The loophole was exposed in June of 2003 by the General Accounting Office. If an alien's visa is revoked on terrorism grounds after the alien reaches U.S. soil, the wording of the visa revocation makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to deport the suspected terrorist. Following that, Grassley wrote to the State Department, requesting it change the policy and fix the problem. House and Senate Committees held hearings on the matter last year as well.
In a separate hearing in July 2003, Under Secretary of Homeland Security Asa Hutchinson pledged to Grassley that the Homeland Security Department would issue regulations to change language that would enable authorities to deport aliens whose visas have been revoked on terrorism grounds as soon as a memo of understanding with the State Department was finalized. The memo was signed Sept. 29, 2003, and since then, the Department of Homeland Security has had control over visa policies and procedures.
"How long can we continue to allow this kind of Washington, DC bureaucratic nonsense? It's been 365 days too many. This kind of inaction undermines public confidence in our government's ability to protect its citizens," Grassley said.
A copy of Grassley's letter follows here.
June 22, 2004
| The Honorable Tom Ridge Secretary Department of Homeland Security Washington, D.C. 20528 |
The Honorable Asa Hutchinson Under Secretary Border and Transportation Security Department of Homeland Security Washington, D.C. 20528 |
Dear Secretary Ridge and Under Secretary Hutchinson:
I write with frustration, concern and worry about the Homeland Security Department's progress, or lack thereof, in fixing the legal loophole of visas revoked on terrorism grounds – a loophole that threatens our national and homeland security. Specifically, it is extremely difficult to detain and deport suspected terrorists whose visas have been revoked on terrorism grounds after those persons have set foot on U.S. soil. The difficulty stems from the wording on the revocation certificates, which are issued by the State Department. However, by law, the Department of Homeland Security has policy authority over visa issuance.
I have been pressing your department for the last year to make simple changes in the wording of visa revocation certificates so that we can question, detain, or deport foreigners whose visas have been revoked for terrorism reasons. It is amazing to me that such a simple and straightforward solution to such a dangerous and well-known problem continues to languish in the slow-moving bureaucracy. Promises were made, but the promises have not been kept. As a result, we continue to be at risk.
On June 17, 2003, a GAO report revealed that suspected terrorists can stay in the country after their visas have been revoked on terrorism grounds 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. I wrote a letter to the Department of State on June 23, 2003, and both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees held hearings on the matter last year.
Some of us in Congress expected the government to fix this problem immediately, especially after GAO brought it to the attention of your department and other agencies. Perhaps this expectation was naive. More than a month after the GAO report and the hearings on the matter, I pressed the issue further with Under Secretary Hutchinson during a July 23, 2003 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.
After I outlined the problem and asked Mr. Hutchinson if your department was going to fix the problem, he stated:
"I agree with you and you have my assurance that we're going to work to fix that problem. You have correctly stated the issue. The State Department can revoke a visa on information that they have, at their discretion. If the individual is already in the country, there is a more difficult process for Department of Homeland Security to go through the process to order their removal. But it would be helpful to us, and we've talked to the Department of State about this, that the revocation include that they no longer have authority to stay in this country. That would assist us in the removal process."
Mr. Hutchinson said your department could not yet fix the issue because visa policy authority has not yet been transferred from the State Department to your department, even though the change was mandated by the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which was signed on November 25, 2002. He further stated at the hearing, "So I believe that we're going to be very shortly in a position to issue regulations on this matter." (Emphasis added).
It was not until September 29, 2003 that your department and the Department of State signed a Memorandum of Understanding that transferred visa policy to your department. I anticipated the simple administrative fix, re-writing the revocation certificate, as the GAO recommended, would come soon after.
But since then, my staff has inquired with your staff at least four times. Your staff said they were working on it. On May 20th, a member of your department confirmed that a regulation was written and being circulated internally.
But, here we are – a year after the GAO first revealed the loophole – and it appears that the problem still has not been solved. I fear that the phrase "very shortly," in Mr. Hutchinson's words, means a year or so in the jargon of the federal bureaucracy. Your department faces far more complicated challenges to our security than this one, so this lack of progress is worrisome.
Please tell me when and how the Department of Homeland Security plans to fix this loophole. I would also appreciate receiving a copy of the revocation certificate with its new language as soon as it is finalized. If the loophole persists, Congress can and will take legislative action to fix the problem. I would appreciate a response by July 6, 2004.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley
United States Senator