Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118568558",
    "label": "Immigration and Naturalization (8 of 13)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118568558"
}

{
    "id": "118568558",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118568558",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Immigration and Naturalization (8 of 13)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118568558",
    "identifierLocal": "485",
    "collections": [
        "Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)",
        "John Roberts' Subject Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-028-006-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-028-006-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-028-006-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118568558",
    "naId": 118568558,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1986-12-31",
        "year": 1986
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1982-01-01",
        "year": 1982
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-028-006-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "a442e97c70de8371",
    "ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.\nCollection: Roberts, John G.: Files\nFolder Title: Immigration and Naturalization\n(8 of 13)\nBox: 28\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at: [email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\nNational Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJuly 20, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS, JR. see\nSUBJECT:\nDraft Labor Report on H.R. 4509,\nthe Immigration Exclusion and\nDeportation Amendments\nOMB has asked for our views by close of business today on a\ndraft Department of Labor report on H.R. 4509, the \"Immigration\nExclusion and Deportation Amendments of 1983.\" Our office has\npreviously reviewed Justice and State testimony and reports on\nthis bill. The Administration generally opposes the bill, which\nwould eliminate most of the qualitative grounds for excluding\naliens (such as the likelihood that they will become public\ncharges, mental illness, etc.).\nCurrent law permits exclusion of aliens seeking work unless the\nSecretary of Labor certifies that there are not enough American\nworkers able, willing, and qualified to perform the labor in\nquestion. H.R. 4509 would, inter alia, change \"qualified\" to\n\"equally qualified\" in the case of teachers and researchers, in\neffect expanding the admissability of aliens in those professions.\nLabor's draft report opposes this expansion, at least through\ncase-by-case determinations, and suggests as an alternative a\nmore generic certification process, based on labor market\ninformation rather than specific determinations of whether an\nindividual alien is \"more qualified\" than American applicants for\na particular job. I have reviewed the draft report and have no\nobjections. It is consistent with the previously reviewed\nJustice and State reports.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJuly 20, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR BRANDEN BLUM\nLEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nRATFOR\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING Orig signed by FFF\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nDraft Labor Report on H.R. 4509,\nthe Immigration Exclusion and\nDeportation Amendments\nCounsel's office has reviewed the above-referenced report,\nand finds no objection to it from a legal perspective.\nFFF/JGR:nb\nCC: FFFielding\nJGRoberts, Jr.\nSubj.\nChron.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJuly 20, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR BRANDEN BLUM\nLEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nDraft Labor Report on H.R. 4509,\nthe Immigration Exclusion and\nDeportation Amendments\nCounsel's office has reviewed the above-referenced report,\nand finds no objection to it from a legal perspective.\nID #\n241952 CU\nJV\nWHITE HOUSE\nCORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET\nIM\nO . OUTGOING\nH . INTERNAL\nI . INCOMING\nHR\nDate Correspondence\nReceived (YY/MM/DD)\n/\n/\nName of Correspondent:\nBranden Blum\nMI Mail Report\nUser Codes: (A)\n(B)\n(C)\nSubject: Draft Cabor report on H.R 4509, the\nAmendments \"Immigration Exclusion and Deportation\nROUTE TO:\nACTION\nDISPOSITION\nTracking\nType\nCompletion\nAction\nDate\nof\nDate\nOffice/Agency\n(Staff Name)\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nResponse\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nCUHOLE\nORIGINATOR 84,07,16\nA\n/\n/\nReferral Note:\nCUAT 18\n84,07,17\n5 84,07,20\nReferral Note:\nCOB\n/\n/\n/\n/\nReferral Note:\n/\n/\n/\n/\nReferral Note:\n/\n/\nReferral Note:\nACTION CODES:\nDISPOSITION CODES:\nA Appropriate Action\nI . Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary\nA Answered\nC Completed\nC . Comment/Recommendation\nR . Direct Reply w/Copy\nB . Non-Special Referral\nS Suspended\nD * Draft Response\nS For Signature\nF Furnish Fact Sheet\nX Interim Reoly\nto be used as Enclosure\nFOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:\nType of Response = Initials of Signer\nCode\n=\n\"A\"\nCompletion Date = Date of Outgoing\nComments: Branden Blum\nKeep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.\nSend all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).\nAlways return completed correspondence record to Central Files.\nRefer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference. ext. 2590.\n5/81\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nOFFICE OF management AND BUDGET\nSEAL\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20503\nSPECIAL\nJuly 13, 1984\nLEGISLATIVE REFERRAL MEMORANDUM\n241952a\nTO:\nLEGISLATIVE LIAISON OFFICER\nDepartment of State\nDepartment of Justice\nDepartment of Health and Human Services\nNational Security Council\nSUBJECT:\nDraft Labor report on H.R. 4509, the \"Immigration\nExclusion and Deportation Amendments\nThe Office of Management and Budget requests the views of your\nagency on the above subject before advising on its relationship\nto the program of the President, in accordance with OMB Circular\nA-19.\nPlease provide us with your views no later than\nCOB Friday, July 20, 1984.\nDirect your questions to Branden Blum (395-3802), the legislative\nattorney in this office\nJames C. Murr for\nAssistant Director for\nLegislative Reference\nEnclosure\nCC: J. Kent\nS. Malm\nS. Gates\nF. Fielding\nJ. Cooney\nS. Galebach\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR\nSECRETARY OF LABOR\nDRAFT\nWASHINGTON, D.C.\nHonorable Peter W. Rodino, Jr.\nChairman\nCommittee on the Judiciary\nU.S. House of Representatives\nWashington, D.C. 20515\nDear Mr. Chairman:\nThis is in response to your request for our views on H.R. 4509,\na bill cited as the \"Immigration Exclusion and Deportation Amend-\nments of 1983\". The Department of Labor defers to the Justice\nand State Departments with respect to most of the bill's pro-\nvisions, except for the provision concerning labor certifi-\ncation as a ground for exclusion of an immigrant alien.\nSection 212 (a) (14) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)\nprovides for an alien labor certification for an alien seeking\nadmission to the United States as a third (exceptional abil-\nity) preference, sixth (skilled or unskilled labor) prefer-\nence, or nonpreference immigrant. The labor certification\nprovision has two basic functions: first, to protect the U.S.\nlabor force from competition from alien labor; and second,\nto allow for entry of needed workers in the United States.\nand revise the\ngrounds for\nSection 2 of the bill would amend section 212 (a) of the INA\nby deleting the current paragraph (14) and adding an onclu\nexcluding aliens\nfrom admission\nsion provision under & new paragraph (4) entitled 'Economic\nGrounds for Certain Aliens of concern to the Department\ninto the United\nof Labor is the new subparagraph(A) which is substituted for\nstates.\nthe current provision of section 212 (a) (14), The new subpara\ngraph (A) states.] and would exclude:\n(4)\n\"Any alien who seeks to enter the United States for the\npurpose of performing skilled or unskilled labor, unless\nthe Secretary of Labor has determined and certified to\nthe Secretary of State and the Attorney General that (1)\nthere are not sufficient workers who are able, willing,\nqualified (or equally qualified in the case of an alien\n(I) who is a member of the teaching profession, (II) who\nhas exceptional ability in the sciences or arts, or (III)\nwho has a doctoral degree and is seeking to enter the\nUnited States to be employed as a researcher at a college,\nuniversity, or other nonprofit educational or research\n- 2 -\ninstitution), and available at the time of application\nfor a visa and admission to the United States and at the\nplace where the alien is to perform such skilled or un-\nskilled labor, and (ii) the employment of such alien will\nnot adversely affect the wages and working conditions\nof workers in the United States similarly employed.\" (em-\nphasis added)\nThe Department is opposed to H.R. 4509's proposed application\nof the special standard, \"equally qualified,\" to members of\nthe teaching profession and researchers who are not of excep-\ntional merit and ability. This special standard of availabil-\nity, extended to employers of college or university teachers\nin 1976, would enable nonprofit educational institutions to\npetition for the admission of \"more qualified\" aliens, even\nif qualified U.S. teachers or researchers are available.\nIn our view, American workers should be hired whenever pos-\nsible, and qualified American workers in professional occupa-\ntions merit the same kind of labor market protections that\nworkers in all other occupations are accorded. It 16 important\nto note, for example, that Ph.D. researchers in the United\nStates are in many cases increasing at a rate greater than\nare employment opportunities in their areas of expertise.\nThe job market in the humanities and the social sciences has\nbeen particularly tight in recent years. Thus, while this\nDepartment supports, and currently applies, a special standard\nfor aliens of exceptional ability in the sciences or arts,\nwe do not support the application of such a standard to aliens\non the basis of their occupation alone.\nAs an alternative, we propose a change similar to the provisions\nof section 203 of S. 529, the Immigration Reform and Control\nAct of 1983. Specifically our new labor certification proposal\nwould state:\nSec: 212. