Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-98-0438J-98-511 4/28/98 RESOLUTION NO. — 438 A RESOLUTION STRONGLY URGING THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO FIND A SOLUTION AND PROVIDE IMMEDIATE RELIEF FOR THE UNJUST IMMIGRATION PRACTICES AS IT PERTAINS TO THE HONDURAN PARENTS OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS; DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO IMMEDIATELY TRANSMIT A COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION TO THE HEREIN DESIGNATED OFFICIALS. WHEREAS, during the last decade, the United States sought an ally in which to set up military bases and intelligence operations in support of many of the countries in Central America in their struggle against cgmmunist backed insurrections; and WHEREAS, the country of Honduras aided the United States and permitted Honduras to become a mass complex of United States military bases; and WHEREAS, thousands of Honduran citizens were forced to flee their country in order to save themselves from physical harm and untold damages when those in opposition to the United States' policy entered Honduras; and WHEREAS, as a result, South Florida became a refuge for thousands of said Hondurans - a large percentage of whom reside in the City of Miami - who have established new lives by becoming CS'Y CO,MSSION MEE?ING OF APR 2 8 1998 Reolutum Pic. �ry w .3 8 hardworking, taxpaying, law abiding residents, and have given birth and raised their children in the United States; and WHEREAS, these children, by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, are citizens of the United States; and WHEREAS, a recently passed immigration bill known as NACARA, which was passed to help victims of Communism in Central America, somehow excluded relief for the exiled Honduran Community and took away certain forms of relief from deportation/removal that had been available to the parents of United States citizen children; and WHEREAS, the implementation of immigration laws as it applies to the parents of Honduran decent United States citizens, will cause certain United States citizens who are minor children to suffer extreme and unusual hardship resulting from the deportation of their parents and the separation of a family unit, and will violate said children's citizenship rights under the Constitution of the United States; and WHEREAS, the Miami City Commission strongly urges the government of the United States to find an immediate solution to the unjust immigration practices as it pertains to the Honduran parents of United States citizens; - 2 - 98- 438 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the Preamble to this Resolution are hereby adopted by reference thereto and incorporated herein as if fully set forth in this Section. Section 2. The Miami City Commission hereby strongly urges the government of the United States to find an immediate solution and provide relief to the unjust immigration practices as it pertains to the Honduran parents of United States citizens. Section 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to immediately transmit a copy of the herein Resolution to President William J. Clinton, Vice-President/Senate President Albert Gore, Jr., Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, United States Senators Connie Mack and Bob Graham, all the Florida members of the United States House of Representatives, Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Doris Meissner, Attorney General Janet Reno, and Robert Wallis, District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in Miami, Florida. Section 4. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption. - 3 - 98-- 438 PASSED AND ADOPTED this ATTEST: WALTER J. FOEMAN CITY CLERK APPROVED'AS 548:BSS 28th day of April , 1998. CORRECTNESS: JOE CAROLLO, MAYOR In accordance with Miami Code Sec. 2-36, since the Mayor did not indicate approve! of this legislation by signing it in the designated place provided, said legisiatior: now becomes effective with the elapse of ten (10) ys from the date of Co issicn action regarding same, without the Mayor ex rWa veto.,,--.,, , -7 , W he Joeman. City Clerk 4 - 98- 438 Litia of 'ffltanT. WALTER 1. FOEMAN City Clerk June 15, 1998 TO: William J. Clinton, President of the United States Albert Gore, Jr., Vice -President of the United States Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House Connie Mack and Bob Graham, United States Senators Florida members of the United States House of Representatives )OSE GARCIA-PEDROSA City Manager Doris Meissner, Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service Janet Reno, Attorney General of the United States Robert Wallis, District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (Miami, Florida) FR : Walter J. Foe i Clerk The City of Miami Commission, at its meeting