America's Voice Blog

Posted 01/10/12 at 07:31am By Mahwish Khan

Not Surprisingly, Some Republicans Decry Keeping Together Families of U.S. Citizens

Family UnityOn Friday, the Administration announced a welcome policy change known as the “Family Unity Visa Waiver”, which enables undocumented spouses of US citizens to apply for a waiver before returning to their home countries to obtain their green cards.

Currently, these immigrants are faced with a bar from returning to the United States for either 3 or 10 years (known as the 3 or 10 year bar), depending on how long they had been in the United States without papers.  Some, like Alan Colmes who runs Liberaland, applauded the move, noting that the change will “allow the undocumented to spend more time with their families.”

That sounds sensible and reasonable, right? Not if you’re notorious Kris Kobach, author of all those infamous anti-immigrant laws, who called it “amnesty” on CNN as he was debating seasoned immigrant rights advocate, David Leopold. "It's part of an amnesty. It's part two of an administrative amnesty" he told CNN. Watch:

Or if you’re Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), who currently serves as the Chairman of House Judiciary Committee, who called the proposal an “abuse of administrative powers.” Conservative blog Hot Air echoed that sentiment, called it an executive fiat, and tried to persuade readers that the Administration is sticking it to Republicans.

Conservatives like Kobach, Smith, and the folks at Hot Air are missing that those most benefiting from this change are US CITIZENS whose prolonged separation from their spouse would cause them extreme hardship.  Or perhaps they just don’t care?

It was all so predictable, as Joan McCarter at Daily Kos concluded in her piece yesterday, opining that it’s only a matter of time before Republicans hold a hearing about this “unconstitutional power grab.”

We’ll let you know when the date for that is set.  

Posted 01/06/12 at 06:35pm By Pili Tobar

Family Unity Waiver Process Will Help Keep Some American Families Together

president obama

On a press call today held by America’s Voice Education Fund and the American Immigration Lawyers Association, legal experts, families and immigrant advocates applauded the initiation of a new family unity waiver process by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services that will keep families together, improve the bureaucracy, and facilitate legal immigration. 

Currently, U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents face unnecessary and dangerous hurdles in obtaining a “green card” (lawful permanent resident status) for a spouse or child who resides in the U.S. without papers.  They have to file a visa petition, and once the petition is approved and the visa appointment scheduled, the spouse or child has to travel to a U.S. consulate in their home country to be interviewed.  At this point, they face “unlawful presence bars” of three or ten years depending on how long they resided in the U.S. without legal immigration status.  A waiver exists in the law for cases where prolonged separation would cause “extreme hardship” to a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident, but currently applicants must apply for the waiver abroad and face weeks, months, or even years of separation and uncertainty before receiving a decision.  

Today, the Obama Administration announced its intention to allow stateside processing of the family unity waiver and allow husbands, wives and children of U.S. citizens to stay in the U.S. while their waiver application is being adjudicated.  Applicants will still need to return to their home country to finish the process, but they will not face the months or years of separation and anxiety that so many currently do. 

This change only applies to the spouses and children of U.S. citizens.  In a press call today, advocates and American families applauded the processing change, and called on the Obama Administration to further expand its reach to cover families headed by legal permanent residents.   

David Leopold, Past President of the American Immigration Lawyers Association and a Cleveland-based immigration attorney, explained, “Under current immigration law, spouses of U.S Citizens have to go overseas, for example, to Mexico, to a U.S consulate and apply for a waiver. The problem is, once they set foot outside of the U.S they get barred. They face a Catch-22.  Processing waivers in the United States streamlines this process by allowing people to ‘do their time’ while with their families, instead of waiting abroad for months or years.”

Angelica Salas, Executive Director, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles concluded, “This rule change will help ease the hardship on families, who under the current law, have had to endure long separations from spouses and children as they wait for waivers to return to the United States. In many cases, the family breadwinner has had to leave the country, forcing the rest of the family to try and make ends meet. Hundreds of thousands of families have had to endure extreme hardship under the current law.”

During the call, family members who have experienced serious hardships under the current process told their stories and applauded this change that will help other families like theirs.

