-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/66c02dbcf6c38a7288994275cb47030d.pdf
98f299ac7321ea114734e664be04680d
PDF Text
Text
)I
i
'
'I
'
I
.
I
'
.
:;
:
I
~
:I
I'
'
I
. ···~~
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
Clinton Library
00 I.
DATE
SUBJECTffiTLE
DOCUMENT NO.
AND TYPE
schedule
Schedule; RE: home telephone numbers (partial)
Vice President to the President;
[partial]
RE:
(I
·
11111/1994
P5
t...{o·~ ~
.11110/1994
Meeting with Governor Hickel
P6/b(6)
II/I 0/1994
page)
P5
LjoA.s
(2 pages)
Stephen Silverman to the President; RE: Alaska trip
COLLECTION:j
RESTRICTION
(3 pages)
·
Clinton Presidential Records
.. I
Commumcatwns
Don Baer
I
OA/Box Number: 10140
I
FOLDER TITLE:
APEC [3]
Debbie Bush
2006-0458-F
dbl249
Presidential RecordJ
PI
P2
PJ
P4
Security~
~ct-
RESTRICTION CODES
Freedom of Information Act- 15 U.S. C. 552(b)l
144 U.S.C. 2204(a)l
b(l) National security classified information l(b)(l) of the FOIAI
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
an agency l(b)(2) of the FOIAI
. b(J) Release would violate a Federal statute l(b)(J) of the FOIAI
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
information l(b)(4) of the FOIAI
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy l(b)(6) of the FOiAl
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes l(b)(7) of the FOIAI
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
financial institutions J(b)(8) of the FOIAI
b(9) Release would disclose geologiCal or geophysical information
concerning wells J(b)(9) of the FOIAI
National
Classified Information l(a)(l) of the PRAI
Relating to the a~pointment to Federal office l(a)(2) of the PRAI
Release would violate a Federal statute l(a)(J) of the PRAI
Release would di~close trade secrets or confidential commercial or
financial information l(a)(4) of the PRAI
PS Release would di~close confidential advice between the President
and his advisors,
between such advisors la)(S) of the PRAI
P6 Release would cohstitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy i<a)(6) of the PRAI
6r
C. Closed in accJdance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
of gift.
j
·
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
· 2201(3).
1
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
I
'
I
"
I
I
I
I
II
' :
I
:
�2
rivers will be further reduced due to weathering and
I
on .the riverbanks.
-- If significant remedial action is not taken soon,
however, the rate of oil losk will likely increase.
The
continued release of oil frob this pipeline system during the
winter season will greatly ihcrease the probability of a serious
rel~ase of oil to the ~ivers during the spring breakup flooding.
conclusion~
I
Based.on these
and the advice of experts .from.
various agencies in our Gove~nment, I have conveyed to Prime
Minister Chernomyrdin our askessment of the situation.
At the
sam~ time, I have urged the Prime Minister to explore remedial
actions, offered our assistahce, and warned him that delay would
notionly adversely affect th~ local environment but also could .
discourage foreign investment in Russia's energy sector.
.
-
.
.
I
.
Last week, the governors of the Komi Republic and the
neighboring Nenets Autonomouk Region invited Governor Hickel, as
Chairman of the Northern Forhm, a sub-national organization
composed of governors of states and provinces in the. countries
that border the Arctic, to v~sit the affected areas~
He
sub~equently assembled and. lkd a team to the region to observe
theioil spill. I talked withl Governor Hickel prior to his
..
departure for Russia and plan to speak with him again soon.
He
maylvery well offer to briefl you on his mission and his
·
rec0mmendations.
In a letter to me on November 4, the Governor
recbmmended a three-point plhn: (1) replace the leaking pipeline,
whibh he estimates to cost $ioo million; (2) take immediate ·
action to contain the oil sp~llage before the Spring thaw; and
(3)1address the p~oblems of the entire Russian energy production
infrastructure.
I also belikve that he may offer to serve as an
int~rmediary with the Russiahs, · inasmuch as he has contact with
I
I
local officials through the Northern Forum.
If Governor Hickel doesl raise the Russian oil spill with
you, I recommend that you make the foll~wing points to him:
I --
We greatly apprecilte his interest and concern in the
.
Russian oil spill situation, I and w~ are particularly grateful for
the information provided by his assessment team.
·
I
We have marshaled the resources of the Federal
I .
Government to learn as much as possible about the nature and
I
.
I
.
extent of the oil spill and to assess the environmental
I
implications.
CLINTON LIBRARY PHOTOCOPY
�3
· The Vice President will be calling him next week t
exchange ideas on this matt~r.
c~uJion:
shoul~
I want to add this
I think you
try to avo1:
learing the Governor with the idea that he has an explicit
mandate to proceed · with effdrts to resolve the oil spill itself
I
I
or ~he broader problem of the Russiah en~rgy production
infrastructure. Our prospects for managing this .problem
eff~ctively with the Russiads are significantly improved if w~
can retain the responsibility at the Washington level.
CLINTON IJBRAR)( PHOTOCOPY .
�r---------------~---------------------------------,-------------------------------------------------------------------
Withdrawkl/Redaction Sheet
C]inton Library
I
DOCUMENT NO.
ANDTYPE
I
OOla. memo
Seth Waxman to Hon. Abner Mikva,
·p~ge)
OOlb. draft
DATE
SUBJECT/TITLE
1t al.; RE: Illegal Immigration (I
I
04/28/1995
.
RE: Interior Enforcement Efforts (18 pages)
04/28/1995
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presi~ential Records
!