of April 28, 1998, passed and adopted Resolution No. 98-438, which strongly urges the government of the United States to find an immediate solution to the unjust immigration practices as it pertains to the Honduran parents of United States citizens. The City Clerk has been directed by the Miami City Commission to transmit said instrument to you. OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/ 3500 Pan American Drive/P.O. Box 330708/Miami, FL 33233/(305) 250-5360/FAX: (305) 858-1610 CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO. The Honorable � or and Members of the GKZoAn ssion FROM Wifr0o (Willy) Gort Commissioner DATE April 28, 1998 SUBJECT Pocket Item REFERENCES. ENCLOSURES: FILE : I would like to bring up as a pocket item on the April 28, 1998, Commission Meeting, creating a resolution supporting a solution to the unjust immigration status of the Honduran Community residing in the United States and particularly in the City of Miami. Thank you for your cooperation. WG/kk DATA/HOND-Pt cc: Jose Garcia -Pedrosa, City Manager Alex Vilarello, City Attorney Walter Foeman, City Clerk 98-- 438 U.S. Department of Jus tce Immigration and Naturalization Service 425 I Street NW Washington, DC 20536 1808 Walter J. Foeman City Clerk Office of the City Clerk 3500 Pan American Way P.O. Box 330708 Miami, Florida 33233 Dear Mr. Foeman: This is in response to your June 15 submission to the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) of Resolution No. 98-438. The resolution, j passed by the City of Miami Commission, urges the United States government to find a solution to what the Commission deems unfair immigration practices in relation to Honduran nationals who are the parents of United States citizen children. It is the policy of the INS to review each case, on a case by case basis, of any individual who has been forced to seek the protection of the United States because of oppression, human rights abuses, and civil strife at home. Please be assured that these cases are afforded every consideration commensurate with current laws and regulations. The INS is committed to working with Congress, should Congress implement any law specifically for the benefit of Honduran nationals. If you have any further concerns regarding this or any other matter, please do not ltcsitate to contact this office. Sincerely, ')j -VIY Richard K. Rogers Acting Associate Commissioner Office of Field Operations LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART 21ST DISTRICT, FLORIDA� COMMITTEE ON \ RULES VICE CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON RULES AND ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON Congrezz of the Uniteb Otateg INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (SENIORITY RETAINED) �ouze of Repreantattbo wd5bington, De 20515—u09z21 July 6, 1998 Mr. Walter J. Foeman City Clerk City of Miami 3500 Pan American Drive P.O. Box 330708 Miami, Floriva 332133 Dear Mr. Foeman: PLEASE REPLY TO: WASHINGTON OFFICE: ❑ 404 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON,DC 20515-0821 (202)225-4211 DISTRICT OFFICE: ❑ 8525 N.W.53RD TERRACE SUITE 102 MIAMI, FL 33166 (305)470-8555 Thank you for forwarding me a copy of City of Miami Resolution No. 98-438, urging the U.S. government to find an immediate solution to unjust immigration practices toward Honduran nationals who have children born in this country. I appreciate hearing from you and share your concern. I will be sure to keep the City's views very much in mind should any related legislation come before me in the Rules Committee or on the floor of the House of �,epresentatives. Again, thank you for your bri attention. LDB:lcc Co Li resolution to my Balart PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JOSE LAGOS, as Guardian ad Litem) and Best Friend of ) Class Plaintiffs ) 9746 S.W. 24TH Street ) Miami, Florida 33165, ) BURIJ MUCHNIK, as Guardian ad ) Litem and Best Friend of ) Class Plaintiffs ) 9746 S.W. 24TH Street, ) Miami, Florida 33165, ) 193 John and Jane Does ) as follows: ) 98- 0220' CIV-NESB1 MKISTRATE JUDGE `" JOHNSON J. A. Doe l.; S. A. Doe 2.; C. A. Doe 3.; P. A Doe 4.; L.D.P.A. Doe 5.; Y.Y.A. Doe 6.; R.N.A. Doe 7.; C.A Doe 8.; G.S.A. Doe 8.; K.A.A. Doe 9; M.A.A. Doe 10; A.J.A. Doe 11; G.A. Doe 12.; M.N.G.A. Doe 13; A.A.B. Doe 14; R.A.B. Doe 15; J.L.B. Doe 16; S.M.B. Doe 17; D.B. Doe 18; R.E.B. Doe 19; R.E.B. Doe 20; V.M.B. Doe 21;K.K.V. Doe 22; A.S.G.B. Doe 23; I.C.C. Doe 24; J.A.C. JR. Doe 25; A.V.C. Doe 26; C.M.C. Doe 27; N.E.B.C. Doe 28; ;S.V.C. Doe 29; J.J.C. Doe 30; C.E.0 Doe 31; D.M.C. Doe 32; M.C. Doe 33; J.C. Doe 34; A.A.C. Doe 35; B.A.C. Doe 36; E.C. Doe 37; E.M.C. Doe 38; J.C. Doe 39; J.C. Doe 40; V.G.C. Doe 41; A.B.C. Doe 42; C.A.C. Doe 43; J.A.C. Doe 44; K.J.C.D Doe 45; E.G.D. Doe 46;M.D. Doe 47; S.D. Doe 48; A.J.D. Doe 49; R.D. Doe 