Kelly Alfaro of Washington state, a U.S. citizen whose husband lost an eye due to an infection caught in Ciudad Juárez while waiting for his family unity waiver, said, “When your spouse, the love of your life, is told he has a life threatening infection and must immediately go to the hospital, you rush to his side.  But what happens when he's in a foreign country, barred from returning until you've successfully completed a lengthy waiver process even with an approvable visa case?  My hope is by sharing our story other American citizens will not have to face the separation, anxiety and these potentially life altering repercussions.”

Viktoria Ivanova of California was separated from her U.S. citizen husband for three years while waiting for her family unity waiver.  She added, “When I applied for a waiver, the process was extremely hard on me and my husband. He became medically depressed during the process. It was difficult to monitor any changes or any progress, and I felt like nobody could help me—even though I had a lawyer. It felt like applying for something unreal.”

While the announcement will help a number of American families, Douglas Stump, First Vice President, American Immigration Lawyers Association, pointed out that the change is limited: “This announcement does not actually represent a substantive change in the law. The new procedure would provide a mechanism for U.S. Citizens to protect their families while ensuring that their spouses and children comply with the law.  The unlawful alien remains subject to all other penalties associated with unlawful presence in the United States.  It’s all about smart enforcement of the immigration law in a way that keeps Americans safe.”

Speakers made it clear that the rule will take months to go into effect, and is not currently in place.  Potential beneficiaries should consult the advice of competent attorneys and BIA-accredited advisors before filing any paperwork.  They also called on the Administration to extend this process to spouses and children of legal permanent residents, who face the same obstacles and dangers when required to wait abroad for their waiver adjudications.

Lynn Tramonte, Deputy Director of America’s Voice Education Fund, who moderated the call, said, “This is a pro-family, pro-legal immigration proposal.  It doesn’t create a new right or benefit for anyone, and it doesn’t replace the need for legislative reform by Congress.  But it’s a good example of how even the current broken immigration laws can be applied in a fairer, more humane way.  It is a common sense processing change, and anyone who claims to support legal immigration and family unity should embrace it.”

For more information, see:

Posted 11/17/11 at 11:32am By Mahwish Khan

TPM: Because of SB 1070 Fallout, Arizona “Really is a Swing State in 2012”

sb 1070 arizonaTalking Point Memo's Evan McMorris-Santoro reports on how SB 1070 has changed the political landscape in Arizona -- and not in the way its sponsors would have expected:

The rumors are true, Rep. Chad Campbell, the Democratic leader of the Arizona state House, told TPM Wednesday: the state best known for Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the toughest immigration law in the land really is a swing state in 2012. And Democrats have SB 1070 to thank for it.

“I’d hesitate to say it was ever good that it was passed,” Campbell said in a sitdown interview. “Because of the damage it did to the community, damage to the economy. But I do think it motivated a lot of people, especially people in the Latino community, to get involved and it energized them.”

“If that’s the final outcome of it, so be it,” he added. “That’s a good thing, obviously.”

Campbell’s not the only one saying that. The Obama campaign has said Arizona can be a target next year, thanks largely to a fired up Latino base. It wasn’t supposed to be that way — Republicans in Arizona and nationally were eager for a fight with the White House over 1070, which has involved the Justice Department sweeping into Arizona to stop the law. That’s the exact sort of thing the tea party types and conservatives who helped push 1070 through hate the most, and there was a belief that by taking immigration into their own hands in the states, Republicans could show Obama as ineffective on the issue and take states like Arizona off the map.

Rep. Campbell offered the numbers to back up the assertion:

He pointed to record-high turnout in municipal elections like the Phoenix mayoral race which put Democrats in office across the state this month. Those results were fueled in part by huge turnout numbers from the Latino demographic, Campbell said, and in part by a more moderate base that’s had enough.

Not to mention, last week's defeat of State Senate President Russell Pearce in the Arizona recall election is another shining example of how voters are fed-up with politicians who use immigration as a distraction.

Posted 11/14/11 at 04:44pm By Mahwish Khan

NYT: Obama Adminstration’s New Deportation Policy “Applied Very Unevenly”

Over the weekend, The New York Times' Julia Preston reported on the Obama administration's new deportation policy. And, her article echoed concerns we've been hearing:  

A new Obama administration policy to avoid deportations of illegal immigrants who are not criminals has been applied very unevenly across the country and has led to vast confusion both in immigrant communities and among agents charged with carrying it out.

