Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118568560
label
Immigration and Naturalization (9 of 13)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118568560
contentType
document
title
Immigration and Naturalization (9 of 13)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
485
collections
Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)
John Roberts' Subject Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118568560
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1986-12-31
year
1986
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1982-01-01
year
1982
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
960e7fb72382e69c
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Roberts, John G.: Files
Folder Title: Immigration and Naturalization
(9 of 13)
Box: 28
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
WITHDRAWAL SHEET
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection: ROBERTS, JOHN G.: Files
Archivist: kdb/srj
File Folder: Immigration & Naturalization [9] OA12662
Date: 2/12/98
12660
DOCUMENT
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
NO. AND TYPE
1. memo
Roberts toFred Fielding re: proposed letters to
4/02/84
P5
Congressmen Wright and de la Garza re: Emergency
immigrant education program. 2p.
2. memo
Roberts to Fielding re: administration position
1/30/84
PS
regarding immigration bill. 2p.
00 12/14/00
RESTRICTION CODES
Photocopied at the Ronald Reagan Library
Presidential Records Act [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National security classified information [(a)(1) of the PRA].
F-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the'FOIA].
P-2 Relating to appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA].
F-2 Release could disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA].
FOIA].
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial information
F-3 Release would violate a Federal statue [(b)(3) of the FOIA].
[(a)(4) of the PRA].
F-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial information
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President and his advisors, or
[(b)(4) of the FOIA].
between such advisors [(a)(5) of the PRA].
F-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(a)(6) of
FOIA].
the PRA].
F-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of
the FOIA].
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.
F-8 Release would disclose information conceming the regulation of financial institutions
[(b)(8) of the FOIA].
F-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of
the FOIA].
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 1, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR BRANDEN BLUM
LEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS 8262
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Draft Justice Report on S. 2402, the
"Immigration Repatriation Study Act"
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced
draft report, and finds no objection to it from a legal
perspective.
ID # 249476 CU
WHITE HOUSE
IM
JV
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
O . OUTGOING
H INTERNAL
I - INCOMING
Date Correspondence
John
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
direct
Name of Correspondent:
James C. Murr
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject:
the Immigration Cleatriation
Draft Justice report on S. 2402,
Study act"
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code YY/MM/DD
WHolland
ORIGINATOR 84,07,3
/
/
WAT18
Referral R Note:
84,08,01 realy to Branden Blum
S 84/08/12
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A - Appropriate Action
1 Into Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A Answered
C Completed
C * Comment/Recommendation
R. - Direct Reply w/Copy
B - - Non-Special Referral
S Suspended
D + Draft Response
S For Signature
F - Furnish Fact Sheet
X Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code
=
"A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Comments:
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.
5/81
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
Princt OFFICE
OFFICE OF management AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
July 30, 1984
LEGISLATIVE REFERRAL MEMORANDUM
TO:
LEGISLATIVE LIAISON OFFICER
219476ccm
Department of State
Department of Health and Human Services
National Security Council
Department of Transportation
SUBJECT: Draft Justice report on S. 2402, the "Immigrant Repatriation
Study Act"
The Office of Management and Budget requests the views of your
agency on the above subject before advising on its relationship
to the program of the President, in accordance with OMB Circular
A-19.
Please provide us with your views no later than
Monday, August 27, 1984.
Direct your questions to Branden Blum (395-3802), the legislative
attorney in this office.
James U.C.M. C. Murr for
Assistant Director for
Legislative Reference
Enclosure
CC: J. Kent
S. Malm
S. Gates
W. Austermann
R. Veeder
J. Cooney
F. Fielding
S. Galebach
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Office of the Assistant Attorney General
Washington, D.C. 20530
Honorable Strom Thurmond
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This letter is in response to your request for the views of
the Department of Justice on S. 2402, a bill to study the problems
of indigent, elderly immigrants who wish to return to their home
countries but cannot afford to pay the transportation cost to do
SO. The Department of Justice recommends against enactment of
this legislation in its present form.
The bill directs the Attorney General to study the problems
of indigent, elderly immigrants who wish to return to their home
countries but cannot afford to pay the cost of travel. The
Attorney General is directed to conduct a study to determine the
number of such immigrants, the cost of such a program, the options
for financing such a program, and the advantages or disadvantages
of requiring this government to ensure that a repatriated immi-
grant's health and welfare will be protected upon return to his
or her country. The bill further requires the Attorney General
to determine whether and to what extent the State of Hawaii's
repatriation program should be used as a model for a similar
Federal program.
Section 250 of the Immigration and Nationality Act grants
the Attorney General the authority to remove from the United
States any alien who falls into distress or who needs public aid
from causes arising subsequent to his entry into the United
States, and is desirous of being removed, to the native country
of such alien, or to the country from which he came, or to the
country of which he is a citizen or subject, or to any other
country to which he wishes to go and which will receive him, at
the expense of the appropriation for the enforcement of this
Act. We believe that this section of current law adequately
provides for those indigent and elderly immigrants sought to be
protected in the proposed legislation.
- 2 -
As we noted, section three of the proposed bill requires
several studies to be conducted. Many of the studies are not
within the purview of the Department of Justice, i.e., supple-
mental security income, food stamps; therefore, we cannot comment
on these studies.
Finally, the Department opposes requiring the Federal
Government to attempt to ensure that a repatriated immigrant's
health and welfare will be protected upon return to his native
country. Such an undertaking is not within the purview of the
Department of Justice.
The Department of Justice recommends against enactment of
this legislation.
The Office of Management and Budget has advised this Depart-
ment that there is no objection to the submission of this report
from the standpoint of the Administration's program.
Sincerely,
Robert A. McConnell
Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legislative and
Intergovernmental Affairs
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 6, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR BRANDEN BLUM
LEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS DDR
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Draft Justice Report on H.R. 5068, a Bill
to Make Additional Immigrant Visas Available
for Immigrants From Certain Foreign Countries
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced draft
report, and finds no objection to it from a legal perspective.
240000
ID #.
CU
WHITE HOUSE
IM
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
0 & OUTGOING
H * INTERNAL
I INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
ame of Correspondent:
James C. Murr
I
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
ubject: Draft Justice report on H.R. 5068 6 been
to make poditional immigrant orson
available from certain
foreign countries
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code YY/MM/DD
CULHolland
ORIGINATOR 84108101
/
/
Referral Note:
WAT18
Date
Kepley to Branden Blum
R 84,08,01
S 84,08,12
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
-
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
I
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A Appropriate Action
- into Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A Answered
C Completed
C Comment/Recommendation
R Direct Reply w/Copy
B . Non-Special Referral
S Suspended
D Draft Response
S For Signature
F * Furnish Fact Sheet
X Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code = "A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
RECORD
Comments:
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference. ext. 2590.
5/81
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
but
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON D.C. 20503
July 31, 1984
249659
LEGISLATIVE REFERRAL MEMORANDUM
TO:
LEGISLATIVE LIAISON OFFICER
Department of State
Department of Labor
National Security Council
John
Department of Health and Human Services
SUBJECT: Draft Justice report on H.R. 5068, a bill to make additional
immigrant visas available for immigrants from certain foreign
countries
The Office of Management and Budget requests the views of your
agency on the above subject before advising on its relationship
to the program of the President, in accordance with OMB Circular
A-19.
Please provide us with your views no later than
Friday, August 24, 1984.