Commuruica
10138
·Immigration
Debbie Bush
2006-0458-F
CODES
Act- [44 U.S.C. 2204(a))
Freedom of Information Act- [5 U.S.C. 552(b))
Classified Information [(a)(l) of the PRA]
to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA)
b(l).National security classified information [(b)(l) of the FOIA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA)
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
.information [(b)(4) ofthe FOIA)
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [{b)(6) of the FOIA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b){7) of the FOIA)
b(S) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
financial institutions [(b)(S) ofthe FOIA]
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
concerning weils [(b)(9) of the FOIA)
"111Juutuu.~m
financial
confidential advice between the President
PS Release
such advisors [a)(S) of the PRA]
: and his ""'"""'~"
P6 Release
contstit:ute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal
[(a)(6) of the PRA)
C. Closed in ao:<:untauct: with restrictions contained in donor's deed
of gift.
. PRM. Personal
misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C .
2201(3).
be reviewed upon request.
�.... ""..,,_
-- - - ; - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - · - - - -
.---------~~~.----------------~--,---~------------------------·
U'l/Z.:l/l:IU
J,.l • .i..i.
.....................
- - -
Y'
u.s. Department of Justice
Office of the Deputy
t?oo5 ·
AJCOPY I
. Wuhlngton, ·o.c. 20530
Jsociate Deputy Attorney Gtneral
\.
I
MEMORANDUM
HON.ABNERJ.NUKVA
~0:
CAROL H. RASCd
RAHM EMANUEl..
FROM:·
I
Dlegal Immigration
RB:
I
DATE:
1
SETH P. WAXMAN
_ _ _,
Apri128, 1995
I
A~ draft~~=-=-~~ops for~
Is a
interior inimigr4lion .
enforcement. This draft has not y~ been approved, or even reviewed, by· the Attorney
'General or the Deputy AttOrney oc6tera1.
.
Jera1
You will note that as to
of the options, the extent to which more can be. done
·in FY 9S depends almost entirely tipon whether additional money can be found. This is
Particularly true for removal and ~rtation. Simply put, more money buys overtime,
troY, and additional detention bed space, which translates directly into more removals.
In FY 94· and FY 95, the emphasis in INS budget enhancements was on border
request,
control. The FY 96 budget
for the first time, includes significant resources for
interior enforcement efforts like ddtention and removal and worksite enforcement. For the
I
I
·
•
balance of this year, however, INS'· flexibility to reprogram existing appropriated funds is
:quite limited. 'Indeed, DOJ has aheady been required to reprogram moneys simply to enable
1INS to meet existing detention and ·deportation projections.
Recognizing that additional funds may be scarce this year-- particularly given the
increased demands for resources to combat domestic terrorism - I have nonetheless asked
·:INs to calculate approximately hoW many additional deportations could be achieved this
year if, say, an additional $l0 million·could be found .. I will let you know as soon as I
,receive the results of that analysis.
.
.
lfiscat
We look forward to discussing with you which proposals seem worth pursuing and
which do not. In the interim, if q~estions arise, do not hesitate to call me..
copy·
�~-----v~-,--~-.~L------------------------~_..1-==~~~----~-----~--==---···~~------~....
toODto
DRAFTINTERIOR ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS
COPY
To date, the overriding m~ssage of the Administration's immigration prognim _
~as been control of the border. We believe that we have made substantial progress at
tfe southwest border' both in tenhs of real. gains :in enforcement and in public
',
per~eptions of enforcement.
The February 7 Presidential Directive, in an important way,- moved beyond the
border to interior enforcement by Icalling for increased worksite enforcement and
additional deportations of illegal aliens. Specifically, the Directive called for the
d~velopment of "a more compreh~ns:ive coordinated package of deterrence strategies
i.rl selected metropolitan areas." The FY 96 budget initiatives would provide
- s~bstantial increases in- funding fo!r operations in these "targeted deterrence areas."
Bht these resources will not be in place for m,any months.
This-paper provides· a range of options that could be instituted now or could
supplement_the FY 96 budget ini~ative. The goal is to chart an enforcement strategy
iliat reinforces our underlying policy objectives -hitting hard on illegal immigration
while permitting the Administratidn to continue its stand against measures like
Ptoposition 187 and in favor of legal immigration.
-
- I
This fiscal year, the INS will deport approximately 40,000 aliens, about half of
-Whom are - criminal aliens. (This i1 in addition to the more than 1 million voluntary
I'
repuns made at the southwest bor4er.) The INS projects that with the FY 96 . .
enpancement of $178 million, it wp.l deport 110,000 aliens in FY 96, including 58,000
criminal aliens. The numbers rep:r;esent a very significant increase in alien removals,
more than tripling the number of rbmovals effected in FY 93.
··
*"
· Although deportations ocj on a daily basis (indeed, INS will be removing
average 300 illegal aliens a -day in [the next fiscal year), these removals are not
"ekperienced" by the public. We must demonstrate that we are taking actions to make
ou~ communities safer and to resto~e credibility to our immigration system.
;
I
on\~
-fi
BENCHMARKS
measur~
Ouisuccess will be
by our ability to define the measures of success.
According to the best available estimates, there are about 4 million illegal aliens in the
U.S., and approximately 300,000 rtet new. illegal aliens are added each ye.ar. (Sli7.htl
ovbr half of these come illegally adross the southwest border; slightly under half
adive on temporary visas and fail to depart at the end of their authorized stay.) e
-
I
COPY
�.------v-~~-~~u, ~-v---~--~-~-·==~~~==~======c=====================-------..
1
DRAFT
· should not suggest that we will oe able to deport most of the illegal ctt:w:·~~
tountry, or even that· we will be I
able to deport more illegal aliens th... .-.. . _..,...
