenge for adoptive families to overcome. For adopted children to truly be equal and full participants in their family as non-adopted children, they must be assured the same rights and benefits. This includes the privileges of citizenship in their adopted country.
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There are few acquisitions more precious or valued than that of citizenship. However, for international adoptees, securing citizenship requires enormous effort, time and expense. The responsibility of the naturalization process falls to the adoptive parents, it is duplicative of the adoption process and can take from months to years to complete. The length of time required to complete the naturalization process in several states averages 2 years. This is twice as long as the length of time of an average international adoption. The expenses for this effort can be several hundred dollars in fees, costs of documentation , and the costs associated with attending hearings and loss of work on behalf of one or both parents.
The present process of naturalization for adopted children is cumbersome—not only for adoptive families—but for the governmental authorities required to implement them. There is no benefit to the present system, no value added, no additional safeguards or protections. It is another layer of bureaucracy that creates a barrier to internationally adopted children of U.S. citizen parents becoming full participants in our society.
The current process also contradicts the intent of sending countries who assume that children who leave for the purposes of adoption will share with their adoptive parents the citizenship of their newly adopted country and nationality. As someone who is adopted, it is difficult to adequately express the great determination and longing that adoptees feel to be considered as ''real'' and equal to anyone who is part of a family. Adoptive parents are consistently called upon to prove that their relationships of family are not somehow less than families who come together by birth. Providing automatic citizenship is an enormous step in the right direction. This is not merely symbolic, it long over due and is a very practical and measurable process which will help to ''normalize'' the adoption experience.
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I also wish to express strong support for H.R. 3667, the Child Citizenship Act of 2000, which is being introduced by Representative Bill Delahunt. This legislation further extends the right of automatic citizenship to all children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents, whether by birth or adoption. This provides equity for all children and respects the true relationship, both legal and emotional, of children to their parents, without distinction of how the family was formed. Like most adoptees, I prefer to be considered as an individual, outside of the restrictions identified only by adoption. The Child Citizenship Act of 2000 provides for this unequivocally.
Another aspect of the Delahunt bill that aids adoptive families is the special relief it provides for foreign-born children of U.S. citizens who failed to complete the naturalization process before they turned 18. This will allow the Attorney General to deal humanely with the tragic cases in which families have been separated as a result of the failure of some parents to attend to their child's naturalization in a timely way.
I believe that in the U.S., adoptive families and the public in general are unintentionally naive regarding issues of citizenship. I am aware that many adoptees and their families simply assume that naturalization has occurred and learn differently when they apply for a U.S. passport for the adopted child or adult. Although Holt provides information and assists parents in this process for their children, we are contacted by many adoptive families urgently requesting information on the process of naturalization for their adopted children which they incorrectly assumed had been acquired. Additionally, South Korea has expressed grave concern that male children who are adopted overseas will be eligible for, and called to report for mandatory military service. This has happened a number of times when parents have inadvertently neglected to fulfill the requirements for naturalization of their adopted children from Korea.
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Delahunt bill, H.R. 3667, responds to the concerns that have been expressed—by the Administration and by some adoptive families—about the ''retroactive citizenship'' provisions in S. 1485 and H.R. 2883. By amending INA sections 320–322 rather than section 301, H.R. 3667 provides for ''automatic citizenship''—not retroactively from birth but as of the date on which the statutory criteria have been met. This means that a child whose adoption is completed abroad becomes a citizen immediately upon arrival in the United States. In cases where the child is coming to the United States for purposes of adoption, that child becomes a citizen immediately upon the finalization of the adoption.
In the past few years there have been a number of very positive advances in adoption reform which benefit adoption practice, and most importantly, the children who need adoptive families. From an international adoption perspective, granting automatic citizenship for adopted children is of highest priority and has strong support throughout the country.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Cox.
Ms. Evans?
STATEMENT OF MAUREEN EVANS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, JOINT COUNCIL ON INTERNATIONAL CHILDREN'S SERVICES
Ms. EVANS. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today about H.R. 2883. We also believe this important legislation provides programmatic, reasonable and long overdue solutions to the problems facing U.S. citizens who seek citizenship for their internationally adopted children.