Since June, when the policy was unveiled, frustrated lawyers and advocates have seen a steady march of deportations of immigrants with no criminal record and with extensive roots in the United States, who seemed to fit the administration’s profile of those who should be allowed to remain.

But at the same time, in other cases, immigrants on the brink of expulsion saw their deportations halted at the last minute, sometimes after public protests. In some instances, immigration prosecutors acted, with no prodding from advocates, to abandon deportations of immigrants with strong ties to this country whose only violation was their illegal status.

The full article is worth a read. The conclusion struck a chord with us:

Still, uncertainty about the policy among agents appeared more widespread than outright rejection did. That was the experience of Shamir Ali, a 24-year-old student born in Bangladesh, who was detained Oct. 19 when the police raided a Miami car rental agency where he worked, looking for someone else. Mr. Ali seemed to fit within the discretion guidelines: he had no criminal record and had been brought by his parents to the United States when he was 7. But immigration agents denied his first requests to be spared from deportation.

Then student groups staged protests on Mr. Ali’s behalf in eight cities. On Oct. 28, agents freed Mr. Ali on an order of supervision, also allowing him to apply for a work permit. For Mr. Ali, like Mr. Bartsch, that permit would be life-changing, since it would allow him to obtain a driver’s license and to enroll at resident rates in a state college.

Mr. Ali said he felt deeply grateful to the immigration agency. But he wondered: “If I didn’t have all that support, what would have happened to me?”

We often get involved in END (Education Not Deportation) cases for this very reason. What would happen without it?

Over the weekend, 450 DREAMers from around the country attended United We DREAM's Annual Congress in Dallas. On Saturday morning, they staged a protest outside of a nearby ICE office. You can see photos from the protest here. And, watch this amazing speech by DREAMer Nicole Anonuevo, delivered during the "open mic":

Posted 11/02/11 at 10:10am By Mahwish Khan

US DOJ Reminds Alabama: Denying Education to Kids Is Unconstitutional

Thomas PerezLast month, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Tom Perez spoke about the impact of HB 56 at a Town Hall hosted by the NAACP. Among the many issues, he addressed the impact of HB 56 on education:

Specifically, Perez emphasized that the law limits a child's right to an education, saying "one of the rights that exists in the United States -- that was a right established and confirmed by the United States Supreme Court almost 30 years ago -- is the right for every person who is present in the United States to attend public school.

Perez has continued the focus and the pressure. Yesterday, Perez wrote to Alabama school districts reminding them of their constitutional obligations:

The Justice Department sent a letter to school districts in Alabama on Tuesday reminding them that they can’t deny a child access to public education due to his or her immigration status.

Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez’s letter comes after he expressed concern that Alabama’s anti-illegal immigration law was keeping children out of school because their parents are scared about the impact of the law. A federal judge has blocked portions of the harsh anti-illegal immigration measure.

As Markos Moulitas wrote a post titled, Feds tell Alabama not to screw over kids, noting, "It should be self-evident, but not in Alabama.

The full text of the letter from Perez, via the Department of Justice, is after the break.

Click here to read more.
Posted 11/01/11 at 12:18pm By Mahwish Khan

DOJ Files Suit Against South Carolina’s Anti-immigrant Law

Stop Targeting Immigrants South CarolinaThe United States Department of Justice is seeking to block South Carolina's anti-immigrant law. This marks the third challenge to a state immigration law by DOJ. The others are Arizona and Alabama. From yesterday's DOJ press release:

The Department of Justice challenged South Carolina’s recently passed immigration law, Act No. 69, in federal court today.

In a complaint, filed in the District of South Carolina, the department states that certain provisions of Act No. 69, as enacted by the state on June 27, 2011, are unconstitutional and interfere with the federal government’s authority to set and enforce immigration policy, explaining that “the Constitution and federal law do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country.” South Carolina’s law clearly conflicts with the policies and priorities adopted by the federal government and therefore cannot stand. 