~ountry each year. Ra.ther; we s~ould attempt to show steady and si ·
.
s
in the r~moval of illegal aliens. That is, each year's deportations must exceed the '(
previous year's. In the· process, deterrence ~ the interior of the country will be
/
~trengthened, and the public will see increased enforcement of, and compliance with,
the law.
While .the President could announce an overali goal for deportations, we
suggest specific projects that will provide the tangible evidence thatthe goal is being
tea~:hed. This should be accomplished by focusing removals on particular categories
~f illegal aliens as follows:
·
1
(!)
The highest priority ought to be given to crimilial aliens. These are the
easiest aliens to remove because they are detained and concentrated.
I
(2) Our deportation efforJs on non-criminal aliens should focus on
categories:
two
First, aliens who ar~ more recent arrivals. Long-term illegal aliens
frequently have substantial community ties and relatives who are U.S. citizens;
they may also qualify for telief from deportation under the immigration laws.·
To focus on more recent a!rrivals, we could draw primarily from the pool of
denied asylum-seekers -- ~ removal. program that is, in any event, crucial to the
success of our asylum reform.
· . ·
.
'*-
leek
to deport illegal alieru apprehended in Worksite
Second, . we should I
.
enforcement operations .. Under Operation Jobs, which the INS has just
initiated, removal of these[ aliens is immediately followed by their replacement
by unemployed U: S .. worMers. Making thiS program a. priority provides
tangible evidence.that we are providing jobs for U.S. workers.
.
These noncriminal alien programs are organized most around the "targeted deterrence
1
Jrea" concept by coordinating a~umber of~nforcement opera~ions in major cities with
rugh levels of illegal immigratio~. This concentrated approach maximizes the
Jffectiveness of existing resourc s and is important for the visibility of our efforts J
2
COPY
�V"!:l
I
----
• v ' ..,...,
- - · - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - . - · - - - - -- - - - · ------· - · - - -
DRAFT
. SPECIFIC 0~~~~ iR ~OUNCEMENT ~ D
The enforcement llllttatives descnbed below are grouped mto tiTrlli!P""''~,.,.rn.,..~
criminal alien removals; prosecdtion and deterrence· of criminal aliens; and nonqriminal alien deportation. Each Ioption is d~scribed briefly, followed by further
discussion of the resources or authorities involved.and any liiil.itations or other
doncerns. For the sake of compl~teness, following this section, we briefly discuss
dther options considered but not tecommended.
·
I. Criminal Alien Removals
.
A.
. .
.
I
.
.
.
Institutional Hearing Programs (IHPs)
•
The President couldldirect DOJaNS to fully implement the Enhance.&!
Institutional Hearin~ Program i.il the federal prisons and in. the seven
states with the lariest criminal alien prison populations.
·
pro~s
.already approved and implemented at least in
Discussion: Under
. p~rt, virtually all criminal aliens in prisons in the five big states (CA, FL, IL, NY, ·
1pn will complete inunigration ptoceedings and receive final orders of deportation
before their criminal sentences hare been completed. These "enhanced" IHP plans,
Jhich will cover 71 % of all criminal aliens in state prisons, save the American
d.xpayer millions of dollars, and inake our communities safer by ensuring that
. diminal aliens are deported at thd end of their criminal sentences. · Additional
r~sources are already in place in New York and Texas, and all plans should be fully·
ithplemented by the end of the calendar year.
'
A federal plan will be app)pved by the INS and BOP in early May, and will be
fully implemented in 1996. The FY 96 budget initiative will provide funds for
"bnhancedn plans in Arizona and New Jersey. Together, the seven states incarcerate
. 8l % of all criminal aliens. This bption has no resource implications this year for
~S. INS believes that even if mbre nioney were made available for IHP programs in
FjY 95, it would not affect the spded of implementation. .
·
.
•
.
.
The President could also encourage states to join in efforts with the JNS,
to make IHPs more efficient.
.
I
ma~erially
Discussion: States can
advance the. deportation of the criminal aliens
resident in their prisons by agreeiD.g to hold criminal aliens in a limited number
3
COPY
�U'l/
.:..o1 vu
.
:DRAFT
lr¥1\
of facilities or to ensure iliat criminal aliens enter and leave th
~Jfl
through a very limited nwhber of facilities. A recent example i~Eenl!n
between the State of Pe~ylvania and the INS Philadelphia D' .~:~:, .1.
•
the IHP within existing re~~urces ~ The Deputy Attorney General has requested
that INS make such appeais·to states, which the P~esident could support by
doing so himself. This op~on requires no additional resources; indeed, it
conserves INS and EOIR resources.
B.
Deporting Criminal Aliens in Local and County Jails
•
prQ~
..The President couldldire£t t!Je Attorney General to implement
to identify and deport criminal aliens from county and local iails in the
major cities most affected by illegal immigration. ·
.
Discussion: There are thlsands of aliens in local and county jails. In the
· past, INS has not had the resourcbs to identify and remove them, and most county and
·1~cal facilities have identified for ithe INS which of their in.Inates are foreign-b9m and
. tli.erefore may be illegally in the country. The FY 96 budget contains substantial
additional resources that will enatile INS to tackle this population in a significant way,
ahd provisions in the Pr~sident's ~oon-to-be-introduced immigration bill will provide
d:mnty and local institutions a major incentive to report their foreign-born population.
It is ·not necessary, however, to wait for FY 96 to begin. One project that will .
·.
concentrate and increase the effort to locate criminal aliens in the local jails is
sdheduled to begin this summer · ~ os Angele . Under this program, hundreds of
cf
a tens w
e · eport uis ead o 1 g released to the streets. INS will
identify deportable aliens at intakJ; place detainers on them, and take them into
cilistody upon completion of their ~entence or their release on parole or probation.