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Joint Council on International Children's Services for North America is the oldest and largest affiliation of licensed, nonprofit, international adoption agencies. For more than 20 years, we have advocated for homeless children around the world. We provide ethical practices by adoption agencies and effective services for children.
One highly significant means to better meet the needs of children is to improve the process through which they acquire U.S. citizenship. We applaud Congressman Smith for his leadership in recognizing the need for improvement and in taking concrete, feasible steps to help thousands of families. We also appreciate Congressman Delahunt's legislation, the Child Citizenship Act of 2000.
These bipartisan, indeed nonpartisan, efforts reflect an understanding of child welfare issues and the realities of families today in our global community.
The legislation being considered today, H.R. 2883, recognizes that adopted children of U.S. citizens are entitled to the same treatment under the law as children born to U.S. citizens. This bill simplifies the current process by which adopted children acquire citizenship. While expeditious citizenship for the adopted children of U.S. citizens is ostensibly a priority of the INS, adoptive families currently wait 12 months or often longer to acquire citizenship for their children. This process has been burden some and expensive for many, many years.
In 1999, the Joint Council did a survey on a range of INS services. Over 1,000 U.S. families responded from 49 States and from overseas. Over 60 percent of the families waited more than 6 months from the time of filing for citizenship until they received the citizenship certificate. About 40 percent waited close to a year or more and we have certainly heard about cases that take two or more years.
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The current citizenship process, even when it goes relatively smoothly, is time-consuming and expensive. Further, it is a duplicative process, with parents having to produce essentially the same documents that have already been shown in the course of the adoption.
There is that little question about the need to streamline and improve the process for acquisition of citizenship for children adopted by U.S. citizens. There is tremendous support in the adoption community as well for this.
Joint Council is pleased that the U.S. Department of Justice, which oversees INS, supports measures to streamline the acquisition of U.S. citizenship by the adopted children of U.S. citizens. We look forward to the INS' ongoing commitment to the implementation of this long overdue citizenship legislation.
We would welcome the opportunity to work with the INS to ensure that the process does indeed become streamlined and equitable. While our primary advocacy here is for internationally adopted children, we support automatic citizenship measures that provide equity to the biological children born to U.S. citizens overseas as well as to the adopted children of U.S. citizens.
We endorse legislation that is fair to and respectful of families regardless of how the family was formed. In the past, some adoptive families have been under the unfortunate and incorrect assumption that the U.S. grants automatic citizenship to internationally adopted children. As a result, their children have grown up only to be penalized for their parents' inadvertent failure to make them U.S. citizens, by not being eligible for some post-placement services, or access to scholarships, or admission to certain colleges. We would like to see compassionate legislation that addresses the needs of these families.
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We understand there is controversy regarding the provision to make citizenship effective as of the date of adoption of an internationally adopted child. Joint Council has considered the arguments both for and against the provision which we believe is motivated by patriotism and a desire for fairness, both laudable motivations. However, we also believe that there are legal realities and an adopted child's origins must be respected and acknowledged.
We understand there are complex legal arguments surrounding this. We urge your thoughtful consideration of the legal implications both here and abroad for the equitable resolution of this issue. At a minimum, we would like to see citizenship become effective immediately and automatically after two circumstances, finalization of adoption and entry to the U.S.
Citizenship is a complex and vitally important matter not to be taken lightly. Parents of internationally adopted children, and I am honored to be such a parent, should acknowledge their child's country of origin. It is a gift we give to our children in return for the joy they have given us. At the same time, enfolding a child into our families and our country, upholding the virtues of being a good citizen is also a gift to our children.
Joint Council now works hard to ensure that adoptive parents gain U.S. citizenship for their adopted children as quickly as possible. We encourage your recognition of the need to make this process more efficient and equitable.
Thank you for your support of this valuable and significant legislation.
Page 78 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Ms. Evans follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MAUREEN EVANS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, JOINT COUNCIL ON INTERNATIONAL CHILDREN'S SERVICES
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify about HR 2883, the Adopted Orphans Citizenship Act. This important legislation provides pragmatic, reasonable, and long overdue solutions to problems facing US citizens seeking citizenship for their internationally adopted children. I am honored to speak here today for Joint Council and our member agencies and member parent/advocacy groups.