Direct your questions to Branden Blum legislative
attorney in this office.
James JCM
Assistant Director for
Legislative Reference
Enclosure
CC: F. Fielding
J. Cooney
J. Kent
S. Malm
S. Galebach
S. Gates
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Office of the Assistant Attorney General
Washington, D.C. 20530
Honorable Peter W. Rodino, Jr.
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This letter is in response to your request for the views of
the Department of Justice on H.R. 5068, a bill to make additional
immigrant visas available for immigrants from certain foreign
countries. The Department of Justice recommends against enactment
of this legislation.
The bill appears to be designed to correct a perceived sit-
tuation caused by the change from the old national origins quota
system to the current preference system. The preference system
favors individuals with close relatives from the previous genera-
tion who are now in the United States (parents, sisters, brothers).
It, therefore, does not favor those countries which had high
levels of immigration at a time when the national origins system
was in effect, but which have had reduced levels beginning with
the preference system. The bill attempts to correct this situa-
tion by identifying countries which were affected, and by adding
a number of visas to their quota over the next four years. Using
calculations provided in the bill, the Immigration and Naturaliza-
tion Service has determined that 42 countries had fewer preference
immigrants in FY 1981 than 3/4 of the average available preference
system allocations from the base period of FY 1955 to FY 1965.
Under the terms of the bill, each of these countries would have
been entitled to additional visas in FY 1982 if the bill had
been in effect at that time. The bill automatically excludes
all Western Hemisphere countries, because those countries did
not have an individual country quota, but were grouped under the
Western Hemisphere Quota.
The number of additional visas which would have been avail-
able under this bill has also been calculated. All but two of
the 42 countries noted above (Ireland and Germany) would have
received the maximum increase in visas (7,500). In total, an
additional 299, 822 visas would have been made available under
this bill had it been in effect in 1982.
- 2 -
The bill does not indicate how countries which have recently
become independent (and thus received a separate visa allocation)
during the base period of 1955 - 1965 should be treated. If an
equitable approach to this situation is taken, and their average
visa availability is calculated only over the years during which
they were independent, an additional 20 countries would be eligible
to receive a maximum of 150,000 additional visas.
The bill also specifies how the additional visas should be
allocated. Thirty percent would go to non-preference immigrants.
Because of excessive preference immigration, no one has been able
to immigrate under the non-preference system since the summer of
1978. The allocation of these additional non-preference visas to
individuals from those countries which are covered under the
proposed legislation would be discriminatory to those who may
have registered for non-preference visas, but who were not born
in a country benefiting under the bill.
The bill also provides that the provisions of § 212 (a) (14)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act shall not apply in the
determination of an immigrant's eligibility to receive any visa
authorized to be issued under this Act. The basis for qualifica-
tion under $ § 203 (a) (3) and 203 (a) (6) is the labor certification,
which assures that the provisions of § 212 (a) (14) are met. The
filing of the labor certification sets the priority date of the
visa petition. There is no explanation of how potential immigrants
would qualify under §§ 203 (a) (3) and 203 (a) (6) with the labor
certification provision being waived. The Department also opposes
waiving the labor certification requirements in non-preference
cases, as this would have a significant effect on the labor market
in this country, and could also significantly increase the number
of immigrants who, having no relatives in the United States,
could be expected to turn to the various social service agencies
for assistance.
Therefore, because the bill would be inequitable to Western
Hemisphere nations, and to newer emerging nations, it would
increase the ceilings on preference immigrants from 270,000 to
approximately 570,000 (to a possible 720,000) and would provide
for a waiving of financial support and ability to find employment
requirements which are currently in effect, the Department opposes
enactment of this legislation.
The Office of Management and Budget has advised this Depart-
ment that there is no objection to the submission of this report
from the standpoint of the Administration's program.
Sincerely,
Robert A. McConnell
Assistant Attorney General
1
To
Date
John
Time 1:00
WHILE YOU WERE OUT
M Charlie Kolb
of
OMB 5600 Coursel's ofc.
Phone
Area Code
Number
Extension
TELEPHONED
PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU
WILL CALL AGAIN
/
WANTS TO SEE YOU
URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
Message
am
Operator
AMPAD
EFFICIENCY
23-020
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 2, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS /s/
SUBJECT:
Proposed Letters to Congressmen Wright
and de la Garza re: Emergency Immigrant
Education Program for Secretary Bell
Richard Darman has asked for comments by 4:00 p.m. today on
proposed identical letters from Secretary Bell to Congressmen
Jim Wright and E. de la Garza. The letters formally announce
the Administration position that $30 million appropriated in
the Second Continuing Resolution, P.L. 98-151, for the
emergency immigrant education program, is not available for
obligation. Congress appropriated $30 million for "carrying
out emergency immigrant education assistance under title V
of H.R. 3520 as passed the House of Representatives September
13, 1983.' 97 Stat. 964, 973. Title V of H.R. 3520 never
became law, however, since the Senate-passed version did not
include title V and the Senate refused to add it in conference.
Congressmen Wright and de la Garza, perhaps sensing their
shaky legal position, wrote Secretary Bell urging him to act
promptly in distributing the $30 million. On January 5,
1984, Bell rose to the bait and responded that his Department
was taking steps to implement the program. Shortly thereafter,
Mike Horowitz advised David Stockman and Secretary Bell that
there was no authority to spend the $30 million. Horowitz
noted that appropriated funds cannot be obligated in the
absence of authorizing legislation, and that the authorizing
legislation in this case failed to pass. According to
Horowitz the language in the appropriations bill cannot be
considered to constitute authorization of the program.
Although appropriations acts can authorize programs, clearer
language is required than that the funds are appropriated
for use "under" a specified program. In his memorandum to
Stockman, Horowitz cited examples from the same continuing
resolution of instances in which Congress specified that
pending bills were "hereby enacted." Congress knew how to
use such unambiguous language when it wanted to, Horowitz
reasons, and accordingly the vague language employed in this
instance cannot be considered adequate authorization to
obligate the $30 million. The purpose of the letters
presently under consideration is to correct the misimpression
created by Secretary Bell's letters of January 5, which
stated that Education was proceeding with plans to distribute
the $30 million.
-2-
The Comptroller General disagrees with the OMB position and,
pursuant to the Impoundment Control Act, 2. U.S.C. § 686, has
formally advised Congress that the President is withholding
the $30 million. The Comptroller General argues that the
language in the Continuing Resolution was adequate to
authorize the program. The fact that the Senate declined to
pass the separate authorization bill, title V of H.R. 3520,
is not inconsistent with this conclusion, since the Senate
could have objected to the 3-year authorization in H.R. 3520
but still approved the 1-year funding in the Continuing
Resolution.
Under the Impoundment Control Act, the report of the Comp-
troller General is treated as a rescission proposal. 2 U.S.C.
§ 686 (a). Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 683 (b) Congress has 45
days to rescind the authority. If it does so the case is
resolved; if not, the statute specifies that the funds shall
be obligated. If Congress does not rescind the putative
budget authority and the Administration adheres to its
position, the Comptroller General may file suit after "25
calendar days of continuous session of the Congress following
the date on which an explanatory statement by the Comptroller
General of the circumstances giving rise to the contemplated
action has been filed with the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President of the Senate." 2 U.S.C.
§ 687.