If other resources are availlble, similar efforts could lJe mounted in .other major
jails within targeted deterrence ar6as. INS is currently investigating other locations,
srlch as New York City, forprogtam feasibility.
·
•
In support of the foregoing. the President could also encourage county
and local prisons to report their custody of foreign-born prisoners who
may be illegal aliens I to the INS.
· ·
Discussion: .As noted aboJe, the 'President's proposed immigration bill itself
4
COPY
�V't/
~o1
I
v~
.1. •
• .LV
........
~
v..a."'¥
~v--
I_
DRAFT
will provide counties and municipalities with a significant incentive t
iliens because only if they do so!will they be eligible for State Crim' .. .-.""""14
~ssistance Program (SCAAP) funding, which 14-is year is only availa · .
.
The ris~. in a Presidential call.at this point is that INS simply does not have the
thanpower to accommodate eve~ county and local facility •• or even a significant
number of them.
··
·
,
·
I
I.
•
In SUJ2port of the foregoing. the President could encourage states to .
provide addresses antl other locators for criminal alien absconders.
·
Discussion: Criminal alieJ with final orders of deportation who have .
aosconded may frequently be located through addresses provid~d to state and local
p*ole and probation officers.· In ~e past, the INS has worked effectively with tnese ·
state officers. The President could urge, further cooperative efforts.
I
D.
-
Prisoner Transfer Treaties
•
I .
The President could direct the Department of. Justice to take necessary
5
COPY
�I
ll't/~0/Vt.J
..I. I
• -LV
. . . -.., ..
".&.·~~
--~---~----------------
DRAFT
.
Discussion: The United slates has agreements in place with Mexico, Canada,
·
and over fifty other countrieS: that! provide for the return of state and federal alien
pbsoners to their home countries ~o serve their sentences. The vast majority of
ptisoners transferred from the U.S. are Mexicans (373 of a total of 424 in FY 1994).
.
I
.
· The Department could increase prisoner transf~rs under these agreements
s?mewhat by streamlining the tra.rfste:r process and d~dicating addit~onal resources to
·process transfer requests more promptly:. However, there are two unportant
I
.
censtraints.
Fiist, and most significantly, the treaty only allows transfers with the prisoner's
consent. The Department is serio~sly considering a proposal to renegotiate the treaty
W:ith Mexico to allow noncomensrlal transfers, and perhaps to build a binational prison <
in! Mexico to house Mexican natiohals sentenced to prison by US.· courts. The Office
of Legal Counsel has recently issued an opinion that nonconsensual transfers are
c~nstitutionally pennissible, althotigh transferred prisoners would retain rights under
the Eighth and Sixth Amendmentsl No proposal has been finalized, however, and the
is~ue has not been broached with the Government of Mexico. Therefore, we suggest
{thkt _it would be inappropriate to rrlake specific reference to it at this time.
.
~as
limited prison capacity, and it has not complied
Second, at present Mexico
w'th its obligations under the exist~g treaty to inform the U.S. regar~g the custody
status of prisoners following transfer. For this reason, the Department generally .
dehles transfer requests from seriohs offenders because of our concern that they will
be released in Mexico and return tb the U.S. to commit more crimes.
As a result of these obstacles, the
Ltual
number of transferred.prisoners is small (424
in FY 94) and cannot grow signifidantly unless Mexico's cooperation improves.
·
E.
Judicial Deportation.
•
·The President could direct [ask) the Attorney General to seek judicial
.deportation at the· sentencing of deportable alien defendants whenever
p~sili~.
·
·
. .Background:· Federal pros~cutors can ask judges to seek judicial deportation at
sentencing, either as a condition of a defendant's supervised release following
I . .
. .
completion of a sentence (under 18 U~S.C. § 1251(a)(2)(A)) or, for aggravated felons,
6
COPY
�..--------,-----------------,c---------
DRAFT
under a new statute passed as part of the Immigration and Nationali ,.afi\iPV
Corrections Act of 1994 (8 u.s.:c. § l252a(d)). The President's ·19 ~fratfm
bill will make important corrections to the legislation passed last yea"",--...'l"l!'l"''l"r---......
.I
.
,
corrections will make use of judiCial deportation much· more likely.
I.
-
.
.
I
-
-
-
The Attorney General._wil~ soon release a_ "blue sheet" to provide guidance to
the United States Attorneys in utilizing these authorities. A few U.S. Attorneys'
bffices are already using the pro6edures~ with significant results.
a.
1
I
. ''
Stipulated Deportation
•
I
.
~ograms
· The President could direct [askl the Attorney General to obtain consent
to deportation from Ideportable alien defendants in their plea agreements.
Aliens who plead ~ty to crimes against the United States should be
I
required as part oftheir plea agreements to return to their home
countries directly frbm prison after serving their sentences.
.
. I
.
Background: Stipulated deportation is a very effective-method of ensuring
criminal alien deportation, and hds beeri particularly useful in targeting aliens who
-~eenter the U.S. after having bee* previously deported. Some United States Attorneys
a!re working closely with INS and the immigration judges to ensure that criminal alien
4efendants who consent to deport~tion as part of their plea agreements are issued
deportation orders and are promptly deported upon completion of their sentences. The
United States Attorney for the Sohthern District of California, for example, has
developed an extremely efficient program that is expected to convict and provide for
deportation of between 800 and llOOO criminal aliens this year. The Attorney General
i~ already working to encourage similar programs in other districts with large numbers
~ li
.
o~. a en reentries.
I
Cooperative Arrangemen~ with States To Obtain Early. Deportation of
Nonviolent Alien Criminals
.