The Joint Council on International Children's Services from North America (JCICS) is the oldest and largest affiliation of licensed, nonprofit international adoption agencies in the world. JCICS members range in size from the very large to the very small, with most falling in between. We have tremendous diversity, but are united in our professional and personal dedication to children.
For more than 20 years, JCICS has advocated for homeless children around the world. We promote ethical practices by adoption agencies and effective services for children. We promote full communication with international government and adoption officials, and support procedures that better meet the needs of children, through education and advocacy.
One highly significant means to better meet the needs of children is to improve the process through which they acquire US citizenship. We applaud Rep. Smith, the Immigration Subcommittee chair, for his leadership in recognizing the need for improvement, and in taking concrete, feasible steps to help thousands of families.
Page 79 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We appreciate very much the efforts of Sen. Don Nickles, who introduced the Adopted Orphans Citizenship Act on the Senate side, where the legislation passed by unanimous consent. We also appreciate Rep. William Delahunt's legislation, HR 3667, the Child Citizenship Act of 2000, introduced February 15.
These bipartisan—non-partisan—efforts reflect an understanding of child welfare issues and the realities of families today in our global community.
This legislation being considered today, HR 2883, recognizes that adopted children of US citizens are entitled to the same treatment under the law as children born to US citizens. This is fair and just. Adoptive families should have the same legal rights and privileges as any other family.
This bill simplifies the current process by which the adopted children of US citizens acquire citizenship. While expeditious citizenship for the adopted children of US citizens is ostensibly a priority of the INS, adoptive families currently wait 12 months or often longer.
In 1999, Joint Council did a survey on a range of INS services. Over 1000 US families responded from 49 states and from overseas, answering questions about the level of accessibility to INS offices, the time in which they received fingerprint appointments, and related matters. Over 60% of the families waited more than 6 months from the time of filing for citizenship until they received the citizenship certificate. About 40% waited close to a year or more.
Page 80 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Additionally, we received hundreds of responses with letters outlining the delays and problems the families had with INS bureaucracy throughout the process. No doubt most members on this committee have received phone calls from many constituents asking for help in the course of an adoption as well. Adoption agencies spend countless hours with families trying to help them through the process, soon after the child has arrived or many years later.
The current citizenship process—even when it goes relatively smoothly—is time-consuming and expensive. In our survey, only 40% of the families felt that the fees charged by INS were reasonable for the services rendered. Further, it is a duplicative process, with parents having to produce essentially the same documents that have already been shown in the course of the adoption.
There is, then, little question about the need to streamline and improve the process for acquisition of citizenship for children adopted by US citizens. There is tremendous support in the adoption community as well.
In HR 2883, the requirements which adoptive parents must satisfy in order to pass on US citizenship to their foreign-born children are equivalent to those applicable to a US citizen whose biological child was born overseas. All current safeguards are retained, as they should be. The child would have to qualify for citizenship under all conditions established by Congress.
Joint Council is pleased that the US Department of Justice, which oversees the INS, supports measures to streamline the acquisition of US citizenship by the adopted children of US citizens. We look forward to the INS's ongoing commitment to the implementation of this long overdue citizenship legislation. We would welcome the opportunity to work to ensure that the process does indeed become streamlined and equitable.
Page 81 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
While our primary advocacy here is for internationally adopted children, we support automatic citizenship measures that provide equity to the biological children born to US citizens overseas as well as to the adopted children of US citizens. We endorse legislation that is fair to and respectful of families regardless of how the family was formed.
In the past, some adoptive families have been under the unfortunate and incorrect impression that the US grants automatic citizenship to internationally adopted children. As a result, their children have grown up only to be penalized for their parents' inadvertent failure to make them US citizens, by not being eligible for some post-placement services, or access to scholarships, or admission to certain colleges. We would like to see compassionate legislation that addresses the needs of these families. We understand Rep. Delahunt's Child Citizenship Act, for example, addresses this issue, and hope the Committee and the Congress will consider this provision thoughtfully.
We understand that there is some controversy regarding the provision to make citizenship effective as of the birth date of an internationally adopted child. Joint Council has considered the arguments both for and against the provision, which we believe is motivated by patriotism and a desire for fairness: both laudable motivations. However, we also believe that the realities, legal and otherwise, of an adopted child's origins must be respected and acknowledged.