50; A.D.E. Doe 48;G.C.E. Doe 49; G.J.E. Doe 50; J.A.E. Doe 51; J.J.F. Doe 52 ;S.M.F. Doe 53; J.A.R. Doe 54; J.L.C.F. Doe 55; V.R.C.F Doe 56; Y.G.Doe 57; E.S.G. Doe 58; A.J.G. Doe 59; M.J.G. Doe 60; J.G. Doe 61; J.A.G. Doe 62; K.E.G. Doe 63; K.G.Doe 64; A.D.G. Doe 64; C.G.G. Doe 65; C.A.G. Doe 66; C.J.G. Doe 67; S.B.H. Doe 68; C.J.H Doe 69; C.J.H. Doe 70; G.I-H Doe 71; H.R.H. Doe 72; J.P.H. Doe 73; M.E.H. Doe 74; M.H. Doe 75; N.H. Doe 76; J.H. Doe 77; J.H. Doe.78; J.H. Doe 79; J.C.H. Doe 80; K.L.H. Doe 81; F.A.J. Doe 82;J.A.J. Doe 83; I.E.J. Doe 84; D.M.J. Doe 85; M.J.L. Doe 86; C.R.O.L. Doe 87; J.O.L. Doe 88; J.X.L. Doe 89; O.L. Jr. Doe 90; N.J.L. Doe 91; E.R.L. Doe 92; N.Y.C.L. Doe 93; E.M.M. Doe 94; R.S.M. Doe 95; S.L.G.M. Doe 96; A.M.M. Doe 97; E.Y.M. Doe 98; E.M. Doe 99; J.C.M. Doe 100; L.M. Doe 101; M.M. Doe 102; Y.S.M. Doe 103; D.M. Doe 104; D.Y.M. Doe 105; F.M.E.M.M. Doe 106; M.L.M. Doe 107; A.M. Doe 108; N.V.M. Doe 109; S.M. Doe 110; S.M. Doe 111; B.M. Doe 112; E.M. 113; E.P.M. Doe 113; . R.P.M. Doe 114; A.M. Doe 115; B.M. Doe 116; A.J.M. Doe 117; W.M. Doe 118; A.E.M. Doe 119; M.M.M. Doe 120; E.F.N. Doe 121; A.R.V.O. Doe 122; 1 98- 438 R.Y.O. Doe 123; R.Y.O. Doe 124; G.E.O. Doe 125; J.D.O. Doe 126; J.M.O. Doe 127; _,I.Z.O. Doe 128; O.J.O. Doe 129; Y.S.O. Doe 130; C.O. Doe 131; K.A.P. Doe 132; M.M.P. Doe 133; V.D.P. Doe 134; G.J.P. Doe 135; G:Y.P. Doe 136; B.R.P. Doe 137; C.P.Doe 138; L.P. Doe 139; C.J.P. Doe 140; H.J.P. Doe 141; J.S.P Doe 142; O.G.P. Doe 143; E.R.P. Doe 144; E.I.P. Doe 145; E.I.P. Doe 146; J.J.R. Doe 147; D.G.R. Doe 148; R.R. Doe 149; S.R. Doe 150; B.R.Doe 151; K.J.M.R. Doe 152; R.M.M.R. Doe 153; W.M.M.R. Doe 154; R.N.T.R. Doe 155; C.R.T.R. Doe 156; J.Y.R. Doe 157; D.P.R. Doe 158; F.E.R. Doe 159; C.F.R. Doe 160; ^.Y.R. Doe 161; O.A.A.R. Doe 162; Y.A.R. Doe 163; C.R. Doe 164; M.R. Doe 165; A.R.R. Doe 166; E.A.R. Doe 167;M.L.R. Doe 168; S.R.R. Doe 169; O.S. Doe 170; D.J.S. Doe 171; M.N.S. Doe 172; A.G.S. Doe 173; K.Y.S. Doe 174; A.J.S. Doe 175; J.T. Doe 176; B.T. Doe 177; N.T. Doe 178;J.T. Doe 179; C.O.T. Doe 180; J.A.0 Doe 181; K.A.U. Doe 182; A.V. Doe 183; L.D.V. Doe 184; L.D.V. Doe 185; M.N.V. doe 186; D.N.V. Doe 187; C.M.F.W. Doe 188; B.A.Z. Doe 189; E.E.Z. Doe 190; E.E.Z. Doe 191; E.A.Z. Doe 192; F.Z. JR Doe 193; L.Z. Doe 194; L.Z. Doe 195; J.Z. Doe 196. individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, V. PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. CLINTON 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. Washington, D.C. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE 425 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20536 DORIS MEISSNER, Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service 425 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20536 JANET RENO 2 COMPLAINT -CLASS ACTION Civil Action No 98- 438 Attorney General united States Depart of Justice loth & Constitution Aves. N.W. Washington, D.C. R.OBERT WALLIS istrict Director 7080 Biscayne Blvd Miami, Florida Defendants. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY INJUNCTIVE AND MANDATORY RELIEF PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This action is brought on behalf of individuals who are minor united States citizens by birth pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment, such individual plaintiffs named as initialed and numbered Doe plaintiffs, whose parents are subject to deportation, and on behalf of Jose Lagos and Burij Muchnik as Guardians Ad Litem and Best Friends representing the interests of the minor United States citizen plaintiffs. Plaintiffs challenge the defendants' implementation of immigration laws as it applies to parents of United States Citizens where these minor children would suffer extreme and unusual hardship resulting from the deportation of their parents and possibly themselves or the separation of the family unit. Further, the plaintiffs contend that such deportation would unnecessarily place the United States minor citizen plaintiffs in a position whereby they could lose their citizenship. Defendants have adopted and applied a variety of laws, regulations a de facto policy of deportations the parents of U.S. 3 98- 438 citizens and their U.S. cit_zen minor children. The regulations and the de facto policy or practice adopted by the INS erroneously and -nlawfully interpret the rights minors of United States citizens pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The INS, as is reflected in the regulations and the de facto policy or practice, has failed to recognize that deportation of parents of minor U.S. citizens and the U.S. children themselves is a violation of rights of minor U.S. citizen children pursuant to the Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. The INS has failed to recognize that an individual who is born in the United