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this Act,\nthe following classes of aliens shall be ineligible to\nreceive visas and shall be excluded from admission into\nthe United States:---\n\"(14) Aliens seeking to enter the United States, for the\npurpose of performing skilled or unskilled labor, unless\nthe Secretary of Labor has determined and certified to\nthe Secretary of State and the Attorney General that:\n(A) there are not sufficient workers available in the\nUnited States in the occupations in which the aliens will\nbe employed; and (B) the employment of aliens in such\n- 3 -\noccupations will not adversely affect the wages and work-\ning conditions of workers in the United States who are\nsimilarly employed. In making such determinations, the\nSecretary of Labor may use labor market information with-\nout reference to the specific job opportunity for which\ncertification is requested. An alien on behalf of who\na certification is sought must have an offer of employment\nfrom an employer in the United States, except that the\nSecretary of Labor may waive this requirement in the case\nof an alien with exceptional ability.\"\nOur proposal is intended to streamline the current cumbersone,\ncostly, and time-consuming labor certification procedures for\nimmigrants. As S. 529, our bill would permit the Secretary\nof Labor to make such determinations on the basis of labor-\nmarket information. While provision for individual case determi-\nnation would remain, the Department of Labor would no longer\nbe required to recruit, nor to require employers to recruit,\nworkers for a specific job opportunity in order to test the\navailability of qualified workers in the United States. We\nalso recommend language which provides the Secretary of Labor\nwith discretion to waive a job offer for aliens of exceptional\nability, for example, artists, who are typically self-employed.\nH.R. 4509, through its adherence to the present recruitment\nstandard (\"not sufficient workers who are able, willing, quali-\nfied ... and available\") would perpetuate this mandatory recruit-\nment system for testing U.S. worker availability. The Depart-\nment and most employers agree that the current system is cumber-\nsome and time-consuming. We therefore believe the adoption\nof the provision in H.R. 4509 would have no beneficial results.\nThe Department of Labor is opposed to the changes for labor\ncertification in H.R. 4509. The provisions of H.R. 4509 do\nnot improve upon the current time-consuming labor certification\nprocedures and would discriminate against qualified U.S. work-\nThe Office of Management and Budget advises that there 15 no objection\nto the submission of this report from the standpaint of the Administration's program.\nSincerely,\nRaymond J. Donovan\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJune 20, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR BRANDEN BLUM\nLEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS 826\nASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nRevised Statement on H.R. 4509,\nthe Immigration and Nationality Act\nCounsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced\ntestimony, and finds no objection to it from a legal\nperspective.\nID #\nCU\nWHITE HOUSE\nCORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET\nO . OUTGOING\nH INTERNAL\nI * INCOMING\nDate Correspondence\nReceived (YY/MM/DD)\n/\n/\nName of Correspondent: Branden Blum\nMI Mail Report\nUser Codes: (A)\n(B)\n(C)\nSubject: Revised Statement on H.R. 4509,\nthe Immigration and nationality Act\nROUTE TO:\nACTION\nDISPOSITION\nTracking\nType\nCompletion\nAction\nDate\nof\nDate\nOffice/Agency\n(Staff Name)\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nResponse\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nCuttour\nORIGINATOR 84,06,19\n/ /\nReferral Note:\nCURT 18\nR 84 06,19\n384 584,06,27 ,06,27\nReferral Note:\nCOB\n/\n/\n/\n/\n-\nReferral Note:\n/\n/\n/\n/\n-\nReferral Note:\n/\n/\n/\n/\n-\nReferral Note:\nACTION CODES:\nDISPOSITION CODES:\nA Appropriate Action\nI Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary\nA Answered\nC Completed\nC Comment/Recommendation\nR - Direct Reply w/Copy\nB . Non-Special Referral\nS Suspended\nD Draft Response\nS For Signature\nF - Furnish Fact Sheet\nX Interim Reply\nto be used as Enclosure\nFOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:\nType of Response = Initials of Signer\nCode = \"A\"\nCompletion Date = Date of Outgoing\nComments:\nKeep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.\nSend all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).\nAlways return completed correspondence record to Central Files.\nRefer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.\n5/81\nU.S. Department of Justice\nSPECIAL\nce of Legislative and\nrgovernmental Affairs\nOffice of the\nWashington, D.C. 20530\nAssistant Attorney General\nJune 19, 1984\nTO: Branden Blum\nOMB\nFR:\nJohn Logan\nOLIGA (633-2078)\nRE: Revised Statement on H.R. 4509\nHere is the Department's revised statement\non H.R. 4509 for June 28, 1984 for your\nreview.\ncc: Fred F. Fielding\nDRAFT\nSTATEMENT\nOF\nDORIS M. MEISSNER\nEXECUTIVE ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER\nBEFORE\nTHE\nCOMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY\nSUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES AND INTERNATIONAL LAW\nHOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES\nCONCERNING\nH.R. 4509\nON\nJUNE 28, 1984\n- 2 -\nChairman Mazzoli and members of the Subcommittee:\nI am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you\ntoday to discuss this bill which revises the Immigration and\nNationality Act with respect to the grounds for exclusion and\ndeportation of aliens.\nThis bill attempts to address some of the more vexing and\ncontroversial aspects of the laws relating to exclusion and\ndeportation of aliens. Of particular significance are the\nprovisions dealing with inadmissibility and deportability based on\npolitical activity and opinion.\nThis Administration has strongly supported the free exchange\n= ideas. We have gone on record on numerous occasions in defense\nof those persons who have been persecuted as a result of their\nattempts to peacefully speak out against tyranny and oppression.\nThese efforts will continue.\nThe bill you are presently considering clearly recognizes the\nimportance of freedom of peaceful expression of ideas. This is\nnot an easy issue to deal with. The recent Select Commission on\nImmigration and Refugee Policy considered extensive revision in\nthe exclusion and deportation provisions of the present\nImmigration and Nationality Act, including those provisions\ndealing with political grounds for exclusion. After careful\ndeliberation, the Commission decided in the end that changes,\n- 3 -\nwhile desirable, were extremely difficult to formulate in specific\nlanguage. As a result, the final report did not propose changes\nin these grounds for exclusion and deportation.\nWhile I would be happy to be able to say that the problems and\nconcerns that the Select Commission perceived have since dis-\nappeared, this is unfortunately not the case. Consequently, while\nthe bill attempts the laudable goal of simplifying the immigration\nlaw, the specific language used does not address some basic issues\nand legitimate concerns. This is particularly the case with the\npolitical exclusion and deportation grounds, and I would look to\ntouch on some of our concerns in the course of this testimony.\nFirst, however, I would like to also briefly present a summary\nof our reaction to the other provisions of the bill, some of which\nstrike us as helpful and necessary changes to the existing law.\nI support the revision to Section 212 (a) (23) of the Act, which\ndeals with exclusion based on narcotics violations. The bill\nwould add a provision barring the admission of aliens who violate\nlaws relating to psychotropic substances. This is a necessary\naddition to the law, as these substances have proven to be every\nbit as dangerous as narcotics.\nThe attempt to deal with the mental health provisions is also\nto be commended. Present provisions are in need of revision, as\nthey do not take into account advances in medical treatment and\n- 4 -\ntheory. We do, however, entertain certain reservations regarding\nthe scope of the changes proposed in the bill. Specifically,\nconsolidating the present mental health provisions in one section\nwhich bars the admission of persons who could endanger public\nsafety, is probably too ambitious an undertaking. This is too\nstrict standard, which does not take into account those who may be\nunable to function in society, and who may have to be supported at\ntaxpayer expense.\nSimilarly, abolition of the provisions barring persons who are\nlikely to become a public charge, or who become a public charge\nfollowing entry, is unnecessary and could result in needless\nburdens on various social welfare programs. A significant number\ncí persons are denied admission for this reason each year. Very\nfew aliens have been deported on this ground in recent years,\nbecause of the standard applied to substantiate a finding of\npublic charge. Basically, it is necessary to establish that the\nperson has received public assistance, has been asked to reimburse\nthe agency providing the assistance, and has failed to do SO.\nRather than eliminate the provision, however, revision of the\noverly strict standard should be considered.\nSimilarly, it is not clear to us that repeal of the grounds of\nexcludability and deportation relating to prostitution and immoral\nsexual activities is warranted. In practical terms, no desirable\nobjective is served by the admission of persons who have engaged\nin or who might engage in such activity. To the extent that\n- 5 -\nprospective immigrants have been affected by Section 212 (a) (12), a\nwaiver of inadmissibility has been available for those with\ncertain family relations.\nOther sections of the bill basically consolidate existing\nprovisions, with some modifications in the language. This is\ntrue, for instance, of Section (4) entitled Economic Grounds for\nCertain Immigrants\" and Section (6) entitled \"Documentation\nRequirements.\"\nI would like now to return to the revisions in the political\nactivities grounds for exclusion and deportation. I have taken\nthis approach to avoid the appearance that cur sole interest in\nthe bill was confined to this one subject. In fact, as has been\napparent from the Administration's support for immigration reform\nas a whole, there are many subjects which can and should be\naddressed for a variety of important reasons.\nIn any case, as this aspect of the bill is obviously of\nconsiderable interest, I would like to offer several observations\nand comments. As I noted earlier, revision of the political\nactivity exclusion and deportation grounds was previously\nconsidered by the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee\nPolicy and then omitted in its final recommendations. The fact\nthat the Commission followed this course should give us pause,\nbecause it did address other equally controversial issues, such as\nlegalization and employers sanctions. While we may agree that the\n- 6 -\npresent grounds for exclusion and deportation encompass persons\nwho are not a threat to the United States, fashioning language to\nmeet legitimate foreign and domestic policy considerations is no\nsimple task.