G.
·•
The
President could lncourage states to adiJ!lt policies that WQJ!ld enable
·. INS to send criminal!I aliens home early by obtaining deportation orders
.
•
.
and effecting their speedy removal.
.
Background: Last year, Je INS entered into an MOU with the state of
Florida under which the INS inun~diately deports aliens who are granted "conditional
cfemency" by the Governor in exchange for agreement to immediate deportation. The
dJcision as to which alien prisonetfs to include in the program rests completely with
tHe state and its local jurisdictionsJ · So 'far, more than 200 non-violent criminal aliens
7
COPY
�pRAFT
have been deported under the MOU .
CthOPY
.
. Jl
.
.
. · · ecause these operations mvo ve st1pul. d ord.ers ofd eportatio · · e tm ose
ate
little burden on the INS and· EOIR! ruey are, however, somewhat controversial in
thb states: lo~al prosecutors oftcu [object to the early release of convicted criminals
aqd the dispara~e treatment affordef citizen and alien criminals. Nonetheless, it ·is to
. our advantage, and the states', to encourage the states to emulate the Florida model.
. ·."B.
HI · National Detention, Trans~rtatlon, and Removal Plan
.
.
I
·•
The President could direct the Attorney General to speed implementation . ·
of t4e Nadona! Deterltion. Transportation.. and Removal Plan ..
.
Discussion: The Presidencl Februacy 7 Memorandum directed INS to develop
a "National Detention, Transportaffion and Removal Plan" by April.30. The plan has
just been fmalized. The FY 96 btidget initiative will provide the resources to make
th!e plan a reality- allowing INS tb double the total number of deportations in FY 96 .
. Cfrtain aspects of the Plan are cm~raced in the operations described above (additional
·
detention space, absconder removal teams).
~
Implementation of the Plan
not await receipt of the FY 96 resources, and
indeed it has already begun. Lastjmonth, the INS and the U.S. Marshals Service
.
i.Jitiated an Air Transportation System under which the two agencies' airfleets are
b~ing combined ta enhance the mdvement of criminal aliens within the U.S. so that
tHe Department can locate detentidn space for criminal aliens that otherwise might be
rdleased. The Transportation Plart has already been implemented on a trial basis in
ili.e Eastern Region. Operations ui the Central Region will begin this summer and in
ilie Western Region in October.
·
Additional funding in FY 95 would accelerate implementation of certain
portions of the National Detention!, Transportation, and Removal Plan. Specifically,
tl:iis additional funding could: (a) jspeed establishment of "bag and baggage" pilot
ptograms for locating and remov~ crimjnal alien absconders; (b) increase the
c~rrently funded capacity of INS Service Processing Centers; and (c) permit INS to
atquire additional. detention bed s~ace in state or local contract facilities. These uses
w ould all result in an increased tber of criminal alien removals.
1
I.1
Entering Deportation Orders Into National Criminal Database
•
ldirect
The President could
the INS and the FBI to increl!l!e the number of
outstanding warrant~ and fmal deportation orders entered into the
8
COPY
�DRAFT
aliens who reenter illegally can be prosecuted.
.
\,
I'
.
I
.
· · Discussion: INS has been developing its use of NCIC, and has entered INS
.records into NCIC in three phases.! In 1991, INS entered case information relating to
2,p27 aggravated felons with warr~ts of deportation. In the next phase, INS ent~red
information on 1,110 "OtherMthan-Mexican" aliens who entered the United States
without inspection. Most recently l in January 1995, INS entered case information on
intlividuals wanted by INS for crnfiina(vio1ations.
·.·
·
.
..
.
I
..
.
The INS recently proposed fhat the FBI enter names of aggravated felons who
have been• formally deported, in a IDeported Felon sub-file. These names will enable
I
NCIC to 1dentify deported felons who are apprehended upon or subsequent to reentry.
The .FBI has indicated that it will Jgree to this proposal,· which would affect
approximately 8,000 NCIC recor~, though no formal agreement has been reached.
This proposal to use NCIC
.
\,
I
la locate deportable. aliens could be expailded .
I
•
.
further, but at present INS lacks tlie ·necessary resources to make effective use of
fu~ther expansion, and the FBI ha~ not studied whether NCIC could feasibly
..
acbommodate additional significant expansions. 1
II. Prosecution and Deterrence of Criminal Aliens
I
A.
Increase Prosecutions for Docunient Fraud
I .
.
•
The President could direct [ask] the Attorney General to vigorously
e~ample, all outstandin~ warrants for depo~tion for persons who have
could be entered,. enabling the NCIC to identify all aliens known to be
subject to deportation. Alternativdly, INS could enter deportation orders for all
pdrsons formally deported, not just aggr~vated felons. T!J.e problem with these ·
e*'ansion proposals is that when~ person with an NCIC record is picked up, the law
enforcement agency that apprehends the person expects. the agency that has issued the
w~rrant to take the individual into !custody for prosecution. The INS does riot
rebotely have the resources to pick up all aliens who would be NCIC "hits" if all
oJ.tstanding warrants and f'mal dep6rtation orders were,. entered. This would disrupt
I
I.
thf normal processing that makes ~CIC .so valuable and effective for federal, state,
and local law enforcement agencies.
·
. I
1
For
a~sconded
9
COPY
�DRAFT
deterrenee benefits.
DiscusSion: Many aliens enter the United States every day by presenting false
or1fraudp!ent documents at a point fof entry .. Under federal law, aliens who present' .
false documents at the border can ~eceive a felony conviction. Prosecuting alien
ddcument fraud cases benefits the federal government in two ways. First, a
p~osecution sends a clear message to the alien and others contemplating similar
criminal conduct that the United States will punish those aliens who attempt to enter
· thh country illegally using false or frraudulent documents. · Second, a suecessful
.
prbsecutioi1 creates a criminal history for an illegal alien- that can be used as part of a
future prosecution if the alien attexhpts to or successfully enters the United States at a
I
.