As a policy matter OMB would prefer not to spend this $30
million. Based on my cursory review of Horowitz's memorandum,
on the one hand, and the Comptroller General opinion, on the
other, I would have to conclude that the legal issue is
close. Horowitz's arguments are certainly colorable,
however, and I have no objection to putting the issue to the
test. I also have no objection to sending the Bell letters.
Bell's January 5 letters are misleading under the circum-
stances and should be corrected, although they hardly
estop the Administration from arguing that the funds were
never authorized. The only change I would suggest in the
letter is changing "necessary" in the fifth paragraph to
"appropriate." These letters are not "necessary" in any
technical legal sense and we should avoid suggesting that
they are.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 2, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND
DEPUTY TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Proposed Letters to Congressmen Wright
and de la Garza re: Emergency Immigrant
Education Program for Secretary Bell
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed
letters. We recommend changing "necessary" in the fifth
paragraph to "appropriate." The letters are not "necessary"
in any technical legal sense and we should avoid suggesting
that they are.
FFF: JGR:ph 4/2/84
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subject
Chron.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 21, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS from
SUBJECT:
Statement of Alan Nelson Concerning
Consolidation of Primary Inspections
and Land Patrol Functions for
Immigration on March 22, 1984
We have been provided with a copy of testimony INS Commis-
sioner Alan C. Nelson proposes to deliver on March 22 before
the Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and International
Law of the House Judiciary Committee. The testimony dis-
cusses the Administration proposal to reorganize and con-
solidate certain responsibilities of the INS and the Customs
Service. At present INS handles immigration and visa
matters and Customs handles inspection and smuggling matters
at all border entry points. The Administration proposal
would substitute a geographic for the current subject matter
allocation of jurisdiction. INS would handle immigration
and customs matters at all land border entry points and
Customs would handle immigration and customs matters at all
air and sea entry points. Nelson's testimony argues that
this will make border processing easier and more efficient
since one agency will handle all matters at any one point.
Nelson contends that the transfer of responsibilities will
be conducted with a minimum of personnel disruption, since
INS and Customs officers are already extensively cross-
trained. I have no objections.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 21, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR BRANDEN BLUM
LEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING Orig. signed by FFF
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Statement of Alan Nelson Concerning
Consolidation of Primary Inspections
and Land Patrol Functions for
Immigration on March 22, 1984
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced
testimony, and finds no objection to it from a legal
perspective.
FFF:JGR:aea 3/21/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 21, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR BRANDEN BLUM
LEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Statement of Alan Nelson Concerning
Consolidation of Primary Inspections
and Land Patrol Functions for
Immigration on March 22, 1984
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced
testimony, and finds no objection to it from a legal
perspective.
FFF:JGR:aea 3/21/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
ID #.
CU
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
o . OUTGOING
H . INTERNAL
I - INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent:
Branden Blum
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject: Statement of Alan Nelson concerning
Consolidation of Primary Inspec tions
and land patrol functions for Immigration
on march 22, 1984
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
CUHOLL
ORIGINATOR 84,03,20
/
/
Referral Note:
CUAT 18
A
84,03,20
5 84,03,21
Referral Note:
C.O.B.
/
/
/
/
I
Referral Note:
/ /
/
/
-
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
-
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A Appropriate Action
I Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A Answered
C Completed
C . Comment/Recommendation
R - Direct Reply w/Copy
B * Non-Special Referral
S Suspended
D - Draft Response
S - For Signature
F - Furnish Fact Sheet
X Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code = "A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Comments:
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.
5/81
STATE
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Legislative Affairs
SPECIAL
Office of the
Washington, D.C. 20530
Assistant Attorney General
March 20, 1984
TO: Branden Blum
OMB
FR: Yolanda Branche
OLA (633-2111)
RE: Statement concerning Consolidation of
Primary Inspections for March 22, 1984
Attached for your review is a statement
concerning the Consolidation of Primary
Inspections. The hearing is scheduled for
March 22, 1984 before the House Subcommittee
on Immigration, Refugees, and International
Law.
CC: Fred F. Fielding
Kathy Collins
DRAFT
STATEMENT
OF
ALAN C. NELSON
COMMISSIONER
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
BEFORE
THE
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
CONCERNING
CONSOLIDATION OF PRIMARY INSPECTIONS
ON
MARCH 22, 1984
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you the Administration's
plan for consolidating the primary inspection and land patrol functions
of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Customs Service. I
will briefly describe the rationale for consolidation and the provisional
planning to effect this management improvement, which we believe will
provide greater efficiency and superior service to the public, while
maintaining and improving vigilant law enforcement.
The issue of INS/Customs inspection consolidation has been discussed
for over 40 years as a means of providing a more efficient single-agency
approach to our Nation's inspection of the more than 300 million persons
admitted annually. A variety of efforts to streamline the inspection
process, cross train the inspectors of the several federal agencies, and
facilitate the entry of foreign visitors without sacrificing the
enforcement of the law have been presented to this subcommittee in
previous years. Reports of the Appropriations Committees of the Senate
and House of Representatives in 1983 expressed concern over the delays of
travelers and cargo at ports of entry, and called for the development of a
more efficient inspection system through the possible consolidation of
primary inspection functions. Support for primary inspection
consolidation was also expressed by industry as well as by the "Grace
Commission," the President's Private Sector Survey on Cost Control.
Following thorough consideration by the Administration of alternative
proposals for consolidation over a two year period, the Cabinet Council on
Management and Administration in November 1983 endorsed a final proposal
for border inspection consolidation. This proposal was subsequently
reviewed and approved by the President on January 5, 1984. In general,
the plan would accomplish the following:
- Transfer of responsibility for all land border passenger
primary processing to the Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS).
- Transfer of responsibility for all airport and seaport
passenger primary processing to the U.S. Customs Service
(including inspections at all overseas preclearance airport
locations).
- Maintain INS and Customs officers in secondary inspection
at all ports of entry.
- Transfer of responsibility for all patrol functions between
the land ports to INS.
The benefits of the plan to the public and industry are clear. The
reorganization will:
- facilitate the flow of passengers through all ports of entry
- standardize the Federal inspection process
- establish accountability for the primary inspection function
- expand and improve the use of technology and systems in sup-
porting the inspection process
- eliminate overlap and duplication of efforts
- reduce the paperwork burden on the traveling public
- reduce costs to facility operators
- establish more efficient single-agency management
- consolidate and improve all air, sea, and land border control
functions
- improve coordination of drug enforcement efforts
Next, I want to address some of the specific concerns which Members
of this Committee and other have expressed.
First, there will be no diminution of immigration control or
narcotics enforcement as a result of the consolidation. Instead, these
essential enforcement activities will be enhanced. Instead, of being
"add-on" functions for either agency, they will be incorporated into their
basic mission responsibilities. Furthermore, each agency will maintain
its current secondary presence to handle complicated cases. We have
already drafted a quality control plan to assure that enforcement
standards are upheld or improved as a result of the consolidation.
Second, consolidation will not result in the loss of jobs through
reductions in force. Although a transfer of employees between agencies
will be required to implement the plan, each agency will undertake
procedures to minimize adverse effects on personnel. Employees and unions
are being advised as rapidly as possible of the specifics of the plan and
are being consulted regarding the procedures and identification of
affected employees. Both unions were briefed in January 1984 and
consultations will continue throughout the process.
Additionally, every effort will be made to accommodate employees by
placement in other positions within the agency, with no loss of grade or
salary. In summary, each employee will be offered the opportunity to
perform the same function at the same location.
