WASHINGTON – Senator Chuck Grassley today said during debate in the U.S. Senate that he’s working to close a loophole that allows an alien to stay in the country after their Visa has been revoked on terrorism charges.
Under current law, visas approved or denied by consular officers are non-reviewable and are deemed final. However, if a visa is approved but later revoked, and that individual is on U.S. soil, the decision by the consular officer is reviewable in U.S. courts. Grassley’s amendment would treat visa revocations similar to visa denials because the right of that person to be in the United States is no longer valid.
“We need to make sure that we’ve closed all loopholes that terrorists may use to stay on American soil,” Grassley said. “It seems like a no-brainer that we would do everything possible to keep terrorists from exploiting our laws.”
Grassley said that his amendment would constrain terrorist travel, which is one of the key goals of the 9/11 Commission. The Commission report states that AThe United States should combine terrorist travel intelligence, operations, and law enforcement in a strategy to intercept terrorists, find terrorist travel facilitators, and constrain terrorist mobility.@
Grassley has been working on this issue since the Government Accountability Office exposed the loophole in June 2003. The report said that if an alien's visa is revoked on terrorism grounds after the alien reaches U.S. soil, the wording of revocation papers makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to deport the suspected terrorist. This loophole came to light after the GAO found that more than 100 persons were granted visas that were later revoked because there was evidence the persons had terrorism links and associations.
A fix was included in the immigration bill that passed the Judiciary Committee in 2006, but a compromise bill was never agreed to by a joint House-Senate conference committee.
Here’s a copy of Grassley’s floor speech from today.
Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley
Speaking on the Visa Revocation Amendment
Friday, March 2, 2007
Mr. President,
I would like to offer amendment number 300. This amendment would revise current law related to visa revocations for visa holders who are on U.S. soil.
Under current law, visas approved or denied by consular officers are non-reviewable and are deemed final. However, if a visa is approved but later revoked, and that individual is on U.S. soil, the decision by the consular officer is reviewable in U.S. courts. My amendment would treat visa revocations similar to visa denials because the right of that person to be in the United States is no longer valid.
Why is this important to do?
Consider visa revocations related to terrorism.
From September 11, 2001 to the summer of 2003, the State Department revoked about 1,200 visas based on terrorism links.
I asked Secretary Chertoff about the problems with our current law on visa revocations. Let me quote what he said yesterday:
“The fact is that we can prevent someone who's coming in as a guest. We can say, "You can't come in overseas," but once they come in, if they abuse their terms and conditions of their coming in, we have to go through a cumbersome process. That strikes me as not particularly sensible. People who are admitted as guests like guests in my house -- if the guest misbehaves, I just tell them to leave; they don't get to go to court over it.”
We can equate the role of home owner to that of a consular officer. Currently and historically, all decisions by consular officers with regard to the granting of visas are final and not subject to review. Revocations shouldn’t be treated differently.
Let me explain how we got here.
Back in 2003, a GAO report revealed that suspected terrorists could stay in the country after their visas had been revoked on grounds of terrorism because of a legal loophole in the wording of revocation papers. This loophole came to light after the GAO found that more than 100 persons were granted visas that were later revoked because there was evidence the persons had terrorism links and associations.
The FBI and intelligence community suspected ties of terrorism of over 280 visa applications. The FBI didn’t share the information with our consular officers in time. So, the consular officers granted the visas. When they got the derogatory information from the FBI, it was too late. The consular offices had to revoke the visas.
What the GAO found was that even though the visas were revoked, immigration officials couldn’t do a thing about it. They were handicapped from locating the visa holders and deporting them. In the end, it turned out okay, but it’s an example of the mistakes that can be made. It’s also an example of the loophole that terrorists can exploit.
Why are revoked visas such a problem?
The short answer is that the persons with a revoked visa can stay in the United States and can appeal the consular officer’s decision. Thanks to a small provision inserted during consideration of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, the visa holder has more rights than he or she should. If they were originally denied a visa by the consular officer, there’d be no right to dispute it.
Let me give you an example.
A consular officer grants a visa to a person, and that person makes his or her way to the United States. After arriving in the U.S., a consular office finds out that the foreign individual has ties to terrorism.
Maybe the consular officer found out that the visa holder attended a terrorist training camp. Or, maybe the intelligence community just informed the consular officer that the visa holder was linked to the Taliban. Or, maybe our government just learned that the visa holder gave millions of dollars to a terrorist organization before they applied for a visa.
Whatever the case may be, the person shouldn’t have a visa and the consular office has to revoke it. This revocation should be the final determination – no ifs, ands or buts about it. It shouldn’t be reviewable, especially in the U.S. courts.
What are the ramifications of this current law?
The ability to deport an alien on U.S. soil with a revoked visa is nearly impossible today if the alien is given the opportunity to appeal the revocation. This exception has made the visa revocation ineffective as an anti-terrorism tool.
Allowing review of revoked visas, especially on terrorism grounds, jeopardizes the classified intelligence that led to the revocation. It can force agencies such as the FBI and CIA to be hesitant to share information. Current law could be reversing our progress on information sharing.
Why is this relevant to the bill on the floor?
The 9/11 Commission found flaws with our visa policies. Specifically, the staff report said:
· That the 19 hijackers used 364 aliases;
· 2 of the hijackers may have obtained passports from family members working in the Saudi passport ministry;
· That the 19 hijackers applied for 23 visas and obtained 22;
· The hijackers lied on their visa applications in detectable ways;
· The hijackers violated the terms of their visas; and
· They came and went at their convenience.
Now, the leaders of the Senate claim that the underlying bill will finish the implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. The floor manager on the other side of the aisle was quoted as saying, “Every day that we don't act is another day in which we are not as secure here at home as we should be.”
The 9/11 Commission pointed out the obvious by stating that “terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country.” The 9/11 Commission explicitly recommends – on page 385 -- that
A
The United States should combine terrorist travel intelligence, operations, and law enforcement in a strategy to intercept terrorists, find terrorist travel facilitators, and constrain terrorist mobility.
@
This amendment helps achieve this goal. Intelligence officials need to share information with immigration and consular officers to prevent terrorists from entering the United States and to impede their mobility.
The Speaker in the House pointed out that “implementing the 9/11 Commission's recommendations is supported by 62 percent of Americans.” I think a higher percentage of the American people would agree that reforms to our immigration and visa policies should not be ignored, especially given that the 9/11 Commission recommended action on these issues.
Unfortunately, our leaders have forgotten a major recommendation by the 9/11 Commission. This amendment would constrain terrorist travel, and it should be accepted today on this bill.
Allowing aliens to remain on U.S. soil with a revoked visa or petition is a national security concern, and something that the 9/11 Commission would suggest is needed. We must encourage, as the 9/11 Commission recommended, a procedure in which our intelligence community can work with consular officers who then cooperate with our nation's law enforcement.
We should not allow potential terrorists and others who act counter to our laws to remain on U.S. soil and run to the courts and seek relief from deportation.
Terrorists took advantage of our system before 9/11. We can’t let that happen again.
I hope my colleagues will support my amendment.
-30-