\nIn essence, the bill would allow any alien to enter the United\nStates as long as the activity the alien intended to engage in did\nnot contain a violent element or objective. The Department of\nJustice defers to the Department of State on this issue in most\nrespects, because most of the recent instances where an alien has\nbeen denied a visa have involved legitimate questions of foreign\npolicy. Nonetheless, I would like to suggest that it is entirely\nconceivable, as has happened before, that substantial considera-\ntions of foreign or domestic policy or both will militate against\nthe admission of particular individuals or members of particular\norganizations. Any revision of the existing provisions should\nprovide authority on the part of the Secretary of State or\nAttorney General to take such considerations into account. In my\njudgment, the bill before us does not meet this standard.\nI would like to emphasize, however, that my particular\ncomments on portions of the bill, such as those I have just made,\nare not meant to indicate reluctance to consider revisions in the\nexclusion or deportation provisions, or any other facet of the\nimmigration laws. I certainly hope that they will not discourage\nexamination of these laws by this Subcommittee. We all know the\ndifficulties and obstacles that face any immigration reform, and\n- 7 -\nthe persistence that is required to see a change through the\nlegislative process.\nThis Administration agrees that immigration legislation is\nneeded, and is very willing to work with the members of this\nSubcommittee toward an improvement in both the substance and the\nadministration of the laws.\nThank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJune 11, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR BRANDEN BLUM\nLEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS Drsc\nASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nDraft Statement of Edward M. Rowell\nConcerning H.R. 4509, the Immigration\nExclusion and Deportation Act Amendment\nCounsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced\ntestimony, and finds no objection to it from a legal\nperspective.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJune 26, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR BRANDEN BLUM\nLEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTSQZA\nASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nDraft HHS Testimony on H.R. 4509, the\nImmigration Exclusion and Deportation\nAct Amendments\nCounsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced draft\ntestimony. On page 8, line 17, we recommend inserting \"from\nmedical examination\" or something similar after \"predicted.\"\nThe Administration has testified on several occasions in the\npast that dangerous or violent acts can be predicted, in the\ncontext of assessing the probability of future dangerous\ncriminal conduct on the basis of past criminal conduct. The\nargument that future dangerousness can be predicted is an\nessential lynchpin of the Administration's position on\npreventive detention.\nID #.\nCU\nWHITE HOUSE\nCORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET\n0 . . OUTGOING\nH . INTERNAL\nI . INCOMING\nDate Correspondence\nReceived (YY/MM/DD)\n/\n/\nName of Correspondent:\nJames MURR\nMI Mail Report\nUser Codes: (A)\n(B)\n(C)\nSubject: Draft HHS testimony onHR 4509, the\nAct Amendments\nImmigration Exclusion and Deportation\nROUTE TO:\nACTION\nDISPOSITION\nTracking\nType\nCompletion\nAction\nDate\nof\nDate\nOffice/Agency\n(Staff Name)\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nResponse\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nCeltiou\nORIGINATOR 84,06,25\n/\n/\nReferral Note:\nCUAT 18\nR 84,06,25\n584,06,26\nReferral Note:\n/ /\n/\n/\n-\nReferral Note:\n/ /\n/ /\n-\n-\nReferral Note:\n/ /\n/\n/\n-\nReferral Note:\nACTION CODES:\nDISPOSITION CODES:\nA Appropriate Action\n4 Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary\nA Answered\nC Completed\nC - Comment/Recommendation\nR Direct Reply w/Copy\nB - Non-Special Referral\nS Suspended\nD Draft Response\nS For Signature\nF - Furnish Fact Sheet\nX Interim Reply\nto be used as Enclosure\nFOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:\nType of Response = Initials of Signer\nCode = \"A\"\nCompletion Date = Date of Outgoing\nComments:\nKeep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.\nSend all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).\nAlways return completed correspondence record to Central Files.\nRefer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.\n5/81\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20503\nJune 25, 1984\nSPECIAL\nLEGISLATIVE REFERRAL MEMORANDUM\nTO:\nLEGISLATIVE LIAISON OFFICER\nDepartment of Justice\nDepartment of State\nNational Security Council\nSUBJECT: Draft HHS testimony on H.R. 4509, the Immigration\nExclusion and Deportation Act Amendments.\nThe Office of Management and Budget requests the views of your\nagency on the above subject before advising on its relationship\nto the program of the President, in accordance with OMB Circular\nA-19.\nPlease provide us with your views no later than June 26, 1984.\n(NOTE -- A hearing before a subcommittee of the House Judiciary\nCommittee is scheduled for 6/28/84.)\nDirect your questions to Branden Blum (395-3802), the legislative\nattorney in this office.\nJames C. Murr for\nAssistant Director for\nLegislative Reference\nEnclosure\nCC: Kathy Collins\nFred Fielding\nSusan Gates\nPatti Woodworth\nSylvia Malm\nJohn Cooney\nMike Uhlmann\nDRAFT DRAFT DRAFT 0451L\n6/22/84\n(6)\nReeld 6/25/84\nSTATEMENT OF\nTHE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES\nON\nH.R. 4509, \"THE IMMIGRATION EXCLUSION AND\nDEPORTATION AMENDMENTS OF 1983\"\nBEFORE THE\nSUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW\nCOMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY\nU.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES\nJune 28, 1984\nDRAFT DRAFT DRAFT 0451L\n6/22/84 (6)\nMr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:\nThank you for the opportunity to comment on the health and\nsocial welfare aspects of H.R. 4509, the \"Immigration\nExclusion and Deportation Amendments of 1983.\nIn the late nineteenth century, following the growth of\nimmigration and the social problems which it engendered, the\nSupreme Court declared unconstitutional all State laws\nregulating immigration, and the Federal government assumed\nsole authority for the regulation of immigration. Because of\nevidence that foreign officials were deporting to the United\nStates convicts, paupers, mentally ill persons, and persons\nincapable of self support, the chief features of early Federal\nimmigration law prohibited the immigration of such persons.\nAlthough at various times in the history of the United States\nmeasures were taken to encourage foreign immigration, and at\nother times to restrict and regulate it, there has generally\nbeen consensus on the desirability of excluding mentally ill\nand socially misfit immigrants, as well as those with certain\ncontagious diseases. Such exclusions have been a consistent\npolicy, from the colonial period, through the period of State\nregulation, into the present period of Federal regulation.\n- 2 -\nThe Department of Health and Human Services supports the\ncontinued exclusion of aliens based on the health and social\nwelfare concerns that have been the foundation for the\nspecific categories of excludable aliens now set forth in the\nImmigration and Nationality Act.\nOur testimony addresses the changes that the bill would make\nin the Act's current restrictions that are designed to keep\nfrom entering the United States those persons who would\nendanger public health or safety, as well as those who would\nviolate the rights of others or present a social or economic\nburden to society, including those who are likely to require\nmedical care, or institutionalization, or both. Specifically,\nthe Act (Section 212 (a) (1) through (8), and (15)) now excludes:\nAliens who are mentally retarded;\nAliens who are insane;\nAliens who have had one or more attacks of insanity;\nAliens afflicted with psychopathic personality, or\nsexual deviation, or a mental defect;\nAliens who are narcotic drug addicts or chronic\nalcoholics;\nAliens who are afflicted with any dangerous contagious\ndisease;\nAliens not comprehended within any of the foregoing\nclasses who are certified by the examining surgeon as\n- 3 -\nhaving a physical defect, disease, or disability, when\ndetermined by the consular or immigration officer to\nbe of such a nature that it may affect the ability of\nthe alien to earn a living, unless the alien\naffirmatively establishes that he will not have to\nearn a living;\nAliens who are paupers, professional beggars, or\nvagrants;\nAliens who, in the opinion of the consular officer at\nthe time of application for a visa, or in the opinion\nof the Attorney General at the time of application for\nadmission, are likely at any time to become public\ncharges.\nH.R. 4509 would reduce the health-related grounds for\nexclusion to:\nAny alien who is afflicted with any dangerous\ncontagious disease; and\nAny alien who suffers from any mental illness likely\nto result in the performance of acts which could\nendanger public safety.\nThe bill would also identify for exclusion, as one of several\ngrounds under the heading of \"criminal and moral grounds,\" any\nalien who is a narcotic drug addict.\n- 4 -\nThe bill would repeal entirely the economic grounds for\nexclusion under the current law - the vagrancy and public\ncharge categories mentioned above - and would also eliminate\npresent provisions for the deportation of immigrant aliens who\nbecome institutionalized for mental illness at public expense,\nor become a public charge, within five years after entry. It\nwould also repeal the present provision for discretionary\nrelief from certain medical exclusions.\nH.R. 4509 addresses an important issue - revision of the\ncurrent categories of exclusion. We agree that the specific\nformulations of the medical exclusions have become outdated,\nand that revision is needed to alter obsolete language and to\nachieve conformity with current medical, psychiatric, and\npublic health standards and practices in the United States.\nHowever, the Department is unable to support the bill because\nthe scope of the proposed exclusionary criteria is too narrow,\nand the result would be to permit the entry of some persons\nwho would endanger public safety, who would violate the rights\nof others, or who would present a social or economic burden to\nsociety. We believe that the basic principles underlying the\npresent exclusions are sound, and do not agree with the\nfar-reaching change that the bill would make in current\nimmigration policy as it falls within the purview of this\n- 5 -\nDepartment. Keeping in mind the underlying social policy\nreasons for the exclusions, I would like to discuss some\nspecific examples of the impact the bill would have.