.
later date.
1
·
No uniform national prosecution policy is desirable or feasible. Some districts,
· liKe San Diego and Miami, have li~erally hundreds of cases ·per week, and sufficient
re~ources (prosecutors, coUrts; INS agents, or prisons) do not exist to accommodate a
pdlicy of universal prosecution. :rri. other districts, universal prosecution ofall cases,
o~ certain categories of cases, makes good sense. rn·every district, however, federal
·p~osecutors and the INS can work ftogethef'-tO increase the number of alien document
fraud cases. Even a slight increase in the number of prosecutions could baye a
sJbstantial deterrent effect in those communities that have serious immigration
I
. problems.
B.
Prosecutions for Reentry After Deportation
.
•
l
.
..
The President could direct [askl the Attorney Genera} to increase the
,number of prosecutidns of criminal aliens who reenter the United States
after hein2 de.ported. Iutilizmg the new pena1ties available under the
Violent Crime Contrbl. Act of 1994
I
.
Discussion:. .The Violent 'frime Control Act of 1994 increased the exposure to
incarceration faced by aliens who have been convicted of a felony. are thereafter
· d~ported, and who reenter the Unlted States illegally. United States Attorneys are
~g advantage of these enhanced penalties to deport record numbers of· criminal
aliens.
In the Southern District of California, for example, the United States Attorney
_.
I
•
has implemented a pioneering initiative to prosecute record numbers· of alien felons
ufu!er 8 U.S.C. § 1326, During
the district prosecuted and convicted
1994,
10
COPY
�DRAfT
anproximately two hundred such cases, but under the new statute, and ith tou er
p~osecution guidelines, that figure·\will rise to at least four-fold this ye l"lln\
States Attorneys in Arizona and Texas have initiated similar programs 1fl' it:
Nbrthem District of California, thb U.S. Attorney is using the new pena~ltl-.-. -to-.-ta-rg_e.....
e-s
t
p~rticularly violent criminal aliensl The Special Assistant United States Attorneys
(SAUSAs) that the Attorney Genetal detailed to the Southwest border area districts
~ve been instrumental in achievii~g. these tremendous increases in the number of §
1326 convictions (mostly obtained\by plea agreement). With ·new prosecutors now
cdming on line to prosecute immigration cases·, the Department hopes to dramatically
dise the number of§ 1326 convictions in all the Southwest border states.
Y
11'
COPY
�r-------,---------------~--------------
DR-AFT
CC.
Major Fraud Investigations.
• .
The Pr · nt
coull direct ask the Art
Gen
document fraud investigations and prosecutions a prionzy.
doewlenls
Discussion: Phony
allow illegal aliens to obtain work and benefits
in the United States. ·The Atto~ey General has already directed the INS to
toncentrate on major makers and suppliers of fraudulent documents. These efforts
~ill bring scores of big-time ·putveyors of fraud to justice.
.
I
.
.
Additional INS investigative resources can be redirected toward actions against
major suppliers of fraudulent do buments used for obtaining work and benefits. The
boncentration of enforcement resources on large-scale fraud facilitators within the ·
I
I
'
..
~eterrence areas can be expected to yield more than 250 completed criminal
·
investigations by Janilary 1996.
1
In FY 94, INS targeted $300;000 to document and benefit fraud task force
investigations across the countrY. ID FY 95, budget reductions decreas~d task force
1
funding. to $225,000 for all INS investigative functions (including anti-smuggling, .
pcDETF, employer sanctions, /arid criminal· aliens). The task-farce funding decrease
has reduced by 75% the amount available for fraud investigations this year. A portion
6f this reduction could be madef.up this year if additional.funds were available. This
would result in more completed criminal investigations of the docume~t providers and
~more. apprehensions by INS of fue document users.
1
1
ill. Noncriminal Alien Deportation Proerams
A.
Aliens Apprehended in Worksite Enforcement Actions
•
.
The President cotild direct INS and the Department of Labor to expand
· enforcement actiohs ·to target illegal employers for employment violations
and to deport or r!emove illegal alien workers.
Discussion: · The Februir 7 Memorandum directed INS and the Department of
Labor to work tOgether to targ~t industries that have traditionally hired and exploited .
undocumented labor. The pro~ram imposes penalties on employers who violate the
law and prov~des for initiation of deportation proceedings against the illegal aliens.
12
COPY
�·DRAFT
INS and DOL are already working to enhance coordination o e or .
1
efforts' targeting industries historically dependent on an illegal wor If)¥)
9fficers will be hired this year ui Los Arigeles and New York. INS ~Y-!npfra ize
lead-driven fnvestigations in thesb industries. An effort will be made not o y o ·
ulnpose sanctions on the employer, but to ensure the removal of the alienS as well.
will require settfug aside so~e detention space·.in major cities for undocumented
ajiens arrested at the worksite. Additional funds in FY 95 would help raise the ·
rlumber of aliens detained and dJported.
·
av
1
'this
•
In support of the f~regoing. the President could also encourage state and
local governments ·to.cooperate with INS' Operation Jobs to replace
illegal alien worketfs with citizens and lawful resident aliens.
.
Discussion: Under the nlwly-organized Operation Jobs; INS notifies state and
lpcal employment agencies of wbrksite enforcement actions in order to make vacated
jpbs immediately available to U .js ~ citizens and aliens authorized to work.. Operation
~obs has been both succe~sful ~ popular. The Presid:~t cou~d urge state ·and local
. governments, through therr employment offices, to partic1pate m these efforts.