The following positions will be involved in the transfer:
- 622 Customs Inspector positions will be transferred to INS
- 165 Customs Patrol Officer positions will be transferred to INS
- 505 Immigration Inspector positions will be transferred to the
Customs Service.
While training of employees will be required, it should be noted that
Customs and INS inspectors are currently cross-designated at most
locations and often perform the same inspections function. New training
will be geared to all appropriate inspectors and patrol officers and a
more comprehensive program is being established for those already
cross-trained.
Third, no ports or offices will be closed as a result of
consolidation. There will be a minimal transfer of properties and
equipment and no transfer of air support equipment or aircraft from the
present Customs drug interdiction.
Fourth, the consolidation will result in a cost savings to the
government as well as benefiting individuals and businesses entering or
bringing goods into this country. Start-up costs will be minimal in view
of the fact that most inspectors are already cross-trained and involuntary
transfer of personnel to other locations, equipment transfers will be
minimal and no additional equipment is required. Start-up costs for new
uniforms, equipment, training, and security checks are likely.
This consolidation will streamline both organizations immediately to
avoid increases in future costs associated with increased international
travel and the negative trend in illegal drug traffic. While
efficiencies will be gained in the short run, no employee reductions will
be made in order to build a solid foundation to handle future growth of
illegal alien and drug traffic.
Fifth, the consolidation will result in improved border enforcement
between the land ports of entry. INS will be the agency with primary
responsibility for the interdiction of persons, contraband and drugs along
the land borders between ports of entry. The U.S. Customs Patrol will
relinquish its Patrol functions between the land ports, while remaining
the agency with primary responsibility for interdiction of all contraband,
including drugs, at the sea and air borders of the United States. Thus,
there will be a single agency patrolling between the land ports, removing
duplicative presence and achieving greater efficiency with the existing
Patrol personnel. Clear guidelines have been established for coordination
between INS and the U.S. Customs Service regarding intelligence,
developing cases, and pending interdictions along the land border.
Consultations have already begun with this and other Congressional
committees. The detailed plan for consolidation will be coordinated with
Congress. If the Administration obtained appropriate reorganization
authority, a reorganization plan will be submitted. If not, the
Administration will seek legislation to implement such consolidation. I
promise to work closely with this Committee and ask for your support for
this important management improvement program.
This plan is the only viable plan for consolidation of the primary
inspection and land patrol functions. It provides the benefits which I
have noted above. It is a satisfactory compromise supported by the
President, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Treasury, the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget, the Commissioner of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the Commissioner of the U.S.
Customs Service.
This consolidation is also supported by the Airport Operators Council
International, Air Transport Association of America, American Electronics
Association, American Retail Federation, Chamber of Commerce of the United
States, Cigar Association of America, Council of American-Flag Ship
Operators, Electronic Industries Association, Foreign Trade Association of
Southern California, International Bridge, Tunnel & Turnpike Association,
International Hardwood Products Association, Motor Vehicle Manufacturers
Association, National Association of Photo Manufacturers, National
Committee on International Trade Documentation, National Customs Brokers &
Forwarders Association of America, National Foreign Trade Council,
Scientific Apparatus Makers Association, Travel Industry Association and
The U.S. Council for International Business.
This consolidation plan meets the frequent mandate of Congress to
accomplish a consolidation of the inspections function. The time for
resolution is now. We are confident that Congress will review the issue
and promptly give its support.
This completes my prepared statement. I would be glad to respond to
any questions you may have.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 23, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR KATHERINE E. COLLINS
BUDGET EXAMINER
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS order
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Statement of Richard K. Willard on the
Office of Immigration Litigation of the
Civil Division, March 28, 1984
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed
testimony. On page 6, we recommend deleting specific
mention of the denial of visas to the widow of Chilean
president Allende and Nicaragua Interior Minister Borge.
Those denials were, and continue to be, particularly contro-
versial, and there is no need to mention them in this
testimony. Such gratuitous mention could divert attention
from the purpose of the hearing, which is to explain in a
general way the work of the Office of Immigration Litigation.
I recommend deleting the second and third sentences in the
second full paragraph on page 6, and revising the first
sentence to read: "A fourth area of responsibility is the
defense of immigration-related actions of the Department of
State, such as defending challenges to the denial of visas
by the Department." This makes the point without risking
unnecessary controversy.
218442
ID #.
CU
is
WHITE HOUSE
IM
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
O . OUTGOING
H . INTERNAL
1. . INCOMING
John dont
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent:
Kathy Collena Yolanda Branche
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject:
Statement of Richard K. Willard
on the office of Immigration Litigation
of the Cloil Division + mar 2884
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code YY/MM/DD
WHolland
ORIGINATOR 84,03,21
/
/
Referral Note:
WAT18
R 84/03/22
584,03,27
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
-
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
Referral Note:
-
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A Appropriate Action
1 . Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A Answered
C Completed
C . Comment/Recommendation
R * Direct Reply w/Copy
B . Non-Special Referral
S Suspended
D Draft Response
S For Signature
F - Furnish Fact Sheet
X - Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code = "A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Comments:
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.
5/81
DRAFT
STATEMENT
OF
RICHARD K. WILLARD
ACTING ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
CIVIL DIVISION
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
BEFORE
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES
AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
OF THE
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
CONCERNING
THE OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION
OF THE CIVIL DIVISION
ON
MARCH 28, 1984
It is a pleasure to be here today to discuss the Civil
Division's Office of Immigration Litigation, a recent addition
to our Division which is responsible for most civil litigation
brought by or against the Immigration and Naturalization Service
(INS). The President and the Attorney General have strongly
emphasized stricter enforcement of immigration laws in order to
regain control of our borders. Significant administrative
reforms and legislative proposals have been put forward to
achieve that goal.
However, many of our efforts to improve enforcement of the
immigration laws have been challenged, and in many cases
seriously delayed, by litigation. Because of the recognized
need to provide more resources and centralized responsibility
for immigration litigation, the Attorney General, on February 7,
1983, directed that civil immigration matters be transferred
from the Criminal Division to the Civil Division. The ensuing
reprogramming of funds and positions was implemented pursuant to
congressional authorization. By concentrating civil immigration
litigation in one office and beefing up that office with
enhanced resources, we believe that the Department is in a much
stronger position to represent the INS and other client agencies.
The Criminal Division of the Department of Justice retains
substantial responsibility in the area of immigration
litigation. This includes responsibility for all criminal
prosecutions for violations of the immigration laws as well as
civil forfeiture actions and civil injunctive relief relating to
national security or criminal justice activity. In addition,
the Criminal Division remains responsible for denaturalization
proceedings instituted against persons believed to have been
involved in Nazi war crimes. Finally, this reorganization did
not affect the Lands and Natural Resources Division's
representation of the INS in environmental and other land use
cases.
The Office of Immigration Litigation consists of 22
attorneys and a support staff of 12. It is headed by Mr. Robert
L. Bombaugh, a senior Justice Department litigator with over 20
years of experience in government and private practice. It is
supervised by Deputy Assistant Attorney General Robert N. Ford.
When established in 1983, the resources of the Office were
secured from various components of the Department involved in
the handling of immigration issues.
INS agreed to provide four additional attorneys to the
Office on revolving details. These details will not only assist
the Office in litigating its cases but will provide the detailed
attorneys valuable litigation experience which should be benefi-
cial to them when they complete their details and return to INS.