South Carolina’s law is designed to further criminalize unauthorized immigrants and, like the Arizona and Alabama laws, expands the opportunity for police to push unauthorized immigrants towards incarceration for various new immigration crimes by enforcing an immigration status verification system. Similar to Arizona’s S.B. 1070 and Alabama’s H.B. 56, this law will place significant burdens on federal agencies, diverting their resources away from high-priority targets, such as terrorism, drug smuggling and gang activity, and those with criminal records. In addition, the law’s mandates on law enforcement will also result in the harassment and detention of foreign visitors and legal immigrants, as well as U.S. citizens, who cannot readily prove their lawful status. 

“Today’s lawsuit makes clear once again that the Justice Department will not hesitate to challenge a state’s immigration law, as we have in Arizona, Alabama and South Carolina, if we find that the law interferes with the federal government’s enforcement of immigration,” said Attorney General Eric Holder. “It is understandable that communities remain frustrated with the broken immigration system, but a patchwork of state laws is not the solution and will only create problems. We will continue to monitor the impact these laws might have on our communities and will evaluate each law to determine whether it conflicts with the federal government’s enforcement responsibilities.”

And, we learn via The State that South Carolina is going to be fighting hard to preserve its discriminatory and racist law:

State Attorney General Alan Wilson has vowed to defend the state’s immigration laws to Supreme Court if necessary. On Monday, his office said the attorney general could not comment on the justice department’s lawsuit because it had not received it.

South Carolina’s immigration law, which was signed by Gov. Nikki Haley in June, requires all police officers to verify the immigration status of anyone they detain whether it is for a speeding ticket or a murder charge. The law also creates a statewide Illegal Immigration Enforcement Unit under the supervision of the S.C. Department of Public Safety, which also oversees the highway patrol.

Last week, FOX News Latino reported that the new SC law also impacts U.S. citizens and legal residents:

South Carolina's new immigration law, SB 20, which faces a lawsuit from pro-immigrant organizations, will not only affect undocumented foreigners but also U.S. citizens and legal residents.

Puerto Rico-born Carolina Belen de Paguada is concerned about the possible entry into force of the controversial law, which was inspired by Arizona's SB 1070 legislation.

Married to an undocumented Honduran, Belen says that even she is in danger of being penalized with a fine of up to $5,000 for transporting a foreigner without authorization to be in the country, or even for giving a neighbor a ride to church.

"My husband is the supporter of the family. I have a 4-month-old baby. If they deport him, I don't know what we're going to do. The situation is terrible for everyone," the 20-year-old told Efe.

Posted 10/21/11 at 01:05pm By Mahwish Khan

We Need Truth In Advertising Laws To Govern DHS When It Comes To New Deportation Numbers

Truth IN advertisingThe Obama Administration's Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released the latest deportation numbers this week. As FDL's David Dayen reports:

The news that the Obama Administration deported 400,000 undocumented immigrants in the last fiscal year, setting another record, did not come as welcome news to immigration advocates.

That's right. 

This week, DHS announced another record-breaking year in immigration enforcement, deporting just under 400,000 immigrants in FY 2011.  According to DHS, they are targeting the “worst of the worst,” an assertion they tout by highlighting the fact that 55%, or 216,698, of those deported were so-called “criminal aliens.”   In the announcement, DHS indicated that 40% of criminal deportees had committed one of four types of offenses.  That’s 87,547 of the nearly 400,000 deportees.  However, for the other 60% of “criminals” that made up the majority of deportees last year, DHS gives no explanation as to what sort of “crime” they committed.  Why would DHS release specific categories on some of the “criminal” deportees, but leave the majority of them without explanation?

We can look to the Secure Communities program – one of the key programs feeding the deportation pipeline – as an important example of DHS’ tendency to overstate what a “criminal” looks like.  We already know that nearly 60% of all deportees under Secure Communities either had no criminal convictions or had only been convicted of minor crimes or traffic violations.  A new report analyzing Secure Communities confirms this fact.  Clearly, a large number of “criminals” deported by DHS would not be considered serious offenders by any common sense definition of the term. 

In the report released Wednesday, experts from the Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy at the University of California, Berkeley and the Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Clinic at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law examined Secure Communities and found that the majority of people identified for deportation through this “criminal” program were not being deported for criminal reasons.  Only 27% were in deportation proceedings for having committed crimes, including 8% being deported because of aggravated felonies.  The rest were simply being deported because of immigration violations.    