.
Additional state and local effo~ would enhance the effectiveness of the program.
B.
-Deportations of Failed; :.Asylum-Seekers
•
~~d
The President
direct the .INS to dedicate the necessacy resources to
prioritize deportatibns of failed asYlum-seekers.
Jr
Discussion: In January this year, INS announced a major reform of the
~ylum process. The early evi~ence is that. reform is working -- deterring the flling of
frivolous cases and facilitating faster identification of aliens with true fears of
returning to their home countrids. To restore full credibility to our asylum process,
however, the INS must remove jaliens who, after a full and fair opportunity to present
their claims, are found ineligible for asylum.
-
In the past, .little effort 1s made to apprehend and depon failed asylum
seekers, primarily due to a sho.hage of manpower and detention space. Any additional
funds available this year would fallow the INS to make detention space available for
lliese cases. INS believes that there is sufficient funding in the FY 96 budget to .
laccommodate the removal of f~iled asylum seekers next year (specifically, $9.9
!million of the FY 96 budget is targeted for removal of failed. asylum seekers).
1
13
COPY
�DRAFT
C.
Additional Immigration·Judges and INS Attorneys
•
elim'l
To reduce
serious backlo sin the de orta ·
tc o
.
•
I
process. the Pres1dent could seek a budget amendment'f.er PY 06 to
·increase the number of immigration judges. support staff.· and INS
attorneys.
·
1.
1'.
Discussion: The Executive Office for Immigration Review, which includes the
immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals, has a large and growing
. c~eload. · The average tiine for base processing before an immigration court in a .
rkjor city is now twelve months!, and many appe~ take years. With the increa5ed
dmphasis on criminal aliens and :deportations in general, and with the expected influx
.dr ca5es under the new asylum regulations, the backlog is expected to grow.
a1
·
·
With the FY 95 budget
the requested FY 96 budget, EOIR will receive an
. additional 100 judges, ·but these !resources will not be enough to eliminate the asylum
backlog or improve case proces~ing time at either the trial or appellate level. A $26.5
xhiruon amendment could fund ~0 new Immigration Judges; 100 support staff; 50 :
·
.
faw clerks; 40 Board staff attorneys; and 14 Board support staff.
~ation
·An increase in the
judges would need to be accompanied by an
increase in INS attorneys who cbuld bring the 'additional cases for EOIR to process.
iNs estimates that an additionalj$11 million would be necessary to handle the cases an
bnhanced EOIR staff could accommodate. 2
.
·
Note, however, that while a greater n~ber of immigration judges and INS ·
lawyers would facilitate more prompt adjudication of a large and growing caseload,
EOIR already issues a greater· ri.umber of deportation orders and asylum denials than
INS has .the resources to respo4d to. An even more efficient system, if not . ·.
implemented in conjunction with a vastly improyed deportation and removal initiative
at INS, would open up the INS to further criticism for failing to enforce a greater.
· number of judicial orders. Th~ requested funding increase of $176 million for FY 96
will enable INS to execute orders currently processed by Eom, as well as to remove
aliens whose orders have been issued by EOIR in the past and who .are currently in
the INS backlog for removal.
I
2
14
�DRAFT
D.
Encourage Pro Bono Representation of Aliens
•
The President could encoura
ar associations and la
·inc ease ro rams ahd clinics to rovide ro bono co
·immigration proceedings. Increased represen~tion can significantly·.,
reduce the time necessary for case processing and help the immigration
judges reduce the dse backlog..
'
.
.
.. I .
.
.
Discussion: At present, aliens are. represented by counsel in only 30 ·percent of
dFportation proceedings and 47 pbrcent of exclusion proceedings. There is .
·.
· significantly greater delay in prodessing cases without counsel,· for two reasons. First,
j~dges often grant up to· three extensions of time at hearings in order to allow aliens to
a~empt to obtain couns~l, which /requires rep~t appearances that clog their dockets.
Second, appearances wtthout counsel are cons1derably slower than ~epresented
. .·
appearances -~ appearances that qould be· limited to five minutes with counsel can be
drawn out to fifteen or twenty ~utes- without counsel.· A pro bono project currently
dperat~g in Florence, Arizona, has been very effective in improving case processing
~d could be replicated at other ~ites with heavy immigration caseloads. A provision .
ih the prop·osed 1995 i:mmigratioh bill would authorize appropriations for such
I
I
·
projects. (These programs woultl benefit from grant money not to fund salaries, but
tb provide training or fund law s~hool clinics.)
E.
Invitations for State Cooperation
~eady
.·-· In addition to the points
addressed above, the President could. inVite the
states to join the federal goverruhent in helping to remove illegal immigrants in the
following ways ... Of course, it .J.ould be crucial to cast the states' role in such a way
that appears. neither to approve bf Proposition 187-:like measures nor to urge direct
ktate· enforcement of federal innhi.gration law. The following proposals could be made
~ithout necessarily implicating those concerns.
1.
Removal of State Laws Prohibiting Cooperation Between State
Authorities and the INS
.·
.
•
I
.
. .
.
The President cornd recommend that· states and localities remove laws or
ordinances that prbhibit cooperation with INS. Such laws are still in
effect in several states and coromnnities.
15
COPY
�-DRAFT
Discussion: This proposat must be distinguished from earlie:l1"11Jrt'm~~1t--1
qongress~ which the Administration opposed, that required state o
illegal aliens to the INS.
·'
\.
2.