We understand that there are complex legal arguments surrounding this. We urge your thoughtful consideration of the legal implications, both here and abroad, for the equitable resolution of this issue.
Page 82 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
At a minimum, we would like to see citizenship become effective immediately and automatically after 2 circumstances: finalization of an adoption and entry into the US.
Citizenship is a complex and vitally important matter, not to be taken lightly. Parents of internationally adopted children should acknowledge and honor their child's country of origin; it is a gift we give to our children in return for the joy they have given us.
At the same time, enfolding a child into our families and our country, upholding the virtues of being a good citizen, is also a gift to our children. Joint Council now works hard to ensure that adoptive parents gain US citizenship for their adopted children as quickly as possible. We encourage your recognition of the need to make this process more efficient and equitable, and thank you for your support of this valuable and significant legislation.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Evans.
Let me ask you a question that I don't know the answer to. It seems to me one of the concerns people have about current law, which may be a concern we have about this legislation, is that it still requires an affirmative action on the part of the parents, they still need to take steps and if they fail to do so, the child is disadvantaged. Is there any practical way to address that problem?
Ms. EVANS. I would expect that would be making citizenship as automatic as possible upon entry into the United States.
Page 83 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH. My point is even if you do that, it still is going to require some action on the part of the parent, is it not?
Ms. EVANS. I suspect there would be a way to implement that at the point of entry into the United States, if I am understanding your question correctly, upon arrival into the United States, at entry through customs, that a mechanism that could be in place.
Mr. SMITH. Ms. Cox, I believe you addressed most of the concerns expressed by the administration about the bill. I know one in particular and that is about having automatic citizenship for the adopted children when they enter the United States. Are there any other concerns expressed by the administration that you did not address that you want to address?
Ms. COX. I think that is probably the most significant.
Mr. SMITH. They had those three primary concerns. You think that responds to all of them?
Ms. COX. I think so. One of the things that we struggled with—and we have talked about this in joint council and that is the part of the legal fiction. Congressman Pease, I really appreciated your comments because in fact adoption is a legal fiction. The incident you talked about with the birth certificate is not only in your State.
I am not a lawyer, so I can't talk to it in legal terms but we are most concerned about automatic citizenship provision which is incredibly expensive for families, cumbersome and takes 2 years often.
Page 84 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH. Thank you.
The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for questions.
Mr. PEASE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it. The questions you have asked and your responses, thank you very much. I have no further questions.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you all for your testimony.
We will go to our last panel which consists of Richard Krieger, president, International Educational Missions, Inc.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD KRIEGER, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL MISSIONS, INC.
Mr. KRIEGER. It is a privilege to appear before you today in support of the Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act.
I am Richard Krieger, president of International Educational Missions, a nonprofit, bipartisan organization. Our purpose and distinguished board are listed at the end of the written testimony.
IEM has been in existence since 1987 and many of our members have been involved in the issues concerned here today for decades. I personally have been involved with helping to bring Nazi war criminals to justice since the early 1970's and was proud to be a part of the process that gave birth to OSI, as well as helping to bring many thousands of refugees to freedom.
Page 85 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
IEM is deeply grateful to Senators Leahy and Hatch and particularly Congressmen Foley, Ackerman and Franks for bringing this matter to the attention of Congress with the pending legislation.
We are also grateful to the Senate for passing the bill under suspension with unanimous consent and would hope the House would also act in an expeditious manner.
Mr. Castello made some remarks that I would like to respond to at the end of my testimony with your permission.
Mr. SMITH. Since you are limited to 5 minutes of testimony, I will during the question period ask you to respond to what Mr. Castello said.
Mr. KRIEGER. Thank you, sir.
To the utter dismay of IEM, and indeed to the revulsion of most Americans, at this very moment, many of the individuals who perpetrated war crimes, torture and other atrocities are availing themselves of our freedoms and liberties right here in the United States. Rwandan war criminals, Cambodian, Sudanese, Somalian, Indonesian, Ethiopian, Haitian, Chilean, Argentinean—the question is why have any of them been allowed into the United States and why have they been allowed to stay? Why has no successful action been taken against the perpetrators of atrocities in Bosnia and Kosovo who now reside here? Where was the INS?