\nA major concern of the Department is that the bill would\neliminate as a ground for exclusion the likelihood that the\napplicant would become a public charge.\nFor example, the bill would no longer exclude aliens certified\nby the medical examiner as having a physical defect, disease,\nor disability which would affect the ability to earn a living,\n(now excludable under subsection 212 (a) (7) ) nor other aliens\nunable to support themselves after admission (now excludable\nunder subsections 212 (a) (8) and (15) ) In FY 1983, the United\nStates refused more than 4,600 applications for visas on the\ngrounds that the aliens had no means of support and would\nbecome public charges.\nThe exact financial impact of admitting these applicants is\ndifficult to quantify, but we estimate that had they been\nadmitted, the likely increase in welfare costs in the FY 1985\nthrough FY 1989 period, under programs like Supplemental\nSecurity Income (SSI), Food Stamps, and Medicaid, would have\nbeen in the range of $200 to $300 million. The costs over the\n- 6 -\nlong run would be even higher because the relaxation of these\nprovisions would be an incentive for other such aliens to\napply.\nOur concerns also extend to aliens with impairments which\nresult in their being unable to care for their economic,\nsocial, and health care needs. The bill would eliminate as a\nbasis for exclusion the present law's category of \"Aliens who\nare mentally retarded\" (subsection 212 (a) (1)).\nUnder this modification, there would be no basis for excluding\naliens with severe mental retardation who are unable to\nsupport or care for themselves. Thus, a severely or\nprofoundly retarded alien would be able to enter the United\nStates without restrictions. In FY 1983, 247 aliens were\nexcluded because they were mentally retarded and unable to\nmeet the waiver requirement of family and financial support.\nHere again, there would have been substantial Federal costs\ninvolved in benefits for these persons. Additional Federal\ncosts would probably be incurred if the family and financial\nsupport requirements were dropped for those aliens who are now\neligible for a waiver of excludability.\nWhile we agree that it would be appropriate to consider\nmodifying the present barrier to mentally retarded persons --\n- 7 -\nsuch as allowing admission of those more mildly retarded\npersons who would not pose a public burden -- we believe there\nneeds to be some basis for excluding those who would be likely\nto draw heavily on the social service and benefit programs of\nour land.\nIn addition, elimination of the public charge criteria would\nresult in the loss of savings now accomplished by income\nattribution provisions of benefit laws. The Social Security\nDisability Amendments of 1980 and the Omnibus Budget\nReconciliation Act of 1981 amended the Social Security Act to\nprovide for attribution to an alien of a sponsor's income and\nresources for purposes of determining the eligibility for an\namount of benefits of the alien under the SSI and Aid to\nFamiles with Dependent Children (AFDC) programs within three\nyears of the alien's entry into the U.S. As a result, for\nexample, awards of SSI to aliens have dropped from about 1,300\nper month for the year before this provision was enacted, to\n209 per month for the 17 months starting January 1981.\nConservative estimates of savings are $40 million a year for\nSSI and $15 million a year for AFDC. These savings would be\nlost by eliminating the public charge exclusions of the\ncurrent law.\n- 8 -\nWe are also concerned about changes that the bill would make\nin other health-related grounds for exclusion.\nThe present exclusions on grounds of mental illness would be\nmodified. The present law excludes \"aliens who are insane\"\nand \"aliens who have had one or more attacks of insanity\" as\nwell as \"aliens afflicted with psychopathic personality, or\nsexual deviation, or a mental defect\" (subsections\n212 (a) (2) (3) and (4)). The bill's sole mental illness\ncategory would be a new one excluding only those suffering\nfrom \"any mental illness likely to result in the performance\nof acts which could endanger public safety.\"\nWhile the present law in this regard certainly needs to be\nrewritten, the language of this bill would permit the entry of\nmany aliens who we believe should be excluded, and in any case\nwould present great difficulties in interpretation and\napplication. Essentially, dangerous or violent acts cannot be\npredicted, and in most cases neither psychiatrists nor anyone\nelse would be able to make a determination of mental illness\n\"likely to result in the performance of acts which could\nendanger public safety. \" Thus, the bill's language would\nprobably not serve to exclude many mentally ill or afflicted\naliens who are now excludable and who could endanger public\nsafety or become public charges.\n- 9 -\nFor example, it would not provide a basis for excluding\ncertain aliens with current or previous psychotic disorders,\nwith disorders which result in antisocial acts or conduct, or\nwith paraphilias, who are now excludable under the terms\n\"insane\" and \"insanity,\" \"psychopàthic personality, and\n\"sexual deviation\" in the current law. Some aliens with\nconditions such as antisocial personality disorders or\npedophilia (child molestation), may present a danger to public\nsafety; others, such as voyeurs and exhibitionists, may\nviolate the rights of other persons, even if not necessarily\nendangering them. Still others, such as those with some\ncurrent or previous psychoses, may present a potential burden\nto society if costly medical care should be required.\nThe bill would also eliminate the present exclusion (in\nsubsection 212 (a) (5)) of chronic alcoholics (while moving the\nlaw's present barrier to narcotic addicts to the \"criminal and\nmoral\" category).\nWe believe that there should continue to be a basis for\nexcluding those with active alcohol dependency, and\nconsideration should also be given to excluding those who are\nactive alcohol abusers, who are not now excludable. We also\nbelieve that those dependent on, or who abuse, any drug\nspecified in the Controlled Substances Act should be\n- 10 -\nexcludable, but under the medical, rather than the criminal\nand moral, heading. The present law, and the proposed\nrevision, speak only of addiction to narcotic drugs.\nWe have a few specific suggestions for other modifications of\nthe bill that do not raise major policy issues, but which you\nshould be aware of.\nWith respect to contagious diseases, we agree conceptually\nwith retaining the category of exclusion intended by the text\n\"Aliens who are afflicted with any dangerous contagious\ndisease\" (proposed section 212 (a) (1) (A)), but in keeping with\ncurrent public health concepts, we suggest replacing the\nphrase \"any dangerous contagious disease\" with \"a communicable\ndisease of public health significance.\" The Secretary would\ncontinue to specify the list of excludable communicable\ndiseases.\nIn addition, the bill's conforming amendment to section 234 of\nthe Act gives an alien a right to appeal a determination that\nhe or she is afflicted with a contagious disease, but not\nother health-related determinations. This should be corrected\nto follow the present law, which permits appeals with respect\nto other determinations, but not in contagious disease\nsituations.\n- 11\nAs we have indicated, the proposed formulation of the\nexclusion categories in the bill before you would result in\nthe admission of many persons, now excludable, who would\nendanger public health or safety, or become public charges.\nWe urge that the Committee develop modifications in the law\nthat would continue to exclude such aliens, while updating the\nobsolete terminology and categories. We will be happy to work\nwith you on the specifics of the language necessary to\naccomplish the necessary exclusions.\nLet me suggest a tentative framework for the Subcommittee's\nconsideration of how the present exclusion categories might be\nmodified. The basic principles of public health and safety\nand economic interests are the underpinning of the present\nlaw, and they ought to underlie any new formulation. On this\nfoundation, we believe that the following classes of aliens\nshould be excludable:\nAliens who have a communicable disease of public\nhealth significance;\nAliens who have a history or record of behavior, or\nmanifestations of certain mental impairments, that\npose a threat to the safety or welfare of others or to\nthemselves, or a threat to property.\n- 12 -\nAliens who are likely to become an economic or social\nburden because of physical or mental impairment, or\npredisposing social or financial conditions.\nWe would welcome a statutory scheme of exclusion categories\nbased on these classes, together with these elements:\nAuthority for waivers and other discretionary relief\nin individual cases;\nAuthority for the Secretary of Health and Human\nServices to make distinctions and definitions within\nthe classes or categories ultimately chosen; and\nAuthority to deport aliens who, within five years of\nentry, need long-term institutionalization at public\nexpense for pre-existing health conditions, or who\nbecome public charges, or who fail to comply with the\nhealth-related terms of their admission.\nWithin categories based on such a framework, we believe that\nwe would be able to make sound decisions with respect to the\nmedical and public welfare considerations in the admission of\naliens to the United States.\n- 13 -\nMr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be pleased\nto answer any questions the Subcommittee may have.\nJPF 0451L\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJune 18, 1984\nMEMORANDUM FOR BRANDEN BLUM\nLEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nFROM:\nASSOCIATE COUNSEL 02R TO THE PRESIDENT\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\nSUBJECT:\nDraft Department of State Report on\nH.R. 4509, a Bill to Amend the Grounds\nfor Exclusion and Deportation of Aliens\nCounsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced draft\nreport. The statement on page 12, lines 6-7, that \"since\n1978 the United States has not been in a state of national\nemergency\" is inaccurate. On several occasions since 1978\nthe President has declared a \"national emergency\" under the\nprovisions of the International Emergency Economic Powers\nAct (\"IEEPA\"), 50 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq. See, e.g., Executive\nOrder 12444 (Oct. 14, 1983) (continuation of export control\nregulations). The national emergency with respect to Iran\nwas originally declared on November 14, 1979, see Executive\nOrder 12170, and has been continued in effect since that\ntime, the most recent continuation notice having been sent\nto Congress on November 4, 1983.\nID #.