- 2 -
The Office's base budget for 1984 is $915,000. The
Department has asked for a supplemental appropriation for the
Office of $1,607,000, which will permit the funding of certain
positions which were previously carried under other parts of the
budget. We anticipate, then, a 1984 appropriation of $2,522,000.
Representing the government on immigration issues is a
unique litigative task in several respects. The workload has
grown rapidly in recent years, along with the growth in illegal
immigration, and many of INS's proposed administrative changes
have been challenged. There is often a need to work under
exceptionally short deadlines. Since it is often in the
interest of illegal aliens to delay the resolution of litigation
for as long as possible (during which time they remain in the
country), the government must push for prompt action and take
every opportunity to bring a matter to trial. This crisis
atmosphere and heavy workload is further complicated by the
substantial travel demands which immigration litigation, by its
very nature, entails.
The Office is divided into four litigation teams, each
comprised of five or six lawyers and headed by an experienced
trial attorney. Each team is assigned a mixture of appellate
- 3 -
and trial matters, with the senior litigator responsible for
matching the workload to the individual skills of team
members. The team leader personally handles important trials
and argues significant appeals, in addition to supervisory
duties. The standardized procedures and cooperative working
environment made possible by the litigation team approach
permits the Office to respond effectively to crisis situations
without the disruption of routine matters.
Each of our litigation teams is personally responsible for
approximately 12 district court actions each year, as well as
supervising another 50 cases handled by INS or the local United
States Attorneys, and for briefing and arguing approximately 100
cases before the courts of appeals. We believe that this
productivity level, made possible by economies of scale and
better coordination, fully justifies the decision to establish a
centralized office to handle civil immigration litigation.
The Office of Immigration Litigation is responsible for a
substantial variety of matters, representing not only the INS,
but also the Department of State and the Department of Labor. I
would now like to discuss six major categories of litigation and
some important pending cases.
- 4 -
The first area is defense against challenges to the
exclusion or expulsion of aliens. These cases arise either as
habeas corpus proceedings or appellate court reviews of
decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Two very
significant such challenges are currently pending before the
Supreme Court. Sandoval-Sanchez V. INS and Lopez-Mendoza V. INS
are consolidated petitions for review of Ninth Circuit decisions
holding that the exclusionary rule must be applied in
deportation proceedings to suppress evidence obtained by the INS
as a result of an illegal arrest. We have argued that criminal
law safeguards do not apply to civil deportation proceedings.
INS V. Stevic, also in the Supreme Court, involves the
standard of proof of persecution that an alien must meet in
order to be eligible for either asylum or the withholding of
deportation under the Immigration and Naturalization Act. The
Second Circuit rejected the Board of Immigration Appeals'
conclusion that an alien must show a "clear probability of
persecution," holding that a more lenient standard was
appropriate.
A second area of immigration litigation is the supervision
of cases challenging the INS's denial of immigration benefits.
These cases involve such issues as changes in visa status (such
as from tourist to student or student to worker), denials of
labor certifications by the Department of Labor and other
- 5 -
matters. Over a million such transactions occur annually, very
few of which give rise to litigation.
A third area of responsibility is the defense of matters
relating to citizenship status, including denaturalization
proceedings brought against United States citizens and appeals
from the denial of naturalization applications. This area, too,
is relatively routine and does not generate significant
litigation.
A fourth area of responsibility is the defense of
immigration-related actions of the Department of State. For
instance, we currently are defending several cases challenging
the denial of visas to the widow of former Chilean president
Allende, Nicaraguan Interior Minister Borge, and others. These
cases involve the interpretations of 8 U.S.C. 1182 (a) (27),
authorizing the government to deny a visa when entry would be
contrary to the "public interest welfare, safety or security
of the United States".
Perhaps our most important litigation responsibility is the
defense of collateral attacks on INS enforcement actions. The
most important such cases are brought as class actions which, if
successful, would require major changes in INS procedures,
impose added delays and have a substantial budgetary impact. An
- 6 -
increasing number of these cases challenge the State Depart-
ment's role in commenting on asylum requests or making
recommendations as to other relief for groups of alleged
refugees. Typical in this respect is Hotel and Restaurant
Employees Union V. Smith, pending in the District of Columbia,
an action brought by the union on behalf of its Salvadoran
members who are fearful of a forced return to their country. At
issue is the validity of the State Department's recommendations
concerning asylum and the decision of the Attorney General not
to temporarily suspend deportation proceedings.
Another major case is Jean V. Nelson, a class action
brought by Haitian aliens challenging the INS's right to detain
excludable, undocumented aliens during the period of the
exclusion and asylum determination process. Last month, the en
banc Eleventh Circuit decided this case almost entirely in the
favor of the government, holding that our detention policy was
not discriminatory, but that the Attorney General may
discriminate against would-be immigrants on the basis of
national origin. This case had seriously delayed exclusion
hearings for seventeen hundred Haitians for over a year.
Class actions have also been brought challenging the
conditions in detention facilities, limitations on access to
counsel and other INS procedures. For instance, in Nunez V.
- 7 -
Boldin and Orantes-Hernandez V. Smith, plaintiffs are asking
that the INS be required to give a class of Salvadorans and
Guatemalans routine notice of the opportunity to apply for
political asylum. With over 1,000,000 arrests a year, even a
small percentage increase in asylum applications could overwhelm
the process, delaying legitimate asylum petitions behind
frivolous requests.
Our sixth area of responsibility encompasses two
miscellaneous areas of litigation: civil penalty enforcement
and the defense of Bivens actions. As an example of the former,
the government is still pursuing collection actions against boat
owners involved in the so-called "Cuban Freedom Flotilla". In
many cases, boat owners have challenged the administrative
assessment of fines and the seizure of vessels. We are making
efforts to settle these cases because of the burden they place
on our litigation resources and the small likelihood of ever
collecting more than a fraction of the fines assessed.
So-called Bivens suits are actions brought against
individual federal employees, in their individual capacity, for
conduct which allegedly violated an alien's constitutional
rights. The government may represent such individuals or, where
it would have a conflict of interest, will retain private
counsel. One such case arose out of the 1980 grant of asylum to
- 8 -
then 12-year-old Walter Polovchak, who wished to remain in this
country when his parents sought to return to the Soviet Union.
Walter's parents have since brought suit against the Attorney
General and an INS employee for damages arising from the alleged
deprivation of their parental rights in violation of the fifth
amendment and the Law of Nations. We are representing the
Attorney General and have retained private counsel for the INS
official.
Overall, the Office of Immigration Litigation has maintained
a remarkable rate of success, winning 89% of its personally
handled cases. Given the difficult constitutional and statutory
issues present in immigration litigation and the staggering
volume of cases, we believe that this is an excellent record.
The relationship of the Office of Immigration Litigation
with the INS is similar to the ordinary relationship of
Department of Justice litigating components with client
agencies. As the advocate for the INS, we endeavor to present
all reasonable arguments to help the agency maintain maximum
discretion in implementing policy. We do not intrude in INS
policy formation, except where absolutely necessary because of
the pressure of litigation.
The INS provides us with excellent litigation support,
including the services of approximately 12 INS attorneys
- 9 -
assigned as Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys in major cities,
where they handle the bulk of local immigration litigation. In
addition to the four INS attorneys on rotating detail to our
office, we are also able to draw on INS attorneys on an ad hoc
basis when the need arises.
