Turning Point: History and Lessons
Learned from the '96 Immigration Laws
Friday, June 22, 2012
2pm – 3:30pm EDT
Introduction and Logistics
 Facilitated by:
Andrea Black, Executive Director, Detention Watch Network
 Special thanks to Steering Committee members Christina Mansfield
(Detention Dialogues) and Michael Tan (ACLU Immigrants’ Rights
Project), and Silky Shah (DWN staff) for coordinating the webinar.
Mandatory Detention and the
1996 laws
Judy Rabinovitz
ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project
Three Overarching Issues
 1)
Mandatory detention is just one reflection and
contributor to the broader problem: which is the dramatic
expansion of unnecessary detention
 2) To address mandatory detention, and unnecessary
detention more generally, we need to look also at the laws that
are fueling deportation: hence our focus today on the 1996
laws, of which mandatory detention was only one small part
 3)
Many of these laws – and the resistance to changing them
– stems from the fact that they target noncitizens with criminal
convictions; in our advocacy we must be careful not to play
into the view that there are “good immigrants,” and there are
“criminal” immigrants
What are the 1996 Laws?
 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act
 Enacted September 30, 1996
 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
 Signed into law April 24, 1996
Features of the 1996 Laws
 Expanded kinds of crimes that would lead to deportation, even
of longtime lawful permanent residents
Eliminated main form of relief for lawful permanent residents
charged with deportation based on crimes, essentially subjecting
them to mandatory deportation
 Did this by expanding definition of “aggravated felony”: need
not be “aggravated” or “felonies”– and barring discretionary relief
from removal for almost anyone with an “agfel”
Features of the 1996 Laws Cont’d
Attempted to eliminate judicial review of removal orders
based on criminal convictions
Required detention pending removal proceedings of virtually
anyone facing removal based on a crime, even crimes that are
NOT agfels
Other (expedited removal at border, etc.)
Mandatory Detention: What is it and
how did we get here?
What is mandatory detention?
detention without a bond hearing
includes longtime lawful permanent residents
with criminal convictions
includes asylum seekers
broader issue is unnecessary detention of people
who don't need to be detained
Congress’ Enactment of Statute in
1996: the Political Context
 Not the first attempt
 The Political Context
 No Detention Policy: no risk assessments, detention decision a
function of bed space
 Culmination of attack on “Criminal Aliens” that had begun in
the mid-1980’s; the toxic politics of anything involving
immigrants/crime
 Just one part of package of laws (“the 1996 laws”)that targeted
immigrants with criminal convictions, among others
Congress’ Asserted Justification for
Mandatory Detention
 Concern about removal orders that weren’t being executed
 Studies showed that people weren’t being removed; and that
“criminal aliens” weren’t even being apprehended when they
completed their sentences
 Conclusion: lock people up and they will be easy to remove
 No consideration of alternatives (such as meaningful risk
assessment policy; issuing surrender letters; other ways to
insure availability for removal)
Executive’s Attitude Towards
Mandatory Detention
 Administration (Clinton) opposed mandatory detention
 Even after enacted, pushed for delay in implementation
because of lack of detention beds
 But once took effect, aggressively implemented, and have
done so since, taking broadest interpretation of statute’s
reach and backing off only as a result of litigation
Why has Executive Chosen to So
Aggressively Implement the Statute?
The toxic politics of “criminal aliens.”
No one wants to be for them;
Everyone wants to be against them;
The Willie Horton scenario….
Broader Context
Administration not wanting to show that it was
“soft” on enforcement, in order to win support for
CIR
Conclusion
To extent that there was ever a justification for mandatory detention,
context now is completely different;
 ICE’s stated commitment to detention reform and launching of
risk assessment tool
 Other mechanisms in place for identifying “criminal aliens,” (so
they don’t slip through cracks)
 Alternatives to detention that have been shown effective and less
costly
Need to broaden our focus to challenge not only mandatory
detention, but the laws that lead to them, i.e., the broader package
of 1996 laws that make deportation mandatory for longtime legal
permanent residents, even those with minor and distant offenses.
‘96 Laws Impact on
Immigrant Communities
Donald Anthonyson
Families for Freedom
Families for Freedom
FFF was started when some of its founders’ families got
detained and unfortunately got deported. Like most people,
then and now, they had no idea of the 1996 laws and their
devastating impacts when applied.
Impact: most troubling issues
• The two laws, IIRAIRA and AEDPA, with their components that
made misdemeanors ‘aggravated felonies’ and introduced
mandatory detention and deportation, have wreaked havoc on
our members and their families.
• For having two twelve year old convictions for marijuana
possession, a father of four US children is deported, leaving
behind a fractured family bewildered at the logic of him being
sentenced to a year but not serving any, yet ends up spending
double that time in ICE custody and then deported.
Most troubling issues
• The high cost of fighting cases
• Lack of access to legal counsel
• ‘Aggravated Felon’ logic of Mandatory
Detention
Results: An increase in fractured families
US Citizen Children Who Had Parents
Detained or Deported
NYC Detention Data Oct 2005 - Dec 2010
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
Parents of US Citizen Children Detained
and Deported
NYC Detention Data Oct 2005 - Dec 2010
8,000
Children
Whose
Parents
Were
Detained,
13,521
6,000
Children
Whose
Parents
Were
Deported,
7,111
4,000
2,000
0
Parents
Parents
Detained, Deported,
7,186
3,887
Questions and Answers
To ask a question please
click the hand with the
green arrow. The facilitator
will call on you when it is
your turn. Due to time
constraints we may not be
able to get to everyone’s
questions.
* In order to speak you must
enter your audio pin
Fix-96: Advocacy to Fix the
Unfair 1996 Deportation
and Detention Laws
Nancy Morawetz
NYU Immigrant Rights Clinic
Background – How Did AEDPA and
IIRIRA Happen?
 Large comprehensive bills moving through in both Houses
 AEDPA enacted in April 1996 to mark the anniversary of the