According to Frank Sharry, Executive Director of America’s Voice Education Fund put it like this:

DHS has to come clean about its deportation numbers.  How many of the "criminals" it is deporting are actually dangerous people?  And how many are just fathers on their way to work, pulled over by police who think it’s their job to determine who is legal and who isn’t?  This new report from the Warren Institute and Cardozo Law School is just the latest round of evidence to show that Secure Communities is badly missing the mark, sweeping up hard-working immigrants who haven’t committed any real crime instead of zeroing in on the "worst of the worst."

 The Warren Institute-Cardozo study identified a number of other troubling facts about Secure Communities that confirm what immigrant advocates have been saying for years.  Despite DHS’ claims that Secure Communities is a “neutral” program, it is clearly being fed via racial profiling.  While 77% of the undocumented population in the United States is Latino, 93% of those detained through Secure Communities are Latino.  They are also disproportionately young and male, making it clear that “driving while young, male, and Latino” is, in fact, a criminal offense in some jurisdictions.  Community policing is suffering because local cops are now deportation agents, and immigrants are afraid to go to the police.  And, as many as 3,600 U.S. citizens have been arrested by ICE in the three years the program has been in operation, a chilling statistic the Department should be forced to explain and correct for the future. 

Despite insisting that they are focusing deportations on the "worst of the worst," a large number of people being deported by the Obama Administration are not high priority criminals.  And, despite claiming that Secure Communities targets only criminals, fresh evidence shows that’s just not the case.  Clearly, we need truth in advertising laws to govern DHS when it comes to its deportation numbers and programs.

Access New Warren Institute Report on Secure Communities here.

Posted 10/19/11 at 04:25pm By Pili Tobar

On Immigration, Romney Has No Soul, Republicans Have No Game, and DHS Has No Clue

Last night, there were two television options for people interested in immigration reform. PBS premiered a documentary, "Lost in Detention," which was produced by Maria Hinojosa, which "examine[d] the Obama administration’s controversial get-tough immigration policy." Meanwhile, CNN broadcast another GOP presidential debate, this one from Las Vegas. "Lost in Detention" exposed our controversial immigration policy while the GOP debate showed the ugly side of immigration politics. Both could impact the 2012 elections.

The sprint to the right by the Republican presidential candidates, which was on display yet again at last night's debate, should be helpful to President Obama's reelection. It should be. But, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) continues to undercut his Latino outreach efforts.

Last night’s debate, as expected, featured more fireworks over the issue of immigration and turned into a contest of who could talk tougher on the issue.  Governor Rick Perry (TX) launched an attack on Governor Mitt Romney's (MA) employment of undocumented workers. In an attempt to defend his record, Romney tried explained why he insisted his workforce be legal by saying: 

I'm running for office for Pete's sake, I can't have illegals.

Watch part of Romney's exchange with Governor Perry here:

 

Click here to read more.
Posted 10/13/11 at 12:38pm By Mahwish Khan

Five Dreamers Arrested in Los Angeles After Staging Sit-In at ICE Office

Dream LAYesterday, five Dream Act eligible leaders -- Nancy, Neidi, Tony, Francisco Javier and Adrian --  staged a sit-in at an ICE office in Los Angeles as immigration supporters were holding a rally outside the Immigration Court Building.

According to the Orange County Weekly, the five youths have been detained by the Los Angeles Police Department “for refusing to leave.”

In an email sent out earlier in the day by United We Dream’s Carlos Saavedra:

Their act of tremendous courage and passion highlights the need for President Obama to take immediate action to stay true to his words and show his support not only for all Dream Act eligible youth, but Latino voters and the immigrant community as well.

The five DREAMers actually livestreamed their sit-in, as they risked arrest (You can watch some of it here on their U-Stream channel). 

The Orange County Register recently updated their story with an email from Francisco, who explained in a letter to friends and family the reason for it:

We are demanding President Barack Obama to grant all DREAM Act eligible youth Administrative relief through an executive order. Last year Congress failed to pass the DREAM Act through the Senate and DREAM Act youth are still at risk of being deported without hope of DREAM act passing in this congressional year... 

As I will be risking arrest I will also need your help in raising money for my bail. I understand many of us are going through tough financial situations but your support would mean a lot to me and the whole undocumented youth movement. Please follow the link for more info; donations of any amount would be appreciated.