Periodic meetings between the supervisors of our Office and
lawyers in the INS Office of General Counsel permit the agency
to provide its views on critical litigation decisions. The INS
is consulted in decisions on case selection for appeal as well
as decisions on which issues to appeal. There is generally
little disagreement with the INS on these matters and when we
have resolved the issue, our office presents a recommendation to
the Office of the Solicitor General, who must approve all
government appeals.
The most routine immigration matters are handled by U.S.
Attorneys' Offices. Only the most significant and potentially
precedent-setting cases are retained for handling by our Office
of Immigration Litigation attorneys. We also rely heavily on
support from the local U.S. Attorneys' Offices in lengthy and
complex trials which require the presence of several attorneys.
That concludes my prepared remarks, and I would be happy to
answer any questions.
- 10 -
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 30, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
OPER
SUBJECT:
Administration Position Regarding
Immigration Bill (Prepared by OMB)
Richard Darman has asked for our comments by noon today on a
proposed Administration position on H.R. 1510, the House
version of the Simpson-Mazzoli bill, the Immigration Reform
and Control Act of 1983. The draft was prepared by OMB and
reflects that agency's fiscal reservations about the bill.
As discussed at the recent Cabinet Council on Legal Policy
meeting on immigration reform, the House version of the bill
differs from the Senate version in several significant
particulars, each of which markedly increases the antici-
pated costs of the measure.
The proposed position paper notes that the Administration
supports the Senate bill and "strongly opposes the massive
budget add-ons and the weakened enforcement provisions" of
the House bill. The paper then states that the Administra-
tion will seek amendments to (1) eliminate the 100 percent
Federal reimbursement provision in the House bill, in favor
of the block grant approach in the Senate bill (capped at
$1.4 billion for 1984-1988), (2) move back the entry date
for legalization, as provided in the Senate bill, (3)
eliminate the House bill provision allowing employers "one
free bite" at hiring illegal aliens, and (4) delete the
House bill's requirement of a search warrant before INS
officers can investigate "open fields."
I have no objection to the proposed Administration position.
The Senate bill is vastly superior to the House bill, and
Administration lobbyists should work diligently to correct
the excesses of the House bill. What I do object to is
language implying that the President will veto the
immigration bill if our suggested changes are not adopted.
The course of the immigration reform controversy requires
the greatest degree of sensitivity in presenting our
concerns with respect to the House bill.
OMB's position on Simpson-Mazzoli calls to mind what has
been said of the Roman legions: they lost many battles
but they never lost a war, because they never let a war
end until they had won it. We were concerned prior to the
- 2 -
Cabinet Council meeting that Stockman's memorandum strongly
voicing his objections to the House bill would become public
and rekindle controversy over the Administration's sincerity
concerning immigration reform. That is precisely what
occurred. It is perfectly correct to raise concerns and
seek revisions in the legislation as it works its way to the
President's desk; it is disloyal to seek to undermine the
effort to obtain any legislation at all by constantly
raising fiscal risks previously acknowledged and accepted by
the President and his Cabinet.
This is less a question of precise wording in memoranda than
of the manner in which Administration concerns are presented
on the Hill. The attached draft memorandum for Darman
simply notes the need for sensitivity in presenting the
Administration position on the objectionable features of the
House bill, although it does suggest changing "strongly
opposes" in the memorandum to "objects."
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 30, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING Orig. signed by FFF
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Administration Position Regarding
Immigration Bill (Prepared by OMB)
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed
Administration position paper. We have no legal objections to
the proposed positions themselves. It is imperative, however,
that Administration spokesmen promoting these positions be
sensitive to the background of the controversy over immigration
reform, and not inadvertently or otherwise permit the voicing of
budgetary concerns to prevent the legislation from reaching the
conference stage.
FFF:JGR:kkk 1/30/84
FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subject/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 30, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Administration Position Regarding
Immigration Bill (Prepared by OMB)
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed
Administration position paper. We have no legal objections
to the proposed positions themselves. It is imperative,
however, that Administration spokesmen promoting these
positions be sensitive to the background of the controversy
over immigration reform, and not inadvertently or otherwise
permit the voicing of budgetary concerns to prevent the
legislation from reaching the conference stage. In this
regard, we recommend changing "strongly opposes" on line 4
of the first page of the draft position to "objects."
FFF:JGR:aea 1/30/84
CC: FFFieldng/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
ID #.
CU
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
0 . OUTGOING
H - INTERNAL
I INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent: Richard G. DARMAN
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject:
adminisuation Position
re: Immigration Bill
(prepased by OMB)
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency (Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code YY/MM/DD
WHOLL
ORIGINATOR 84,01,26
/
/
Referral Note:
CUATI8
D 84/01/26
584,01,30
Referral Note:
NOON
/
/
/
/
-
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
-
Referral Note:
/ /
/
/
I
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A Appropriate Action
I Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A- Answered
C Completed
C Comment/Recommendation
R Direct Reply w/Copy
B Non-Special Referral
S Suspended
D Draft Response
S For Signature
F Furnish Fact Sheet
X Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code = "A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Comments:
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.
5/81
Document No.
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE:
1/26/84
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY:
NOON MONDAY, 1/30
SUBJECT:
ADMINISTRATION POSITION RE IMMIGRATION BILL
(Prepared by OMB)
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
McFARLANE
MEESE
McMANUS
BAKER
MURPHY
DEAVER
OGLESBY
STOCKMAN
ROGERS
DARMAN
P
SS SPEAKES
FELDSTEIN
SVAHN
FIELDING
VERSTANDIG
FULLER
WHITTLESEY
HERRINGTON
HICKEY
JENKINS
REMARKS:
Please provide any comments by noon Monday, January 30th.
Thank you.
RESPONSE:
1984 JAN 26 AM IO: 25
Richard G. Darman
Assistant to the President
Ext. 2702
Received SS
DRAFT
1984 JAN 26 AM ID: 09
January 1984
H.R. 1510
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1983
(Mazzoli (D) Kentucky and 21 others)
The Administration supports immigration reform legislation along
the lines of the Senate bill (S. 529) and urges House action to
provide for the essentials of the Administration/Senate plan.
However, the Administration strongly opposes the massive budget
add-ons and the weakened enforcement provisions reflected in H.R.
1510. Therefore, the Administration seeks amendments to:
(1) delete authorization for (a) 100% Federal reimbursement of
State and local welfare and education costs for legalized
aliens, which is estimated to cost $2.3 billion and
$3.3 billion, respectively, between 1984 and 1988, and (b)
open-ended entitlement eligibility for legalized aliens who
are determined to require assistance because of old age,
blindness, and disability, or in the case of public health
interests, serious illness, or injury, which is estimated to
cost $3.5 bilion between 1984 and 1988;
(2) authorize a block grant to cover State and local costs for
providing public assistance to legalized aliens, as is
authorized in the Senate version of this legislation, S. 529.
Authorization should be limited to $1.4 billion for the
period 1984 through 1988;
(3) restore the two-tier legalization system which would grant
permanent resident status to aliens who entered the United
States illegally as of January 1, 1977 and would grant
temporary resident status to aliens who entered the United
States illegally as of January 1, 1980;
(4) delete the provision which negates employer sanctions by (a)
making compliance with employer sanctions and worker
identification voluntary until an employer has been found to
have illegal aliens in his employ; and
(5) delete the search warrant requirement for open field
investigations.