\nCU\nWHITE HOUSE\nCORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET\nO . OUTGOING\nH . INTERNAL\nI INCOMING\nDate Correspondence\nReceived (YY/MM/DD)\n/\n/\nName of Correspondent:\nBranden Blum\nMI Mail Report\nUser Codes: (A)\n(B)\n(C)\nSubject: Draft Dept. of State Report on H.R. 4509,\nabill to amend the grounds for exclusion\nand departation of aliens\nROUTE TO:\nACTION\nDISPOSITION\nTracking\nType\nCompletion\nAction\nDate\nof\nDate\nOffice/Agency\n(Staff Name)\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nResponse\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\ncuttou\nORIGINATOR 84,06,08\n/ /\n-\nReferral Note:\nCUAT 18\nR 84 06,08\n5 84,06,18\nReferral Note:\nCOB\n/ /\n/\n/\n-\nReferral Note:\n/\n/\n/\n/\n-\nReferral Note:\n/\n/\n/\nReferral Note:\nACTION CODES:\nDISPOSITION CODES:\nA - Appropriate Action\nI * Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary\nA Answered\nC Completed\nC * Comment/Recommendation\nR Direct Reply w/Copy\nB . Non-Special Referral\nS Suspended\nD Draft Response\nS For Signature\nF - Furnish Fact Sheet\nX Interim Reply\nto be used as Enclosure\nFOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:\nType of Response = Initials of Signer\nCode = \"A\"\nCompletion Date = Date of Outgoing\nComments:\nKeep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.\nSend all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).\nAlways return completed correspondence record to Central Files.\nRefer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.\n5/81\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nROUTE SLIP\nRobert Kimmitt\nTake necessary action\nTO\nKathy Collins\nApproval or signature\nSusan Gates\nComment\nSylvia Malm\nPrepare reply\nDiscuss with me\nFred Fielding\nFor your information\nMike Uhlmann\nSee remarks below\nFROM Branden Blum\nDATE 6/7/84\nREMARKS\nSubject: Draft Department of State Report on\nH.R. 4509, a bill to amend the grounds\nfor exclusion and deportation of aliens\nIn the attached draft report, which has been\nforwarded to Justice, Labor and HHS, State\ndiscusses a number of concerns with the bill.\nA hearing on H.R. 4509 is scheduled for 6/14/84.\n(Justice testimony has already been circulated\nfor comment. HHS and State testimony will be\ncirculated for review upon receipt.)\nPlease provide me with any comments by Monday,\nJune 18, 1984.\nAttachment\nOMB FORM 4\nRev Aug 70\nUnited States Department of State\nWashington. D.C. 20520\nDear Mr. Chairman:\nThe Secretary has asked me to reply to your letter of December\n6, 1983 enclosing for the Department's study and report a copy of\nH.R. 4509, \"A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act\nwith respect to the grounds for exclusion and deportation of\naliens.\n5\nSection 1 of the bill sets forth the short title of the bill\nand makes standard references to the Immigration and Nationality\nAct. The Committee may wish to correct the short title to reflect\nthe current year.\nSection 2 of the bill would revise the grounds for exclusion\nof aliens set forth in Section 212 (a) of the Act and would group\nthe revised grounds of exclusion in six major sub-categories.\nHealth-Related Grounds\nProposed new section 212 (a) (1) would replace current sections\n212 (a) (1) - (4) and (6). Current 212 (a) (5), which excludes chronic\nalcoholics and narcotic drug addicts, and is now considered to be\none of the medical grounds of exclusion, would be modified and\nconsidered one of the \"Criminal and Moral Grounds\" under new\nsection 212 (a) (2) insofar as it relates to narcotic drug addicts.\nProposed section 212 (a) (1) (A) repeats, with minor editorial\nmodification, current section 212 (a) (6) which excludes an alien\nafflicted with a dangerous contagious disease. The Department\npresumes it to be intended that the United States Public Health\nService continue to determine which diseases are \"dangerous con-\ntagious\" diseases and that the current medical examination system\ncontinue unchanged.\nThe Honorable\nPeter W. Rodino, Jr., Chairman,\nCommittee on the Judiciary,\nHouse of Representatives.\n-2-\nProposed new section 212 (a) (1) (B) would replace current sec-\ntions 212 (a) (1) through (4). Those sections now render excludable\nan alien who is mentally retarded, who is insane, who has had one\nor more attacks of insanity, or who is afflicted with psychopathic\npersonality, sexual deviation or a mental defect. In lieu of\nthese four specified bases for exclusion, an alien would be ex-\ncludable only if he suffered from a mental illness likely to re-\nsult in the performance of acts which could endanger public safety.\nWhile the Department will defer to the comments of the\nDepartment of Health and Human Services concerning this proposal,\nthe Committee may wish to consider the following observations.\nFirst, the Department believes that the phrase \"acts which\ncould endanger the public safety\" should be clarified. This\nphrase carries an implication of violence to others. There is a\nquestion whether it would include an alien dangerous to himself,\nbut not to others. While the Department defers to the comments of\nthe Department of Health and Human Services, it does believe that\nthe intent of the phrase \"acts which could endanger the public\nsafety\" should be made explicit.\nSecond, the Department believes that the elimination of ex-\ncludability because of mental retardation leaves certain questions\nunresolved. Section 212(g) of the Act, which would be repealed by\nsection (e) of the bill, now authorizes discretionary relief from\nexcludability based on mental retardation to an immigrant alien\nwho is the parent, spouse, son, daughter, or minor unmarried\nadopted child of a citizen, of a permanent resident alien or of an\nalien to whom an immigrant visa has been issued. In addition,\nexcludability for this reason may be waived, also as a matter of\ndiscretion, under section 212 (d) (3) of the Act for any nonimmi-\ngrant alien. While some mentally retarded individuals can lead\nindependent and productive lives in spite of their mental handi-\ncap, others are so severely retarded that they cannot do SO. The\ncurrent discretionary relief and waiver authority allow for con-\nsideration of each case individually, taking into account the de-\ngree of retardation and the need, if any, for special care which\nmight exist in an individual case. The total elimination of\nmental retardation as a ground of exclusion would eliminate any\npossibility of such case-by-case consideration. This fact would\nbecome especially significant in light of the proposed elimination\nof current section 212 (a) (15) (excludability for public charge\nreasons) which is addressed further below.\n-3-\nCriminal and Moral Grounds\nProposed section 212 (a) (2) would modify and replace current\nsections 212(a)(9), 212(a)(10), 212 (a) (23) and 212 (a) (33). Also,\nthe prohibition on the issuance of visas to narcotic drug addicts\ncontained in current section 212 (a) (5) would become part of this\nproposed section.\nProposed section 212 (a) (2) (A) contains the substance of\ncurrent section 212 (a) (9) which excludes aliens who have been con-\nvicted of a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely\npolitical offense). It retains the current exceptions for aliens\nconvicted of a single crime of moral turpitude committed while\nunder the age of 18 and aliens who have been convicted of a single\n\"petty offense\". The only substantive change would be the elimi-\nnation of the current provision excluding aliens who admit the\ncommission of a crime involving moral turpitude. This change\nwould have little practical effect on visa operations, since visa\napplicants rarely admit to a consular officer the facts required\nto support a finding of excludability.\nProposed section 212 (a) (2) (B) is substantively identical to\ncurrent section 212 (a) (10) which excludes an alien who has been\nconvict ed of two or more offenses for which the aggregate sen-\ntences to confinement actually imposed are five years or more. As\na technical matter, it appears that the word \"confine\" at line 12\non page 3 of the bill should be changed to read \"confinement\".\nProposed section 212 (a) (2) (C) (i), which would replace current\nsection 212(a)(23), excludes an alien who has been convicted of\ndrug-related offenses and an alien who a consular or immigration\nofficer knows or has reason to believe is involved in drug\ntrafficking. The proposed new section differs from current law in\nsignificant ways.\nFirst, excludability under this proposed section would be ex-\ntended to aliens convicted of violation of laws or regulations\nrelating to \"psychotropic\" and \"controlled\" substances and to\ntraffickers therein, as well as to those convicted of violation of\nlaws or regulations relating to marihuana or narcotic drugs and\ntraffickers therein, as provided under current law. The Depart-\nment perceives no objection to this proposed change, but suggests\nthat it should be clarified. It appears that the term \"controlled\nsubstance\" may have had its origin in the Comprehensive Drug Abuse\nPrevention and Control Act of 1970, P.L. 91-513, 84 Stat. 1236, 21\nU.S.C. 801, et seq. Title II of P.L. 91-513 is cited as the\nControlled Substances Act and contains a definition of the term\n\"controlled substances.\" If the Department is correct in its\nassumption, it might be preferable to modify proposed section\n-4-\n212 (a) (2) (C) (i) to refer simply to controlled substances as de-\nfined in the Controlled Substances Act, since the definition\nappears to include all substances contemplated by the present\nformulation of proposed section 212(a) (2)(c)(i).\nSecond, the relief from excludability because of a single con-\nviction for simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana\nwould be broadened in two ways. Under section 212 (h) of the Act\nas it now reads, relief from excludability for this reason may be\ngranted by the Attorney General, as a matter of discretion, to\nimmigrant aliens having certain specified relationships to a citi-\nzen or lawful permanent resident. The language contained in pro-\nposed section 212 (a) (2) (C) (i) would make such relief automatic and\nwould extend it to all aliens, immigrant and nonimmigrant, whether\nor not related to a citizen or permanent resident.\nProposed section 212 (a) (2) (C) (ii) would replace, in part,\ncurrent section 212 (a) (5). Unlike current section 212 (a) (5) which\nexcludes both chronic alcoholics and narcotic drug addicts, pro-\nposed section 212 (a) (2) (C) (ii) would exclude only narcotic drug\naddicts. Under current law, a finding that an alien is a narcotic\ndrug addict is treated as a medical finding and may be made only\nthrough the medical examination process. The Department would be\nstrongly opposed to any change that would raise any doubt as to\nthe need for medical certification of an alien's addiction to\nsupport a finding of excludability. Thus, we urge that this pro-\nvision be transferred into proposed section 212 (a) (1) (Health\nRelated Grounds).