Francisco Javier, who has been here since he was six years old, is currently a graduate student at California State University, pursuing a degree in Education. He writes, “As an undocumented student I realize that journeying this far in the educational system is a privilege and at the same time a challenge.”

To show support for these brave leaders, Please sign in the petition and ask President Obama to grant Administrative Relief to DREAMers through executive order. Following are the bios of the other four Dreamers, courtesy of United We Dream:

Nancy Meza came to the United States when she was two years old from Jalisco Mexico. She is currently 24 years old and recently graduated from UCLA with a degree in Chicana/o Studies and a minor in Labor and Workplace studies. She plans to attend law school in the near future.

Neidi Dominguez was born in Morelos, Mexico. She migrated to the U.S. in 1997 at the age of 9 years old. She attend UC Santa Cruz where she received a Bachelors of the Arts in Community Studies and graduated with honors. Neidi’s Dream is to be an attorney.

Tony Ortuño is an undocumented student attending California State University, Long Beach. His goal is to achieve a Bachelors Degree in both Political Science and Chicano and Latino Studies. His hope is to attain a Masters Degree

Adrian Gonzalez arrived to the United States at the age of 3 where he spent his life within the K-12 educational system. Adrian’s parents were deported to a country they had not seen in over 15 years. He was a witness to an unjust action from the person who promised to help them with the process to become citizens. He is now a Deaf Studies major at California State University Northridge and is currently working on putting together a documentary on the struggles of Deaf and Undocumented students.

Posted 10/12/11 at 12:24pm By Pili Tobar

Today’s House Immigration Hearing on “HALT” Act is Just More Politics as Usual

halt actToday’s hearing in the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement provides another opportunity to shine a light on immigration enforcement strategies that are smart and effective, and to expose those that are irresponsible and dangerous. 

Unfortunately, it is the Committee leadership itself that is attempting to block smart enforcement strategies and advocating an irresponsible and dangerous path.

Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Subcommittee Chairman Elton Gallegly (R-CA) seem intent on politicizing important law enforcement issues to promote irresponsible legislation.  One example is Rep. Smith’s so-called “HALT” Act, which would strip the Obama Administration of any decision-making power when it comes to immigration enforcement.  Tellingly, the HALT Act’s provisions expire when the next President takes office – revealing the real motivation behind Smith’s bill.  His objections are not really about law enforcement policy, but immigration politics.  In fact, several years ago Smith himself argued for the exercise of discretion in certain immigration cases. He was for it before he was against it.

Despite what we’ll likely hear from Republicans at today’s hearing, the Obama Administration has actually deported more individuals than any prior administration – leading to criticism from many immigration reform activists.  To the Administration’s credit, this summer they revamped deportation guidelines in an effort to focus on removing those who commit dangerous crimes and those who have repeatedly flouted our nation’s immigration laws.  The removal of serious criminals will be prioritized, while DREAMers and other sympathetic immigrants should see relief.

According to Frank Sharry, Executive Director of America’s Voice Education Fund:

The Obama Administration is doing what every other Administration, Republican and Democratic alike, have done for decades:  setting clear and rational priorities in order to guide law enforcement personnel in allocating scarce resources to keep our streets and communities safe.  

Rep. Smith and his Republican colleagues’ attempts to block smart immigration enforcement strategies are not only irresponsible but dangerous.  They believe in mass detention and mass deportation, with no exceptions, but the American people know that is not a solution.  Republicans in Congress should stop playing politics and instead get to work on real immigration reform.

The hearing begins at 3 PM ET. We'll be livetweeting from @AmericasVoice.

For more information, see the below resources:

Analysis of DHS Prosecutorial Discretion Memos from John Morton (Immigration Policy Center)

Memo from Legal Experts on Prosecutorial Discretion (Immigration Policy Center)

Letter Describing New DHS Enforcement Protocol (Secretary Napolitano)

Op-Ed on Prosecutorial Discretion by Former Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau (New York Daily News)

1999 Letter from Lamar Smith and Other Members of Congress Calling for Prosecutorial Discretion (PDF via Huffington Post)

Congressional Testimony from Lt. Col. Margaret Stock (Retired) on Smith’s “HALT Act”

Examples of Cases Targeted by the HALT Act

 1 2 3 >  Last »