********
(Not to be Distributed Outisde Executive Office of the President)
H.R. 1510, as reported by the House Judiciary Committee would
amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to control illegal
immigration by prohibiting recruitment, referral, and employment
of illegal aliens; to require employers and state employment
agencies to verify employment eligibility; to legalize as
permanent residents illegal aliens who entered the U.S. as of
January 1, 1982; to authorize Federal reimbursement of State and
local public assistance and education costs associated with
legalized aliens; to ease application requirements for employers
of H-2 workers and to require provision of housing and workers'
compensation for H-2 workers; to create a separate transition
program for agriculture and to establish a U.S. Immigration Board
and administrative law judge system. A discussion of the
Administration's position on the major objectionable features of
H.R. 1510 and proposed Committee amendments follows.
Benefits for Legalized Aliens. H.R. 1510 offers permanent
resident status to illegal aliens residing continuously in the
U.S. as of January 1, 1982. Welfare eligibility in programs with
Federal financial participation (i.e., AFDC, Food Stamps and
Medicaid) is denied for 5 years. However, SSI and medical
assistance is authorized in cases of serious illness or in the
interest of public health and also in cases of age, blindness and
disability. Full Federal reimbursement, contingent upon the
availability of appropriations, is authorized, however, for State
and local costs associated with providing public assistance and
educational services to legalized aliens.
The annual Federal costs under the bill are estimated as follows:
ESTIMATED COSTS OVER PRESIDENT'S BUDGET
($ in millions)
FY 85
FY 86
FY 87
FY 88
FY 89
85-89
Welfare
690
1,489
1,879
2,139
871
7,068
Operating Costs
333
266
256
247
259
1,361
Education
602
820
875
925
225
3,447
Total
1,625
2,575
3,010
3,311
1,355
11,876
The Administration believes that public assistance funding should
be provided by a capped block grant (at $1.4 billion for 85-89)
rather than 100% reimbursement of non-Federal costs. Full
reimbursement provides no incentive for local governments to
control welfare costs or to discourage welfare dependency. The
Administration also believes that legalization should be a two-
tiered system of permanent and temporary status, based on entry
into the U.S. by 1/1/80, as the Sentae bill proposes. The more
generous terms of the House bill unduly reward illegal entry and
increase the Federal budget exposure. The Administration also
favors the Senate bill with regard to ineligibility for all
benefits and opposes the eligibility, granted by H.R. 1510, for
Medicaid and SSI. Finally, the Administration opposes, as
unnecessary, the provision of education assistance because
existing education programs already cover alien children.
Employer Sanctions. The Kindness amendment deleted the
requirement that employers check identification of employment
eligibility and allowed those verification procedures to be
optional until the Attorney General has notified an employer that
an illegal alien has been found in his employ. This approach
would require extensive INS resources and years of employer
audits before the program would take effect.
Search Warrant. H.R. 1510 mandates that immigration officers
obtain serach warrants before conducting open field
investigations. Justice believes that this requirement is
unwarranted because the courts have held that Fourth Amendment
protection does not extend to open fields. Justice also believes
that search warrant requirements would severely restrain
enforcement efforts to apprehend illegal aliens.
DATE:
The Washington Post
PAGE:
A22
The Costs of No Immigration Bill
A
LEAKED memo from Budget Director David
some recent studies suggest that many families of
Stockman warns that the costs of compromise
illegal aliens already receive welfare, food stamps,
immigration legislation may be "unacceptable" in
unemployment insurance and the like either he-
the light of huge future budget deficits. It's Mr.
cause their native-born children are qualified for
Stockman's job, of course, to compute the direct
benefits or because it is currently very difficult for
costs of impending legislation as best he can and to
administrators to establish illegal status. Moreover,
call the attention of policy-makers to his findings.
these costs will grow as more children are born to
But direct costs are only part of the equation. Ad-
families illegally in the United States.
ministration officials and congressmen need to bal-
.A full accounting would also measure the cost of
ance Mr. Stockman's estimates against numbers
unemployment and other benefits received by legal
that, we dare say, are much larger. These are the
residents whose jobs are taken by illegal aliens. A
costs to the nation of not passing immigration re-
Rice University economist recently estimated that
forms.
cost at $18 billion annually. Perhaps some of those
It's easy enough to quibble with the estimates
jobs would be scorned by legal residents, but there
themselves. Most of the cost of immigration reform
are simply too many U.S. workers employed at
is assumed to come from giving legal status to illegal
minimum wages to support the idea that no job dis-
aliens who have resided in the country for some
placement is occurring. Then there are an the all
time. Since no one really knows how many persons
harder-to measure costs of general community ser-
would qualify under either the Senate-passed bill or
vices that, of necessity, flow to all residents legal or
the more generous House committee version, any
not These alternative costs which grow with every
estimate is bound to be squooshy. The administra-
year that immigration reform is delayed dwarf the
tion assumes a larger number of qualifying aliens
$2 billion or $3 billion a year that OMB estimates
and a higher subsequent welfare participation rate
the immigration bill would cost.
than does the Congressional Budget Office, and
This is not to say that direct cost estimates
comes out with estimates that are several billion
should be ignored. Congress has typically underesti-
dollars higher over a five-year period.
mated the costs of its generosity, and the OMB esti-
Honest people can disagree over which is the bet-
mates make a good case for the stricter limits on
ter estimate. But it's worth noting that neither esti-
amnesty for illegal aliens proposed by the Senate.
mate takes explicit account of the welfare costs al-
But the estimates should not be used as an excuse
ready incurred by illegal immigrants. No one has a
for congressional failure to act promptly to forestall
good national measure of those costs either, but
the far larger costs of uncontrolled immigration.
30
DOJ-1985-04
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 4, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR BRANDEN BLUM
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING Orig. signed by FFF
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Justice Draft Bill --
Immigration Emergency Act
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed
bill and the accompanying transmittal letter and
section-by-section analysis. We have no objection to the
first two items. There is, however, a serious omission in
the discussion of search and seizure law at pages 12-13 of
the section-by-section analysis. In discussing the
constitutionality of stopping and boarding vessels without a
warrant and in the absence of suspicion of criminal
activity, no mention is made of United States V.
Villamonte-Marquez, No. 81-1350 (U.S. Supreme Court, June
17, 1983).
Villamonte-Marquez sustained such activity under 19 U.S.C.
§ 1581 (a), resolving a conflict among the circuit courts of
appeals. As the first definitive Supreme Court decision on
the question discussed in the section-by-section analysis,
and a highly favorable one at that, Villamonte-Marquez
should at least be cited in the analysis, and probably
merits more extended discussion. We assume it was omitted
because the analysis was originally prepared prior to
announcement of the decision.
FFF: : JGR:aw 8/4/83
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj.
Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 4, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
ask
SUBJECT:
Justice Draft Bill --
Immigration Emergency Act
OMB has asked for our views by noon today on the above-
referenced proposed bill and an accompanying section-by-
section analysis and transmittal letter. The bill was
prepared in response to the inadequacies in executive power
made apparent during the Mariel boatlift crisis. The bill
would authorize the President to declare an immigration
emergency if certain criteria were met. Once such an
emergency was declared, and for its duration, the President
would be empowered to prohibit vessels from traveling to
designated areas and carrying specified groups of aliens, as
boats from Florida shuttled Marielitoes from Cuba to Key
West. The President could also bar certain vessels from
U.S. waters, flexibly detain illegal aliens and transport
them between detention facilities, and issue exemptions from
environmental restrictions for certain facilities used in
responding to the emergency. The last power is a response
to the decision in Puerto Rico V. Muskie, 507 F. Supp. 1035
(D.P.R. 1981), in which efforts to transfer Marielitoes were
blocked by the requirement of an environmental impact
statement.