\nProposed section 212 (a) (2) (D) would exclude any alien who\nordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the per-\nsecution of any person because of race, religion, national origin,\nor political opinion. This proposed section replaces and broadens\nsignificantly current section 212 (a) (33) which includes the same\nlanguage but applies only to aliens who were involved with the\nNazi regime in Germany or related governments.\nThe Department sympathizes with the objective of this pro-\nposal, but the expansion of what is now section 212 (a) (33) has the\npotential for creating serious administrative and substantive\nproblems. Current section 212 (a) (33), limited as it is to aliens\nassociated with the Nazi regime, deals with a relatively well-\ndefined group which unquestionably should be excluded from this\ncountry. Because of the nature of the Nazi regime and the Nazi\nParty, no questions arise concerning the distinction between\nofficially-inspired or directed persecution and persecution en-\ngaged in by private individuals or groups without the approval, or\nagainst the policy, of the government in power. Such questions\nmight well arise under this proposed broader provision.\n-5-\nThe term \"otherwise participated in\" is SO broad as to create\nsubstantial difficulties of definition if it were applied to wider\ncategories or groups. As an example, there have been accounts of\nSoviet dissidents who have been expelled from professional organi-\nzations in the USSR because of their political views. Typically,\nsuch actions are formally taken by a vote of the other members of\nthe organization, although it is clear that the action is inspired\nby the Soviet Government. It would seem that any member of the\norganization who voted to expel a dissident member would neces-\nsarily have \"otherwise participated in\" the persecution of the\ndissident member because of his political opinion and would thus\nbe permanently barred from entry into the United States.\nAdministratively, the process of determining whether this exclu-\nsion would apply in such a case could be extremely difficult.\nFinally, the Department foresees situations in which substan-\ntial complications could arise in our relations with another\ncountry. For example, acts constituting persecution might be im-\nputed to a country although the government either challenged the\nimputation or said that the acts were committed by private indi-\nviduals or groups without its consent and perhaps in spite of its\nbest efforts to prevent such acts.\nSecurity Grounds\nProposed section 212 (a) (3) would replace current sections\n212 (a) (27), (28) and (29) and would substantially restrict the\nso-called \"security\" grounds of exclusion. As a technical matter,\nthe Department believes that the word \"is\" in line 3 of page 4\nshould be deleted and that the word \"of\" in line 4 of page 4\nshould be changed to read \"or\".\nProposed section 212 (a) (3) (A) would replace current sections\n212 (a) (27) and (29). These sections render excludable an alien\nwho the consular officer or the Attorney General knows or has\nreason to believe intends to, or probably would, engage in activi-\nties (1) prejudicial to the public interest; (2) which would en-\ndanger the welfare, safety or security of the United States; (3)\nwhich would be prohibited by laws relating to espionage, sabotage,\npublic disorder; or (4) other activities subversive of national\nsecurity or the purpose of which is opposition to, or overthrow or\ncontrol of the Government of the United States by force, violence\nor other unconstitutional means. These two sections are closely\ninter-related and to a considerable extent overlap each other. As\nan example, an alien who is a foreign hostile intelligence service\noperative and who we have reason to believe intends to engage in\nespionage in the United States would clearly be excludable under\nsection 212(a)(29). Such an alien would also appear to be exclud-\nable under section 212 (a) (27) since engaging in espionage clearly\nis prejudicial to the public interest is or likely to endanger the\n-6-\nwelfare, safety or security of the United States. Cases of this\nkind would apparently continue to be covered by proposed section\n212 (a) (3) (A) as the wording of that section basically is a conden-\nsation of the wording of current sections 212 (a) (27) and (29).\nFor many years the Department has also interpreted section\n212 (a) (27) to apply to cases in which an alien's entry or proposed\nactivities in the United States could have potentially serious\nadverse foreign policy consequences. It has been the Department's\nview that in such a case the alien's entry or activities could\nproperly be said to be \"prejudicial to the public interest\" within\nthe meaning of that section. The Department of Justice has con-\ncurred in this interpretation. The exact phrase \"prejudicial to\nthe public interest\" does not appear in proposed section 212 (a)\n(3) (A), but the Department nevertheless believes that the wording\nof proposed section 212 (a) (3) (A) (ii), which refers to activities\nwhich endanger public safety or national security, would continue\nto support findings of excludability on foreign policy grounds in\ncertain cases. The Department believes the national security is\nprotected not merely by military means alone, but also by diplo-\nmatic means. On this basis, activities which could have poten-\ntially serious adverse foreign policy consequences could endanger\nnational security. If, on the other hand, the intent of the bill\nis to eliminate altogether visa denials on foreign policy grounds,\nthe Department would oppose adoption of such a provision.\nProposed section 212 (a) (3) (B) would replace current section\n212 (a) (28). Sections 212 (a) (28) (A) through (E) now exclude anar-\nchists, Communists, members of anarchist or Communist parties,\nmembers of any organization affiliated with a Communist party or\norganization, and those who believe in or advocate Marxist doc-\ntrine. Sections 212(a)(28)(F), (G), and (H) exclude aliens who\nadvocate, or belong to organizations which advocate certain acts\ngenerally characterized as terrorist acts. Moreover, the provi-\nsions of section 212 (a) (28) extend not merely to present, but also\nto past, membership, affiliations, belief or advocacy.\nProposed section 212 (a) (3) (B) would omit virtually all the\nprovisions of section 212 (a) (28) and would exclude only an alien\nwho is an active member of an organization which is engaged in\nviolence OF terrorist activities. The Department believes that\nthe elimination of all current restrictions against the admission\nof members of Communist parties or organizations and of adherents\nof Communist doctrine is not in the national interest, but will\ndefer to the comments of the Department of Justice with respect to\nthis issue because of that Department's primary responsibility for\ninternal security.\nThere are also several technical matters relating to the pro-\nposed section which deserve comment. First, the word \"active\"\nappears to require something more than mere membership in order to\n-7-\nsupport a finding of excludability. It seems that some unspeci-\nfied degree of participation in the organization's activities\nmight be required for this purpose. The Department suggests that\nthis point be clarified.\nSecond, the Department notes that the concept of \"affiliation\"\nhas been omitted and excludability will result only from active\nmembership. This appears to pre-suppose that organizations of the\nkind described are sufficiently formal to have membership in the\ntraditional sense. Terrorist organizations or groups are virtu-\nally all clandestine and often do not appear to be clearly struc-\ntured. For this reason, the Department would suggest that pro-\nposed section 212 (a) (3) (B) be expanded to exclude aliens affili-\nated with such organizations as well as those who are members.\nThird, the Department questions whether it is appropriate to\nexempt from excludability aliens who advocate violence or terror-\nist activity while excluding those who engage in it.\nFourth, the wording of proposed section 212 (a) (3) (B) clearly\ncomprehends only present membership (presumably as of the time of\nvisa application or application for admission). The Department\nforesees that aliens may try to avoid excludability by claiming to\nhave terminated membership, perhaps only very recently. As many\nof the organizations within the purview of this proposed section\nare clandestine in character, verification of such a claim will be\nvirtually impossible. For this reason, the Committee may wish to\nconsider providing that excludability would result not only from\npresent membership but also from past membership within a\nspecified time period.\nFinally, the Department notes that A-3 nonimmigrants (atten-\ndants, servants and personal employees of foreign government\nofficials accredited to the United States) and G-5 nonimmigrants\n(attendants, servants and personal employees of representatives\nto, or employees of, an international organization) would be\nexempt from excludability under proposed section 212 (a) (3) (B).\nThis appears to transfer to this section the provisions of current\nsection 212 (d) (2) which would be repealed by section 2 (d) (2) of\nthe bill and which exempts A-3 and G-5 nonimmigrants from the pro-\nvisions of current section 212(a)(28). While this exemption may\nbe appropriate when the primary basis for excludability is member-\nship in or affiliation with a Communist Party or organization, the\nDepartment questions whether it would continue to be appropriate\nif the basis for excludability were active membership in an or-\nganization which engages in violence or terrorism.\n-8-\nEconomic Grounds for Certain Immigrants\nProposed section 212 (a) (4) incorporates the labor certifica-\ntion requirement of current section 212 (a) (14) with a substantive\namendment and the provisions of current section 212 (a) (32) exclud-\ning foreign medical graduates who have not passed Parts I and II\nof the National Board of Medical Examiners examination or an\nequivalent examination.\nProposed section 212 (a) (4) (A) would replace current section\n212(a)(14). Under current law, labor certification generally can-\nnot be granted by the Secretary of Labor if qualified workers in\nthe United States are able, willing and available for the position\nfor which the alien's services are sought. In the case of members\nof the teaching profession and of artists and scientists of excep-\ntional ability only, United States workers must be equally quali-\nfied -- not merely qualified -- able, willing and available in\norder to support a denial of certification. Proposed section\n212 (a) (4) (A) would apply this more stringent \"equally qualified\"\ntest also to cases of aliens holding doctoral degrees who will be\nemployed as researchers by a college, university or other non-\nprofit educational or research institution. The Department defers\nto the comments of the Department of Labor with respect to this\nproposed amendment.