With criminal deportations reaching an all-time high during the past decade, 300 immigration specialists convened last weekend at John Jay College. Their intention was to explore the repercussions of laws passed in 1996. Instead, among the most urgent topics of conversation were immigration restrictions included in a House bill to reform the country’s intelligence agencies, which caught even these experts off guard.

“It snuck up on us by surprise,” said an organizer at the advocacy group Families for Freedom, Subhash Katel. He urged conference attendees to contest the pending legislation, warning it would strip away the last remnants of judicial review for many immigrants. “When we were in Washington about a month before, they said they didn’t expect any new (immigration) legislation,” he said, referring to New York lawmakers.

Following recommendations of the September 11 commission, the Senate and House of Representatives passed separate intelligence bills this month that would create a national anti-terrorism director and counterterrorism center.

But despite great pressure to pass the legislation before Tuesday’s presidential election, a few key differences have stalled its progress: The House bill would include a smaller staff and budget for the intelligence tsar, create stricter immigration measures, and give more powers to federal law enforcement.

If congressional negotiators fail to compromise on the September 11 legislation before the next session, which is likely, disagreement over the role of the intelligence tsar will be the most probable cause. But another stumbling block is the immigration legislation included in the House bill, with many saying that complicated immigration issues should not be rushed into a bill designed for intelligence reform.

A wide range of immigration groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the New York State Defenders Association, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, and the Cuban American National Foundation sent out action alerts last week warning that the House legislation, HR 10, was the most repressive measure in more than a decade.

“These two bills could not differ more,” read a statement from the American Immigration Lawyers Association. The lawyers called the Senate bill “responsible, bipartisan legislation endorsed by the 9/11 Commission and the Steering Committee of 9-11 Families” while the “array of anti-immigrant and anti-civil liberties provisions included in the partisan HR 10 go well beyond the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations and will not make us safer.”

The organization outlined 10 issues of particular concern that the bill would allow, including:

• Deporting immigrants without a court hearing for noncitizens who have been in the country for less than five years.


• Deporting immigrants to a country with no government.


• Depriving asylum-seekers and torture victims of habeas corpus petitions if they are detained.

The Republican sponsors of the House bill, particularly House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois and the House Intelligence Committee chairman, Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, say the reforms are in line with the September 11 commission recommendations. While they have expressed willingness to negotiate on some immigration provisions, it is still unclear which will make it into the compromise bill.

Advocates for immigration restrictions maintain the House provisions should be included in any effort to promote greater security. “The immigration provisions were included because the 9/11 report focuses very heavily on immigration,” said the director of government relations at Numbers USA, Rosemary Jenks. “The idea that Congress should not deal with it because it’s too controversial or there’s not time before the end of session is just absurd.”

The chairmen of the September 11 commission have said they would rather the House immigration proposals be left out of the intelligence reform bill. In a letter last week to Congress, they wrote, “It is not the right occasion for tackling controversial immigration and law enforcement issues that go well beyond the Commission’s recommendations.”

The White House weighed in with a letter saying the administration supports some of the immigration measures, including “efforts to enhance our ability to utilize efficient, flexible tools to keep out or remove convicted criminals and suspected terrorists who cannot be charged with criminal violations.” However, the letter said the administration “strongly opposes the overbroad expansion of expedited removal” and voiced concerns about provisions addressing asylum cases.

The families of September 11 victims and House Democrats have similarly blamed the added provisions as a smoke screen to prevent the passage of the legislation.

“The House bill’s extraneous provisions were not addressed by the commission, and the commissioners themselves said that,” said Rep. Carolyn Maloney, a Democrat of New York, in a statement. “I think the House Republican leadership, by advancing these provisions, is creating cover for their attempt to stop reform.”

For members of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, camped out at Ms. Maloney’s office, the experience had been a long and frustrating.

“Right now we’re stuck in limbo here. They’ve got the recommendations, but no action,” said Carol Ashley of Long Island, whose 25-year-old daughter Janice was killed in the September 11, 2001, attacks. “There’s no question that immigration is an important issue, but our thrust has been to get intelligence reform. Our concern with the immigration issue is that it is controversial and should not hold up this intelligence reform.”