I bring this issue before you since a few people have suggested the INS administer the Anti-Atrocity Program and not OSI. OSI has placed thousands of Nazi era war criminals on the watch list which enabled our government to keep more than 150 of these odious monsters out of the United States. They have denaturalized 63 Nazi war criminals and deported 52.
Page 86 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In 35 years between the end of World War II and OSI's creation, the INS succeeded in removing one Nazi war criminal from the United States and has placed few if any perpetrators of other foreign atrocities on the watch list. Nor have they denaturalized or deported any of them.
OSI is currently investigating over 200 cases. They are working quite well at it. They have won numerous awards—the Founder's Award from the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the International Human Rights Award from the ADL.
In testimony before another subcommittee, the World Jewish Congress stated, ''No Agency of our Federal Government has done more for the cause of righting historic wrong than the Office of Special Investigations.''
At the same time, how can the INS accept a new program until it has fixed its current program debacle. As Chairman Smith has stated, we are hearing from every part of the country that the INS has now edged out the IRS for the Agency most Americans want reformed.
Paraphrasing Senator Leahy in his statement before the Senate on November 4, 1999, ''I have been appalled that this country has become a safe haven for those who exercise power in foreign countries to terrorize, rape and torture innocent civilians.'' For example, three Ethiopian refugees proved in American court in the former senior government official in Ethiopia engaged in numerous acts of torture and human rights abuses against them in the late 1970's when they lived in that country.
Page 87 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The court's description of abuses against him are chilling. The court's determination was subsequently affirmed by an appellate court. Yet, while the INS knew that this appeal was going on, they granted him citizenship.
Professor William Ackerbee of the California School of Law has noted ''This case is not unique. Other aliens who have committed gross human rights violations have also gained entry to the United States and been granted immigration relief.''
We are all opposed to illegal immigration. I worked with Alan Simpson on it when he was here. Yet one has to ask how the INS can deny citizenship or permanent residency to individuals whose only crime was entering our country, often with children in tow, but no legal documentation, yet grant citizenship and permanent residency to the perpetrators of human rights violations. It is not logical. The comment that we cannot do anything against them is untrue.
We are signatories to the International Convention Against Torture and the International Convention for Human Rights. They permit us to try people found in this country who have committed torture and to exclude them from this country. I would like to submit to you some of the articles of the commonly held universal law and its principles.
The INS failed with the Nazi war criminal issue and perpetrator of atrocity issues because of the bureaucratic and political inefficiency of their structure and operation as it is currently structured, a problem that is still pervasive. This was not the only failure of the INS. When assigned to the special task, look at the 1930's–1950's and their program on organized crime, during the 1970's with the Iranian students, those are just two of them. Look at the hundreds of Russian mafia that have entered the U.S. in the 1970's and 1980's.
Page 88 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Look at some of the problems that have occurred in our dealings with them and the committee's dealings with them. Mr. Castello, mentioned the National Security Field Office.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Krieger follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD KRIEGER, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL MISSIONS, INC.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, ladies and gentlemen, it is a privilege to appear before you today to speak in support of the Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act. I am Richard Krieger, President of International Educational Missions, Inc. (IEM), a non-profit, bi-partisan organization. Our purposes and distinguished Board is listed at the end of this testimony. As you will note, our Board includes two of the three former Directors of The Department of Justice Office of Special Investigations (OSI) that deals with Nazi war criminals in the United States, as well as prominent members of Congress, former U.S. Ambassadors, and other eminent Americans.
While IEM is a fairly new organization, having been in existence only since 1987, individually many of our members have been involved in the issues concerned here today for decades. I personally, have been involved with the issue of bringing Nazi War Criminals to justice since early 1970, and was proud to be part of the process that gave birth to OSI.
Along with Elie Weisel, the Nobel Laureate, I helped demonstrate to the American people that the Sandinista regime of Nicaragua was deliberately attempting to destroy the Mesquito Indians of that country. I was also involved in bringing refugees out of the tyranny that existed in Ethiopia, Cambodia, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Romania and Russia and still exists in Sudan, and Iran. Yet, to the utter dismay of IEM, our associates and cooperating agencies, indeed to the revulsion of most Americans, many of the individuals who perpetrated these and other atrocities are availing themselves of our freedoms and liberties here in these United States.