\nProposed section 212 (a) (4) (B) repeats present section 212 (a)\n(32) without substantive amendment. The Department will defer to\nany comments the Department of Health and Human Services may have\nwith respect to this provision.\nIllegal Entrants and Immigration Violators\nProposed section 212 (a) (5) would incorporate current sections\n212 (a) (16) (aliens previously excluded) ; 212 (a) (17) (aliens pre-\nviously deported, removed at Government expense, or removed as\nalien enemies) ; 212 (a) (18) (stowaways) ; 212(a)(19) (aliens who\nhave procured or sought to procure a visa or other entry documen-\ntation by fraud or a willfull misrepresentation) ; 212(a)( (24)\n(aliens who arrived less than two years previously in foreign con-\ntiguous territory or an adjacent island on a carrier which had not\nsigned an agreement with the Attorney General or which had failed\nto comply with the terms of such an agreement); and 212(a)(31)\n(aliens who for gain assist others to enter the United States\nillegally). of these sections, only present section 212 (a) (31)\nwould be substantively amended.\nCurrent section 212 (a) (31), which becomes proposed section\n212 (a) (5) (E), would be amended by deleting the current requirement\nthat the alien's activities have been for gain in order to support\na finding of excludability. This change would open the way for\n-9-\nfinding aliens excludable for attempting to assist family members\nto enter the U.S. illegally for purposes of family reunification,\nan action that in the past has not warranted such a harsh penalty.\nAlso, it would make it more difficult to determine what degree of\nassistance would invoke excludability. Assistance provided in\nexchange for money may be presumed significant but it would be\nmore difficult to establish whether a casual suggestion made to a\nfriend or family member should be SO presumed.\nThe Department urges that current section 212 (a) (24), which\nbecomes proposed section 212 (a) (5) (F), be repealed. This section\nhas its origins prior to World War I in legislation to regulate\nthe conditions under which immigrant aliens were transported by\nvessel to United States ports of entry. It was enacted in 1917 to\nprevent unscrupulous shipping companies from evading those re-\nstrictions by carrying immigrant aliens to ports in Canada or\nMexico, for example, and leaving them there to make their way to\nthe United States. The virtual elimination of transoceanic pas-\nsenger vessels and the standardization of passenger accommodations\non commercial aircraft have long since rendered this section ob-\nsolete. It nevertheless remains in the law as a trap for the un-\nwary. While the number of immigrant aliens subject to this ground\nof exclusion is very small, not more than a handful annually, its\nperverse effects impose upon those few a very real hardship for\nwhich there is no substantive basis. For this reason, the Depart-\nment urges removal of this provision from the grounds of exclusion.\nDocumentation Requirements\nProposed section 212 (a) (6) would incorporate current provi-\nsions which establish the requirements for travel and entry docu-\nments for immigrants (current sections 212 (a) (20) and (21) ) and\nnonimmigrants (current section 212 (a) (26) As a technical\nmatter, it would appear that the word \"or\" in line 18 of page 8 of\nthe bill should be changed to \"and\". Otherwise, the documentation\nrequirements under proposed section 212 (a) (6) (B) for nonimmigrant\naliens would call for either a valid travel document or a valid\nentry document, but not for both.\nCurrent Exclusion Grounds Eliminated by H.R. 4509\nIn addition to restructuring and amending certain of the\npresent grounds for exclusion, as has been described above,\nsection (a) of the bill would, if enacted, eliminate altogether\ncertain other current grounds for exclusion, namely: section\n212 (a) (7) (medical condition affecting the ability to earn a\nliving) i 212 (a) (8) (beggars, paupers and vagrants) ; 212(a)(11)\n(polygamists); 212 (a) (12) (prostitutes, procurers of prostitutes\nand those who live from the proceeds of prostitution) 212 (a) (13)\n-10-\n(those coming to engage in immoral sexual acts); 212 (a) (15) (those\nlikely to become a public charge); 212(a)(22) (aliens ineligible\nto citizenship or who departed from or remained outside the United\nStates in time of war or national emergency to evade or avoid\nmilitary service); 212 (a) (25) (illiterates) and 212 (a) (30) (an\nalien accompanying another alien excluded and certified to be\nphysically or mentally helpless).\nThree of these provisions -- sections 212 (a) (7), (8), and (15)\n-- deal generally with economic or social welfare issues. They\nall relate to the general question of an alien's ability to sup-\nport himself after admission in ways which conform to American\ncustoms and mores. Accordingly, the Department will defer to the\ncomments of the Department of Health and Human Services with\nrespect to the merits.\nOperationally, the elimination of sections 212 (a) (7) and (8)\nwould have little, if any, effect on the visa function. In Fiscal\nYear 1983, for example, over seven million visa applications were\nprocessed, but only 54 visa applications were refused under sec-\ntion 212 (a) (7) and eight under section 212 (a) (8). During that\nsame fiscal year 17 refusals under section 212 (a) (7) were over-\ncome, presumably on the basis that the alien had established that\nother arrangements had been made for his support, relieving the\nalien of the need to earn a living.\nOn the other hand, the elimination of section 212 (a) (15) (the\npublic charge provision) would have a major impact on visa opera-\ntions. In Fiscal Year 1983 over 21,000 applications were refused\nunder section 212 (a) (15), of which over 13,000 refusals were sub-\nsequently overcome. The overwhelming majority of these actions\nrelated to immigrant visa applicants rather than to nonimmigrants.\nOverall, section 212 (a) (15) is by far the most common ground for\nrefusal of an immigrant visa application. Thus, elimination of\nthis provision would result in a major reduction in the time\nrequired to adjudicate individual immigrant visa applications.\nThe Department notes, however, that exclusion for public\ncharge reasons is one of the earliest exclusions in our immigra-\ntion law, dating from 1882. It is also one which has commanded\nconsiderable public attention from time to time, especially during\nthe Depression. In 1950 the Senate Judiciary Committee discussed\nthe public charge issue in detail in the study on which the Act\nwas based (Senate Report 1515, April 20, 1950 at pp 346-350).\nMore recently, at various times consular officers have been\naccused of applying the public charge provision too laxly or too\nstringently. It has even occurred that both accusations have been\nmade at the same time.\n-11-\nAn affidavit of support is commonly used to meet the public\ncharge provision, but at present it is only a moral obligation.\nOver the last decade efforts have been made to amend the public\ncharge provision to make the affidavit of support a legally bind-\ning document.\nNone of these proposals have been enacted, but other legisla-\ntion relating to this point has been. Public Laws 96-265, 97-35\nand 97-98 each amend legislation regulating Federal benefits pro-\ngrams to provide that the income and resources of the sponsor of\nan immigrant be attributed to the immigrant for purposes of deter-\nmining the immigrant's eligibility to receive SSI, AFDC, or Food\nStamp benefits if the immigrant applies for such benefits within\nthree years after admission for permanent residence. These amend-\nments also provide for recovery from the sponsor of the value of\nany such benefits paid to such an immigrant in error. For the\npurposes of these provisions, the sponsor of an immigrant is a\nperson who executed an affidavit of support or similar document in\nbehalf of the immigrant. Since the elimination of section 212 (a)\n(15) of the Act would result in the abandonment of affidavits of\nsupport in the immigrant visa process, it would appear to have the\npractical effect of rendering these recently enacted provisions\nnugatory. The Committee may wish to take this fact into account\nin its consideration of the merits of eliminating section\n212 (a) (15) from the grounds of exclusion.\nIn considering the elimination of current section 212 (a) (12)\nof the Act which excludes prostitutes, those who procure prosti-\ntutes or live from the proceeds of prostitution, the Committee\nshould be aware that a conviction for prostitution, for procuring\nprostitutes or for profiting from prostitution would be a convic-\ntion for a crime involving moral turpitude within the meaning of\ncurrent section 212 (a) (9) -- proposed section 212 (a) (2) (A). Thus,\nelimination of section 212 (a) (12) would relieve from ineligibility\nonly those whom the consular officer knew or had reason to believe\nwere prostitutes, procurers of prostitution, or aliens who\nprofited from prostitution, but who had not been convicted.\nThe Department can perceive no operational implications in the\nproposed elimination of current section 212 (a) (13) which excludes\naliens coming to engage in any immoral sexual act. In 1953 the\nBoard of Immigration Appeals held that, in order to support an\nexclusion under this section, it was necessary to determine that\nsuch purpose was the alien's primary purpose in coming to the\nUnited States. This holding was in line with an earlier decision\nof the Supreme Court interpreting the predecessor provision in the\nAct of February 5, 1917. As a result, findings of excludability\nunder section 212 (a) (13) are extremely rare. There were none at\nall in Fiscal Year 1983, for example.\n-12-\nSection 212 (a) (22) excludes aliens who are ineligible to citi-\nzenship or who, in time of war or national emergency, departed or\nremained outside the United States to evade or avoid military ser-\nvice. As matters stand now, this section is rarely invoked, for\nseveral reasons. First, compulsory military service (the draft)\nwas terminated in 1973. Second, since 1978 the United States has\nnot been in a state of national emergency. Third, the pardon\nissued by President Carter in 1977 has been interpreted to relieve\nfrom excludability any alien who, between August 4, 1964, and\nMarch 28, 1973, departed or remained outside the United States to\nevade or avoid military service. There remain nevertheless cer-\ntain classes of aliens to whom this provision applies, namely:\naliens who obtained relief from military service on the basis of\nalienage, aliens already serving in the Armed Forces who departed\nthe United States to avoid completing such service (i.e., who\ndeserted and left or remained outside the United States after\ndeserting), and those who departed or remained outside the United\nStates to evade or avoid military service prior to August 4, 1964.