Improving State C oopen1tion with Immigration Enforcem~nt through
1
Driver's License ierification
I
•
The President could encourage the states to reduce the value of
fraudulent driver's licenses· or the misuse of valid licenses by cooperating
with INS. and the Social Security Administration to prevent illegal aliens
from obtainini lawful permits.
..
I .
.
.
Discussion: Although INS is not· presently equipped to respond to verification
1
checks for every driver's license) applicant in every state, its verification experience
~ith the State of California bas proven to be successful and may be replicated in other
Jtates. Since July 1994, pursuari.t to a Memorandum of Understanding with the State
.9f California, INS bas provided /California with on-line access to its Alien Status
erific~tio~ lnd~x. California ~akes ~ ini~ ~quiry of th~ ~ex and. INS reports ·
0n the llllllllgratlon status, coun~ of birth, Identity, date of IDitial entry, and
~xpiration .of authorized stay of the individUal. Where information does not "match",
the state waits 40 days and mak~s another inquiry and, subsequently, a paper
document verification request. Califolnia indicates that it has had a 28% reduction iri
tequests for identification cards !from aliens since the adoption of the Memorandum of
Understanding and attributes thd reduction directly to this cooperative effort.
y
Presently, only about oJquarter. of the states require proof of citizenship or
Ieg~l presence in the United Stafes as a condition of grariting a driver's license or
bther state identification card. Only California systematically checks the validity of
INS documents. Given the sucdess of the program, it should be encourage"d in other
~tates, assuming INS has the reSources necessary to respond to the states. There is
bi.rrently no funding in the Prdident's FY 96 budget to establish new programs for
fulver' s license verification. Fkding for the California program is included in the FY
I
~96 budget.
.
16
�IV.
..
DRAFT
Options We Do NotRecmpmend
I
.
.
.
New proposals to expedite deportation procedures
~-
There is an
procedures.
COPY
~r~~JJ1 inte:""t :unong ~ pUblic in expediti~ .deportation
The Admimstration's legislation provtdes a number of provtstons that
~expedite the process, remov~ delaying tactics, and impose sanctions on aliens
ordered deported who fail to depkt. Other possible changes could include removing
<9r further limiting) judicial revi~w of deportation orders or immediately detaining
~ens who receive orders of dep9rtation. We· do not at this time support such
nlteasures. Only 10% of those aliens receiving oi'd~rs- of deportation· appeal their cases
t~ the federal courts, and deta.iniAg all aliens at ·the conclusion of their deportation ·
ptoceedings is not possible· today I, given limited detention space and funding.
J.
AdditiOillll programs
:.
~."Visa overstayers". ·
I
. .
_
Slightly under half of the illegal aliens in the U.S. arrive with legal visas but
fail to depart at the end of their ~uthorized stay. There is now increasing attention to
.tjns group in Congress and· amo~ outside groups Who· argue tbat single'miDded focus
. on the border ignores half the problem .. To date, INS has stated that the primary
+eapon against overstayers is tiqlely asylum processing (which the asylum reform ·
1
ipStituted in January !995 is achieving) and an effective worksite enforcement
rogram.Pur.suant to •"- p rest ent,Is F ebruary n· rrectlve, a workin.g group ts cons1 enng
·d
•
•
·
.'d ·
·
we
additional enforcement measure~, but it is too early to report new initiatives (and, • in
I
I
•
·
·
any event, the INS does not have resources for a maJOr new effort). We also belteve
fuat the other actions proposed ih this paper, if undertaken, will show a serious
·
tommitment to interior enforcetbent and ther~fore make less compelling specific
P·l
I
.
.
actions targeted at overstayers..
·
If action on overstayers is deemed important, an option is to accelerate the
rork of the working group and announce its preliminary findings.
C.
.
· .·Removing the prohibition on use of SAVE information for enforcement
purposes·
The SAVE prognun ena91es states to verify the eligibility of aliens .for certain
federal benefits by accessing IliS databases. Under current law, infonnation provided
under SAVE may not be used for law enforcement purposes -- that is, INS may not
pursue aliens identified tbrou~ SAVE as unlawfully in the U.S. Arguably, this
prohibition is an anomaly. Thd usual justification offered is that bona fide benefit
17
COPY
�DRAFT.
seekers might be deterred from applying if they believe that their
oframily members) might be
to the INS. .
.
·
gitn
COPY
es
Although we believe th~t the prohibition is hard to justify today, 1ts remov
might present the INS with a large ntimber of referrals that could not be handled with
c}rrrent resources. (INS is alr~ady facing this problem with teferrals from the State of
California for persons denied motor vehicle licenses.) Furthermore, these cases are
l~ss likely to fit within the highe~t removal priorities. Moreover, before any legislative
r~form is sought in this area, HJiS should be heard. '
18
COPY
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Previously Restricted Documents
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1993-2001
Description
An account of the resource
<p>This collection contains documents that were previously restricted under the <a href="http://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-act.html" target="_blank">Presidential Records Act</a> for restrictions P2 (appointment to federal office) and/or P5 (confidential advice between the President and/or his advisors and between those advisors). For more information concerning these collections please see the collection finding aids index. The finding aids detail the scope, content, and provide a box and folder title list for each collection.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-act.html" target="_blank">Presidential Records Act (PRA)</a> includes provisions that these types of documents be withheld for twelve years after the end of a president's administration. These documents are now being made available to the public. The documents will be released in batches and will be uploaded here as they become available. The documents will also be available in the Clinton Library’s research room.</p>
<p>Please note the documents in this collection may not contain all the withheld documents listed on the collection's withdrawal sheet index.</p>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
397 folders
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
2006-0458-F - Donald Baer, Communications Office
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0458-F
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Previously Restricted Document Release no. 7
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Reproduction-Reference