Page 89 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is for this reason, that we at IEM are deeply grateful to Senators Leahy and Hatch, and Congressmen Foley and Ackerman for bringing this matter to the attention of Congress with the pending legislation S.1754, Title III, and H.R. 3058, The Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act. We are also grateful to the Senate for taking such swift action, in passing the bill under suspension with unanimous consent and would hope that the House acts in an expeditious manner.
The bill, without changes or amendments would:
Make all perpetrators of torture excludable from the United States.
Make all perpetrators of torture who have entered the United States deportable. If they have become U.S. citizens, they must be denaturalized before they are ordered deported.
Make OSI responsible for dealing with all United States cases relating to foreign perpetrators of genocide and torture. This office has had great success in investigating and prosecuting Nazi war criminals, and is the most experienced U.S. Government arm in dealing with the issue of war criminals in the United States.
Provide statutory authorization for the OSI, which currently exists at the discretion of the Attorney General.
While not mentioning specific amounts of appropriation, provide appropriation authorization for the OSI to accomplish these tasks.
Page 90 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We are proud of the accomplishments of the OSI. They have placed thousands of Nazi era war criminals on the border control Watch List and enabled our Government to keep more than 150 of these odious monsters out of the United States. We salute their professionalism in denaturalizing 63 other Nazi war criminals that had entered the United States and deporting 52 of them. In the 35 years between the end of World War II and OSI's creation, the I.N.S. succeeded in removing just one Nazi criminal from the United States. In contrast to the meager results achieved by the federal government prior to OSI's creation, OSI's success has resulted in ABC TV News calling it ''the most successful Nazi-hunting unit in the world,'' and Knight-Ridder News Service calling OSI ''the most effective and aggressive Nazi hunting outfit in the world.''
It has won the Founders Award of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. In 1977, the Anti-Defamation League named OSI the first recipient of its newly established annual International Human Rights Award, created to recognize those who have ''contributed in a profound and exemplary manner to the cause of justice on behalf of victims of human rights violations.''
As the World Jewish Congress noted in testimony before another House Subcommittee in 1998, ''No agency of our Federal government has done more for the cause of righting historic wrongs than the Office of Special Investigations.''
At the same time, the INS, which a few sources feel should be responsible for administrating the U.S. anti-atrocity program, has placed comparatively few, if any, of the perpetrators of other atrocities that decimated human beings on the watch list, nor have they denaturalized or deported any of them. What of Rwandan war criminals, Cambodian, Sudanese, Somalian, Congolese, Indonesian, or Ethiopian, what of Haitian, Chilean, or Argentinean perpetrators of torture and crimes against humanity, why have any of them been allowed to enter the United States, and why have they been allowed to stay? Why has no successful action been taken against the perpetrators of atrocities in Bosnia and Kosovo who now reside here? Where was the I.N.S.?
Page 91 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Indeed, one has to wonder how the I.N.S. can take upon itself any new program until it has fixed its current program debacle, for as Chairman Smith has stated, ''We are hearing from every part of the country that the I.N.S. has now edged out the I.R.S. for the agency Americans most want reformed.''
The Center for Immigration Studies also quotes Congressman Smith in denouncing the Administration's plan to maintain both sides of the I.N.S. under one manager (as it currently exists) as creating a ''super-I.N.S.'' Adding additional responsibilities to an I.N.S. that has demonstrated an inability to properly handle its current responsibility, will indeed, under the current structure, create a super-dysfunctional-I.N.S.
Quoting Senator Patrick Leahy in his statement before the Senate on November 4, 1999,
''I have been appalled that this country has become a safe haven for those who exercised power in foreign countries to terrorize, rape, and torture innocent civilians. For example, three Ethiopian refugees proved in an American court that Kelhessa Negewo, a former senior government official in Ethiopia engaged in numerous acts of torture and human rights abuses against them in the late 1970's when they lived in that country. The court's descriptions of the abuses against him are chilling, and included whipping a naked woman with a wire for hours and threatening her with death in the presence of several men. The court's award of compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $1,500,000 to the plaintiffs was subsequently affirmed by an appellate court. Yet, while Negewo's case was on appeal, the I.N.S. granted him citizenship.