Federal agencies would also be authorized to stop, board,
and inspect vessels believed to be subject to the foregoing
provisions, without a warrant. The discussion of the
constitutionality of this provision at pages 12-13 of the
section-by-section analysis omits the leading case, United
States V. Villamonte-Marquez, No. 81-1350, decided by the
Supreme Court on June 17, 1983. I assume the case is not
cited or discussed because the analysis, which accompanied
the previous submission of this bill to the 97th Congress,
was prepared before the decision was announced. In
Villamonte-Marquez the Supreme Court upheld the
constitutionality of 19 U.S.C. § 1581 (a), cited in the
analysis, and ruled that Customs officials could stop,
board, and inspect a vessel without any suspicion of
criminal activity.
-2-
The bill is a broad grant of emergency powers to the
executive, but I cannot conclude that it is too broad in
light of the Mariel experience. As noted, the bill was
previously cleared and submitted to Congress. I have
prepared a memorandum to OMB, recommending that discussion
or at least citation of Villamonte-Marquez be added to the
section-by-section analysis, but noting no other legal
objections.
Attachment
ID # 159547 CU
A
COPY CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
IM
WHITE HOUSE
O OUTGOING
H INTERNAL
I INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent: Branden Blum
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject:
Justice Draft Bill - Immigration
Emergency act
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code YY/MM/DD
CUHOLI
ORIGINATOR 83,08,04
€ 83,08,04
Referral Note:
WATIB
D
83,08,04
C 83,08,04
Referral Note:
NOON
WFIEL
S
83,08,04
#
A 83,08,0F
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
-
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
I
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A . Appropriate Action
I . Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A Answered
C Completed
C Comment/Recommendation
R Direct Reply w/Copy
B. - Non-Special Referral
S Suspended
D . Draft Response
S For Signature
F - Furnish Fact Sheet
X Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code = "A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Comments:
see ID 158317cu
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.
5/81
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 4, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR BRANDEN BLUM
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Orig. signed by FFF
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Justice Draft Bill --
Immigration Emergency Act
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced proposed
bill and the accompanying transmittal letter and
section-by-section analysis. We have no objection to the
first two items. There is, however, a serious omission in
the discussion of search and seizure law at pages 12-13 of
the section-by-section analysis. In discussing the
constitutionality of stopping and boarding vessels without a
warrant and in the absence of suspicion of criminal
activity, no mention is made of United States V.
Villamonte-Marquez, No. 81-1350 (U.S. Supreme Court, June
17, 1983).
Villamonte-Marquez sustained such activity under 19 U.S.C.
§ 1581 (a), resolving a conflict among the circuit courts of
appeals. As the first definitive Supreme Court decision on
the question discussed in the section-by-section analysis,
and a highly favorable one at that, Villamonte-Marquez
should at least be cited in the analysis, and probably
merits more extended discussion. We assume it was omitted
because the analysis was originally prepared prior to
announcement of the decision.
FFF: JGR:aw 8/4/83
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj.
Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 22, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS)
SUBJECT:
Justice Draft Bill --
Immigration Emergency Act
OMB has asked for comments by close of business February 23
on the Justice Department's proposed Immigration Emergency
Act and accompanying section-by-section analysis and Speaker
letter. You may recall that we signed off on the original
version of these materials last August, suggesting only that
the section-by-section analysis of the constitutionality of
stopping and boarding vessels in the absence of any
suspicion of criminal activity be updated to include a
recently decided and largely dispositive Supreme Court
decision, United States V. Villamonte-Marquez.
The bill, drafted in response to the lessons of the Mariel
boatlift, would authorize the President to declare an
immigration emergency if certain criteria were met. For the
duration of such a declared emergency the President could
prohibit American vessels from traveling to designated areas
(to prevent occurrences such as thousands of Florida
pleasure craft operating a "shuttle service" between Mariel
Harbor and Key West), authorize interdiction of vessels,
flexibly detain illegal aliens and freely transport them
between detention facilities, and issue exemptions from
various restrictions in environmental laws for facilities
used in response to an immigration crisis.
The major provisions of the bill are unchanged from the
version we approved last August. Our suggestion to include
Villamonte-Marquez in the search and seizure section has
been accepted. I have no objections. As I noted in my
previous memorandum on this bill, it is a broad grant of
emergency powers to the President, but I cannot conclude
that it is too broad in light of the Mariel experience.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 22, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR BRANDEN BLUM
LEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING Orig. signed by FFF
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Justice Draft Bill --
Immigration Emergency Act
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced draft
bill, and accompanying materials, and finds no objection to
them from a legal perspective.
FFF:JGR:aea 2/22/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 22, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR BRANDEN BLUM
LEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Justice Draft Bill --
Immigration Emergency Act
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced draft
bill, and accompanying materials, and finds no objection to
them from a legal perspective.
FFF:JGR:aea 2/22/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 4, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
DESR
SUBJECT:
Justice Draft Bill --
Immigration Emergency Act
OMB has asked for our views by noon today on the above-
referenced proposed bill and an accompanying section-by-
section analysis and transmittal letter. The bill was
prepared in response to the inadequacies in executive power
made apparent during the Mariel boatlift crisis. The bill
would authorize the President to declare an immigration
emergency if certain criteria were met. Once such an
emergency was declared, and for its duration, the President
would be empowered to prohibit vessels from traveling to
designated areas and carrying specified groups of aliens, as
boats from Florida shuttled Marielitoes from Cuba to Key
West. The President could also bar certain vessels from
U.S. waters, flexibly detain illegal aliens and transport
them between detention facilities, and issue exemptions from
environmental restrictions for certain facilities used in
responding to the emergency. The last power is a response
to the decision in Puerto Rico V. Muskie, 507 F. Supp. 1035
(D.P.R. 1981), in which efforts to transfer Marielitoes were
blocked by the requirement of an environmental impact
statement.
Federal agencies would also be authorized to stop, board,
and inspect vessels believed to be subject to the foregoing
provisions, without a warrant. The discussion of the
constitutionality of this provision at pages 12-13 of the
section-by-section analysis omits the leading case, United
States V. Villamonte-Marquez, No. 81-1350, decided by the
Supreme Court on June 17, 1983. I assume the case is not
cited or discussed because the analysis, which accompanied
the previous submission of this bill to the 97th Congress,
was prepared before the decision was announced. In
Villamonte-Marquez the Supreme Court upheld the
constitutionality of 19 U.S.C. § 1581 (a), cited in the
analysis, and ruled that Customs officials could stop,
board, and inspect a vessel without any suspicion of
criminal activity.
-2-
The bill is a broad grant of emergency powers to the
executive, but I cannot conclude that it is too broad in
light of the Mariel experience. As noted, the bill was
previously cleared and submitted to Congress. I have
prepared a memorandum to OMB, recommending that discussion
or at least citation of Villamonte-Marquez be added to the
section-by-section analysis, but noting no other legal
objections.
Attachment