\nSince many of the aliens who most recently performed an act which\nwould normally render them excludable under section 212(a)(22)\nhave been relieved of such excludability by Presidential action,\nthe Department interposes no objection to relieving others\nsimilarly situated from such ineligibility.\nSection 212 (a) (25) excludes an alien over the age of sixteen\nwho is physically capable of reading and writing but who cannot\nread and write some language, not necessarily the English lan-\nguage. Under current law a returning resident alien, an immigrant\nalien fleeing religious persecution or one who is the parent,\ngrandparent, spouse, son or daughter of an admissible alien, a\nlawful permanent resident or a United States citizen is relieved\nof this excludability. In addition, nonimmigrant aliens and aliens\nadmitted as refugees are not subject to this ground of excluda-\nbility. Thus, only third, fifth, and sixth preference immigrant\nvisa petition beneficiaries and nonpreference principal aliens are\nsubject to exclusion under section 212(a)(25). It is unlikely\nthat a third preference petition beneficiary would prove to be\nexcludable as an illiterate. The Department notes, however, that\nit has seen a number of unfortunate cases in which a fifth or\nsixth preference petition beneficiary was illiterate, while the\nbeneficiary's spouse and/or children were literate. In such a\nsituation, all members of the family group are excludable. The\nDepartment will defer to the comments of the Department of Health\nand Human Services with respect to the desirability of removing\nthis ground of exclusion entirely.\nSection 212 (a) (30), excluding an alien accompanying another\nexcluded alien who is physically or mentally helpless and whose\nprotection and guardianship is required by the helpless alien,\napplies only to the port of entry inspection process and not to\n-13-\nthe visa process. Accordingly, the Department will defer to the\ncomments of the Department of Justice with respect to its proposed\nelimination.\nConforming Amendments\nSection 2 (b) of the bill would repeal section 212 (b) of the\nAct which exempts certain classes of aliens from exclusion by\nreason of illiteracy (section 212(a)(25)). Since section 212(a)\n(25) would be eliminated by section 2(a) of the bill section\n212 (b) would become obsolete.\nSection (c) of the bill would amend section 212(c) of the Act\nto conform with amendments made by section 2(a).\nSection 2 (d) of the bill would amend section 212(d) of the Act\nby repealing paragraphs (1), (2), (9) and (10), which would become\nobsolete, and by amending paragraphs (3), (4), (6), (7), and (8)\nto conform with amendments proposed in section 2(a).\nSections 2 (d) (3) and (d) (8) would make conforming amendments\nto sections 212 (d) (3) and 212(d) (8) of the Act. As a technical\nmatter, the Department is uncertain of the meaning of the brackets\naround \"(A)\" in lines 10 and 18 on page 9 of the bill. In both\ncases the language being amended has the effect of prohibiting\nrelief from or a waiver of the serious security exclusions and the\nexclusion of those who have engaged in persecution. For this\nreason, the Department would suggest that \" (A) be deleted from\nboth texts, since, otherwise, active members of an organization\nwhich engages in violence or terrorist activities could benefit\ntherefrom.\nSection (e) of the bill would repeal section 212(g) of the\nAct. This section now authorizes for immigrant aliens a waiver of\nexcludability because of mental retardation, affliction with\ntuberculosis, or past attacks of insanity provided the immigrant\nis the parent, spouse, son, daughter or minor unmarried adopted\nchild of a citizen, a permanent resident alien, or an alien to\nwhom an immigrant visa has been issued. Under the amendments of\nsection 212 (a) of the Act proposed in section 2 (a) of the bill\nneither mental retardation nor having had prior attacks of in-\nsanity would constitute a ground of exclusion unless it was deter-\nmined that either condition was a mental illness likely to result\nin the peformance of acts which could endanger public safety. On\nthe other hand tuberculosis is now considered by the Public\nHealth Service to be a dangerous contagious disease within the\nmeaning of present section 212 (a) (6). Since current section\n212(a) (6) would remain in the revised section 212(a) as section\n212 (a) (1) (A), it is possible that tuberculosis could remain a\n\"dangerous contagious disease.\" Should this prove to be the case,\n-14-\nthe repeal of section 212(g) would have the effect of eliminating\nthis existing relief from excludability for certain immigrant\naliens afflicted with tuberculosis. The Department will defer to\nthe comments of the Public Health Service with respect to this\nproposal.\nSection (f) of the bill would amend section 212(h) of the\nAct. Section 212 (h) currently authorizes for certain immigrants a\nwaiver of excludability based on a conviction for a crime involv-\ning moral turpitude, confinement in excess of five years, prosti-\ntution or a single conviction for simple possession of less than\nthirty grams of marihuana, for an immigrant alien who is the\nparent, spouse, or child (including a minor unmarried adopted\nchild) of a United States citizen or permanent resident. The pro-\nposed amendment would make what are essentially conforming amend-\nments, but would also apparently perpetuate the discretionary\nrelief for certain aliens excludable because of a single convic-\ntion for simple possession of 30 grams or less of marihuana.\nSince this relief would become automatic and applicable to all\naliens under proposed section 212 (a) (2) (C) (i), there would seem to\nbe no reason to retain this discretionary provision in section\n212 (h). On the other hand, depending upon the meaning of the\nbrackets around \"(i)\" at line 25 on page 9 of the bill, this\nrelief would extend also to narcotics addicts. The Committee may\nwish to clarify what is intended by their inclusion.\nSection (g) of the bill would amend section 212(k) of the Act\nto conform with amendments proposed in section 2 (a) of the bill.\nSection 2 (h) of the bill would establish an effective date for\nthe amendments contained in sections 2 and 4 of the bill with\nrespect to applications for admission. The Department believes\nthat this effective date provision should be modified to include\nthe same effective date for visa applications.\nDeportation Grounds\nSection 3 of the bill would amend section 241 of the Act,\nwhich establishes the grounds for deportation of aliens, to con-\nform it generally to the proposed grounds for the exclusion of\naliens. There is, however, one significant difference. Under\ncurrent law, both sections 212 (a) (33) and 241 (a) (19) direct them-\nselves to aliens who ordered, incited, assisted or otherwise par-\nticipated in the persecution of others under the direction of or\nin collaboration with the Nazi Government of Germany. As has pre-\nviously been mentioned, section 212 (a) (33), which would become\nproposed section 212 (a) (2) (D), would be significantly broadened.\nCurrent section 241 (a) (19), which would become section 241 (a) (5),\nhas not been substantively amended. It is not clear to the\nDepartment whether this was deliberate or inadvertent and the\n-15-\nCommittee may wish to consider whether the two should conform to\neach other. In addition, current section 241 (a) (10) / which\ncorresponds to current section 212 (a) (24), would be retained as\nproposed section 241 (a) (1) (D). Just as the Department urges the\nrepeal of current section 212 (a) (24), SO the Department urges the\nrepeal of current section 241 (a) (10). Otherwise, the Department\ndefers to the comments of the Department of Justice with respect\nto section 3 of the bill.\nAdditional Conforming Amendments\nSection 4 of the bill would make a series of conforming\namendments in various sections of the Act.\nSection 4 (a) (1) would make conforming amendments to section\n101 (f) (3) of the Act.\nSection 4(a)(2) would make conforming amendments to section\n102 of the Act.\nSection 4(a)(3) would make a conforming amendment to section\n203 (a) (7) of the Act.\nSection 4 (a) (4) would make conforming amendments to sections\n207(c)(3) and 209 (c) of the Act.\nSection 4 (a) (5) would make a conforming amendment to section\n211 (b) of the Act.\nSection 4 (a) (6) would repeal section 213 of the Act. Section\n213 now provides for the posting of a \"public charge bond* in cer-\ntain cases and would become obsolete because of the elimination of\nsection 212(a)(15) (excludability for public charge reasons) by\nsection 2( (a) of the bill.\nSection 4(a)(7) would make a conforming amendment to section\n221 (g) of the Act.\nSection 4(a)(8) would make a conforming amendment to section\n234 of the Act. This section establishes the requirements and\nprocedures for the medical examination of aliens at ports of\nentry. The Department notes that excludability by reason of nar-\ncotics addiction in proposed section 212 (a) (2) (C) (ii) ) is included\nin the grounds of excludability for which a medical examination\nwould be required. This reinforces the Department's view that\nexcludability for this reason should be included in proposed\nsection 212 (a) (1) (Health Related Grounds), as has been mentioned\nabove.\n-16-\nSection 4 (a) (9) would make a conforming amendment to section\n245 (c) of the Act.\nSection 4 (a) (10) would make conforming amendments to section\n236 (d) of the Act.\nSection 4 (a) (11) through (14) would make conforming amendments\nto sections 241 (c), 241 (f), 272 and 277 of the Act.\nSection 4 (b) would make conforming amendments to section 242,\n244 (a), and 244 (e) of the Act and to section 202 (n) of the Social\nSecurity Act.\nIf the Committee should decide to approve proposed new sec-\ntions 212 (a) (3) and 241 (a) (4), \"Security Grounds,\" it may also\nwish to consider the repeal of current sections 101 (a) (2), 101 (a)\n(12), 101 (a) (37), 101(a)(40), and 101 (e), since the purposes they\nhave served heretofore would be eliminated. For the same reason\nthe Committee may wish to consider the repeal of Section 21 of the\nAct entitled \"Act to provide certain basic authority for the\nDepartment of State,' approved August 1, 1956 (22 USC 2691, popu-\nlarly known as the \"McGovern Amendment\") as added by Section 112\nof the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal year 1978, P.L.\n95-105, August 17, 1977, 91 Stat. 848. Proposed section 212 (a)\n(3) (B) which would replace current section 212 (a) (28), would\nrender excludable aliens who were active members of organizations\nengaged in violence or terrorist activities. It does not appear\nto the Department that it would be appropriate to mandate that\nwaivers of ineligibility be recommended for such aliens.\nThe Office of Management and Budget advises that from the\nstandpoint of the Administration's program there is no objection\nto the submission of this report.\nSincerely,\nW. Tapley Bennett, Jr.\nAssistant Secretary\nLegislative and Intergovernmental Affairs"
}