Page 92 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
''As Professor William Aceves of California School of Law has noted, this case reveals
'a glaring and troubling limitation in current immigration law and practice. This case is not unique. Other aliens who have committed gross human rights violations have also gained entry into the United States and been granted immigration relief.' ''
It is ludicrous that the I.N.S. denies citizenship or permanent residency to individuals whose only offense was to cross the border, often with their children in tow, but without proper documentation, but grant citizenship and permanent residency to the perpetrators of human rights violations
It might also be said that we did not have legislation that permitted the I.N.S. to keep these perpetrators of atrocities and war crimes out of our country, or bring those that entered to justice. But we have been signatories to international agreements, which do allow such action. Agreements that have been ratified by Congress, such as The International Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It is apparent that a problem exists within the United States Government in properly dealing with this issue.
Nor can it be said that the I.N.S. was not given an opportunity to demonstrate an ability to perform the tasks that have been assigned to OSI. The I.N.S. had this opportunity prior to the formation of OSI in 1979. While the OSI has gained acclaim as the foremost Nazi war criminal investigative and prosecutorial organization in the world, the I.N.S. failed at the task.
The I.N.S. failed then because of the bureaucratic and political inefficiency of their structure and operation, a massive problem that is still pervasive at the I.N.S. These problems prohibited a talented, capable and dedicated individual from accomplishing the task at the I.N.S., and would prohibit any individual from achieving the goals of the Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act at that agency. But this was not the only failure of the I.N.S. when assigned other special tasks, look at their failure during the 1930's to 1950's with programs on organized crime and during the 1970's with Iranian students, to name just two.
Page 93 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
IEM would like to applaud the U.S. Supreme Court in refusing to hear the case of Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, a Rwandan war criminal, and, therefore upholding the decision of a Federal District Judge in ordering his extradition to the International War Crimes Tribunal. This action establishes an important precedent in making the extradition of alleged war criminals to international war crimes tribunals an acceptable U.S. practice. At the time this testimony was written, the Secretary of State had as yet not signed off on the extradition action, however, her January 24th statement that was printed in The New York Times ''that Mr. Ntakirutimana should be deported'' provides us with the understanding that extradition will be forthcoming very soon.
I would also recommend that the OSI be instructed to develop a central database on war crimes, atrocities, and human rights violations and perpetrators throughout the world. This project should be done in cooperation with The Bureau for Human Rights and the Office of War Criminals at The Department of State. Further, that the results of these database be shared with the Department of State Watch List and Bureau of Consular Affairs, as well as The Criminal Division of The Department of Justice and the I.N.S.
The Minneapolis Rehabilitation Center for Victims of Torture has reported an estimated 400,000 victims of foreign atrocities in the United States. These potential witnesses and their families can provide an exceptional store of information for our anti-atrocity program. Yet this estimate is based on the reports of only15 treatment centers that currently exist in the U.S., and IEM is undertaking the task of developing such holistic rehabilitation centers in areas where none exist right now, such as Florida, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania, as well as a complete holistic center in Washington, DC. With these new centers in operation, we might find a much larger number of victims that are in need of assistance and can be helped as well as provide information.
Page 94 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The San Francisco based Center for Justice and Accountability has declared that there may be thousands of perpetrators of atrocities and war crimes currently living in the United States. This figure does not include Nazi war criminals currently being investigated by the OSI. These figures are frightening and call for immediate action on the part of the Subcommittee in endorsing this Anti-Atrocity Act and sending it forward for approval.
I therefore ask the Subcommittee to support the Senate version and the original House version of the Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act, and see that the responsibility for administrating this Act are assigned to the Office of Special Investigations.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee and if you have any questions, I would be pleased to try and respond to them.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Krieger, let me go to my questions since you are bringing up Mr. Castello.
First, you wanted to respond to something he said, and you are welcome to do so.
Mr. KRIEGER. Thank you. He mentioned the National Security Unit. That field office is under the direction of Walter D. Cadman who was the Director of the Miami District Office when in June 1995, a congressional delegation including members of this subcommittee, made a fact-finding visit to Miami to examine INS operations there. The Office of the Inspector General found that certain INS employees had engaged in an elaborate scheme to mislead and deceive the delegation with respect to INS operations in Miami.