Oklahoma City bombing
 Worse provisions on relief than the bills in both houses
 Worse provisions on detention than the bills in both houses
Split the bill strategy pitting “enforcement” and “criminal aliens”
against an effort to cut annual immigration numbers
September 1996 conference committee on major bills
Conference Committee more punitive than bills in both houses.
No debate – part of an omnibus bill to stop a government shut
down
Examples of How the Final Bill Was Worse
than the House and Senate Bills:
 No relief for agg fels instead of no relief if sentenced to five




years for an agg fel
Clock stop at commission of crime instead of clock stop only
when proceedings started
Broad grounds of mandatory detention instead of only for
agg fels
s.a.m. as an agg fel instead of as a deportability ground
LPRs subject to inadmissibility rules for any trip if there is
any ground of criminal inadmissibility instead of only for agg
fels
Initial efforts to Fix 96
 1997 Alliance for Justice video highlighting Jesus Collado; long
time LPR with old conviction detained after visiting his mother.
Story premiered on Capitol Hill and shown at 50 subsequent
events; featured on Dateline and NYTimes.
 Proponents of 1996 laws said that INS was applying law too
broadly – should exercise prosecutorial discretion.
 1997-1999 articles by numerous journalists including Anthony
Lewis of the NY Times profiling unfairness retroactive
deportation laws.
Fix ‘96 Legislation
 1999 –Bills introduced:
 Family Reunification Act of 1999 – introduced by
Barney Frank; restored waiver for those with
sentence of less than five years or for urgent
humanitarian reasons.
 HR 2999: Fairness for Permanent Residents Act of
1999 – introduced by Rep. Bill McCollum after he
had sought a private bill for Republican official’s son.
Would have limited retroactive repeal of 212(c)
relief.
Fix ‘96 Legislation cont’d
 1999-2000 –
 Extensive legislative visits by families affected by deportation
laws
 July 1999: Fix 96 Campaign launched by national advocates
 2000 – Bill Passes the House.
 HR 5062 limiting the retroactive application of AF definition
for cancellation and providing a process for those who had been
deported. Introduced by Bill McCollum with bipartisan
support. Passed the House.
 HR 5062 killed in the Senate due to opposition by a single
Senator: Phil Gramm of Texas.
Related Legislation
 2000 Child Citizenship Act (automatic citizenship
to some minor LPR children).
 2000 LIFE Act – extension of 245(i) to allow for
adjustment based on family and employment
visas.
Post 2001
 Even after 9/11 there was progress on fix 96 legislation.
 Mobilization of advocacy communities in the wake of Cambodian
deportations.
 November 2002 HR 1452 Family Reunification Act clears Judiciary
Committee chaired by Republicans. (Hyde, Chair of Judiciary
Committee; Sensenbrenner, Chair of Immigration Subcommittee.
 Would have provided greater access to relief (depending on age of
admission and with some exceptions based on crimes and history of
incarceration);
 clock stop limited to date of proceedings; limiting travel (101(a)(13) to
trips longer than 30 or 60 days;
 cut back on mandatory detention if eligible for cancellation.
 No further action.
Important lessons from past legislative
efforts
 Possible to find bi-partisan support where legislators felt the





direct impact – e.g. McCullom’s private bill
Possible to garner support on “technical” provisions that
make no sense and are problematic for our clients – such as
the clock stop rule.
Possible to gain support on limiting mandatory deportation
and mandatory detention.
A real champion (as we had in Barney Frank) makes a
difference
Mobilization of affected families makes a difference.
Veto power of powerful legislators remains a problem.
Questions and Answers
To ask a question please
click the hand with the
green arrow. The facilitator
will call on you when it is
your turn. Due to time
constraints we may not be
able to get to everyone’s
questions.
* In order to speak you must
enter your audio pin
Current advocacy & the
Dignity Not Detention
campaign
Emily Tucker
Detention Watch Network
Preventing the Expansion of
Mandatory Detention
• Member and Community
Education
•Getting Mandatory
Detention Back Into The
National Conversation
•Affirmative Legislative
Advocacy
•Possibilities for
Administrative Action
•Challenging the
Criminality Excuse
Local organizing against
Mandatory Detention
Geoff Valdés – Texans United For Families
Texans United for Families
 TUFF formed in 2006 initially in response to T. Don Hutto
Detention Center and is an all volunteer organization.
TUFF organizing against
Mandatory Detention
 TUFF has a three prong approach to detention:
 Cut corporate support: divestment campaign
 Highlight worst of worst: Expose and Close as well as
other site fights such as Karnes
 Work with DWN to repeal 1996 MD laws
 Mandatory Detention
 Mandatory Detention Workshop
 Next Steps for TUFF
Join Detention Watch Network
Why join?
 DWN is the only national coalition whose main focus is
immigration detention and deportation issues.
 DWN focuses on its members: it is member led, member
driven, and member inclusive.
 DWN consistently creates useful and timely resources for
members and the community, such as this webinar!
To join go to: http://detentionwatchnetwork.org/joindwn or
contact Ana Carrión at acarrion@detentionwatchnetwork.org
Questions and Answers
To ask a question please
click the hand with the
green arrow. The facilitator
will call on you when it is
your turn. Due to time
constraints we may not be
able to get to everyone’s
questions.
* In order to speak you must
enter your audio pin
Thank you for joining us!
Turning Point: History and Lessons
Learned from the '96 Immigration Laws
Friday, June 22, 2012
2pm – 3:30pm EDT