Page 95 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The OIG also found that certain INS employees attempted to obstruct the OIG's investigation in this matter. They found that Mr. Cadman was a willing participant in efforts to mislead INS headquarters and to then mislead and delay the OIG investigation. ''On the basis of the evidence gathered in this investigation, we believe the appropriate punishment for Miami District Director Walter Cadman falls within the range of a 30-day suspension to termination of employment.'' Further, the OIG report stated, ''that if retained, Mr. Cadman should not be placed in a managerial position.''
Mr. SMITH. Let me go to my next question. You mentioned that I have real frustrations with the INS and their performance in a number of areas. Nevertheless, I am sure the administration would say that they are still the Agency of jurisdiction, and why wouldn't the answer be to hold them accountable for their actions and make them perform rather than giving the responsibility to someone else?
Mr. KRIEGER. The OSI has the most experience of any office in our government in obtaining information on war criminals and in actively deporting them. INS really doesn't have this kind of experience. Though Mr. Castello spoke about all the asylum officers and their investigations, as the Center for Justice and Accountability, who is one of our cooperating agencies, has stated, there are thousands of perpetrators of atrocities who are in this country right now.
Mr. SMITH. Why, in that case, wouldn't we give the responsibility to the Agency that has the most personnel, rather than expanding the size of the OSI?
Page 96 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KRIEGER. Because personnel does not necessarily demonstrate qualifications. I think it would be advisable that some of the people INS would like to see head this operation serve with OSI and learn proper methodology. Much of the people currently being investigated by the INS were not given to them by asylum officers but were given to them by Gerald Grey. This paper I am also presenting lists 60 individuals and speaks of thousands of other cases here.
Just to demonstrate, I am biased on this issue in favor of OSI, two of our board members are former Directors of OSI. We do feel that Agency is absolutely qualified.
The Minneapolis Center for Rehabilitation of Torture Victims has indicated that there are 400,000 refugees in this country right now who are victims of torture. We have only 15 centers for rehabilitation in the country. In Texas, there is one in Dallas but they cannot cover all of Texas and there are no others. There is none in Florida, none in New Jersey. There is a counseling center here in Washington, DC, but not a full center. As such, my agency has been asked by the international committee to form holistic rehabilitation centers in areas where there aren't any now, and as such, to find more of the victims and to try to help these victims and try to get more witnesses and information on this for the government.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Krieger. My time is up.
I am going to recognize Mr. Pease for his questions.
Mr. PEASE. Thank you.
Page 97 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
You made reference on a couple of occasions to a document that you brought with you. Do you wish to submit that for the record of this hearing and if you do, Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent.
Mr. SMITH. Without objection, it will be made a part of the record.
[The information referred to is in subcommittee files.]
Mr. PEASE. I want to ask you one of the same questions I asked Mr. Castello. That is whether in your experience under the existing law as it is used by OSI regarding Nazi era war criminals, you see a need for change in the existing law, if there are areas where we need to strengthen the law to give broader jurisdiction to give greater flexibility?
Mr. KRIEGER. Yes, sir, I do. As I read my statistics to you, I spoke of the number of people that have been denaturalized and the number that have been deported for trial. There are some instances when we are not able to deport. The reason they cannot be deported is that there are countries right now where these atrocities were committed or where these people came from, such as Germany, that do not want to receive these war criminals. So even though they are denaturalized, they stay here.
Later in my prepared statement I said that if we went along with the torture convention and tried some of these people that were here because we had no place to send them, then we would be sending out word to the world, if you come here and we catch you and we have no place to send you, we will try you and put you in jail, because whether they are here as citizens or noncitizens, taking away some of their privileges, the fact is they are still relishing the freedoms of this country.
Page 98 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Sir, it is my belief that the bill should be broadened to include foreign war criminals and perpetrators of foreign human rights abuse, as well as, torturers.
Mr. PEASE. Thank you very much. I have no further questions.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Pease.
Mr. Krieger, thank you for your testimony. It has been helpful.
We thank all the witnesses who were here today. We will give due consideration to the bills.
Before we adjourn officially I would like to thank members of the Immigration Subcommittee staff who were here and who helped prepare for this hearing: to my right, Jim Wilon; to my left, Bill Griffith; and Kelly Dixon to my left in the red who was under doctor's orders not to get out of bed today. Despite that, she obviously went beyond the call of duty to help us prepare, set up and complete a successful hearing. Thank you all.
We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:21 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]