States is a citizen but whose parents are deported/removed from the United States and/or they are de facto deported/removed from the United States suffers a gross violation of their citizenship rights under the Ninth, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. The challenged INA sections, INS regulations, their application, and de facto policy or practice of placing such INS laws and regulations over the Fourteenth Amendment is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. These illegal laws, regulations and de facto policy and/or practice have impeded and continue to impede the ability of people similarly situated to Lagos by and through non-profit organizations to effectively serve 4 • their clients, while at the same time educating them of their rights as citizens of the United States. The same illegal actions have directly injured individual plaintiffs. BACKGROUND During the decade of the eighties and nineties, war, both overt and covert was the nature of the day in Central America. The government of the United States was criticized on a world wide scale for what many perceived as support to repressive regimes against struggles for liberation. The United States asserted that their actions were directed against communist backed insurrections. The United States sought an ally in the midst of Central America and found its only one in the Country of Honduras. The United States set up military bases and a vast network of military and intelligence operations all of which stemmed from Honduras. As a result those in opposition to the policy of the United States entered Honduras, killed, harassed, threatened, injured, stole goods, burned houses and crops and raped its citizens and caused untold property damage. Additionally, the United States government responded in part by granting visitors visas to citizens of Honduras on a more generous basis than previously, in part, as a reward reciprocal trade off for allowing the United States to turn Honduras into a mass complex of U.S. military bases such as Palmerola, E1 Cisne, etc. Nevertheless the 5 wars continued and military actions continued to occur inside Honduras as it borders Nicaragua, E1 Salvador and Guatemala. Repressive governments and government agencies were permitted to flourish in Honduras with the overt and covert support of the United States of America. As a result human rights abuses occurred and thousands of Honduras fled their country for the safety of the United States. Thousands of children were born in the United States of America because their parents had to flee Honduras due to the war, danger and chaos that existed in their native country, to a great extent caused by the United States. Today approximately eighty thousand live land mines cover large sections of Honduras. The economy of Honduras lies in shambles. While conditions in the society at large lack proper educational, medical facilities and even adequate medical supplies. Nevertheless, the U.S. citizen children and their refugee parents from Honduras have established new lives in the United States and become productive citizens. The parents of these U.S. citizen children are hardworking, taxpaying and law abiding. These victims of war, in large part because they aided the United States are now faced with unjust deportation/removal of U.S. citizen children and their alien parents. These U.S. citizen children are now exercising their constitutional rights to save themselves and their parents from the abuses of the state. Recently a dramatic awakening has occurred within the Honduran community and the 0 98- 438 general public regarding the exile Honduran community due in part to the fact that they were excluded from a recently passed Immigration bill known as NACARA which proported to help victims of Communism in Central America. Additionally, the NACARA bill retroactively took away certain forms of relief from deportation/removal that had been available to the parents of these U.S. citizen children. The unconstitutional application of the INA and INS regulations to these minor U.S. citizen children has hindered and continues to be an obstacle to organizations such as the Honduran Unit of the Nicaraguan Fraternity in properly instructing these plaintiffs as to their rights. The INS does not treat these minor U.S. citizen children in the same manner as other minor U.S. citizen children. The plaintiffs assert that it is the intent of the defendants to discriminate against them on the basis of their national origin. JURISDICTION 1. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1361, and 8 U.S.C. § 1329. Plaintiffs' claim for declaratory relief are authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 2. An actual case and controversy exists between plaintiffs and defendants. The plaintiffs seek a declaration of their rights by the Court because defendants's laws, regulations and de facto policy or practice of deporting/removing their parents and/or 7 98- 438 themselves improperly and illegally restrict the scope and fullness of heir rights as citizens of the United States and precludes the plaintiff class members from obtaining and enjoying such rights, and the plaintiff guardian ad litem, Jose Lagos, from assisting individuals in their efforts to help such individuals to accomplish what they can as citizens of the United States. 3. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (e). PLAINTIFFS A. Guardian Ad Litem 4. Plaintiff Jose Lagos, ("Lagos") guardian ad litem and best friend, is a Honduran born naturalized United States citizen, who AftW resides in Miami, Florida and is over the age of twenty-one. 5. Lagos, as president of the Honduras Unit of the Nicaraguan Fraternity, Inc., a non-profit Florida corporation provides, among other things, counseling/orientation to the Immigrant community from Honduras. 6. Lagos, through the Honduran Unit has interviewed and counseled\oriented more than 300 hundred minor U.S. children and their parents. These children have a real and substantial fear that the defendants will abscond with their parents and deport/remove them from the United States to Honduras and/or some other foreign 'country. Lagos, president of the Honduran Unit, states that one hundred percent of the families whom have signed a 3 questionnaire regarding this class action suit have U.S. citizen born children while their parent(s) are subject to immediate incarcerationand ultimately deported/removal. Further, under current law and policy of the defendants it is estimated by Lagos that one hundred percent of the U.S. citizen children of this class would effectively be subject to involuntary deportation/removal from the United States of America; not by a legal process against those children; but by the removal/deportation of their parents. 7. The ability of Lagos through the Honduran Unit and it's staff to provide the Honduran community with accurate information about citizenship rights to it's minor U.S. citizen members and counsel them about these rights has been substantially impaired by confusion and uncertainty resulting from INS's practice of arresting, incarcerating and deporting/removing the parents of these U.S. citizen children and then the U.S. citizen children themselves. The Honduran Unit continues to face difficulties counseling and provide orientation to U.S. citizen children who seek advice about their ability to exercise any of their rights as United States citizens when they and their parents are at any moment subject tol immediate arrest, incarceration, deportation/removal. Further, the parents of the children have expressed their desire that law be appointed Guardian Ad Litem. 8. Lagos is now faced with the likelihood that many of these minor U.S. citizen members and their parents will be arrested, 9 98- 438 incarcerated and deported/removed. Lagos does not know how to counsel U.S. children as to their constitutional rights when they are subject to immediate arrest, incarceration and deportation/removal. Any investment of time or money in pursuing their constitutional rights will be futile since they are subject to immediate arrest, incarceration and deportation/removal. 9. Plaintiff Burij Muchnik, ("Muchnik") guardian ad litem and best friend, is a Honduran born naturalized United States citizen, who resides in Miami, Florida and is over the age of twenty-one. 10. Muchnik, as vice-president of the Honduran Unit of the Nicaraguan Fraternity, Inc., a non-profit Florida corporation provides, among other things, counseling/orientation to the Immigrant community from Honduras. 11. Muchnik, through the Honduran Unit has interviewed and counseled\oriented more than 300 hundred minor U.S. children. These children have a real and substantial fear that the defendants will abscond with their parents and deport/remove them from the United States to Honduras and/or some other foreign country. Lagos, president of the Honduran Unit, states that one hundred percent of the families whom have signed a questionnaire regarding this class action suit have U.S. citizen born children while their parent(s) are subject to immediate incarceration and ultimately deported/removal. Further, under current law and policy of the defendants it is estimated by Muchnik that one hundred percent of 10 the U.S. citizen children of this class would effectively be subject to involuntary deportation/removal from the United States of America; not by a legal process against those children; but by the removal/deportation of their parents. 12. The ability of Muchnik through the Honduran Unit and it's staff to provide the Honduran community with accurate information about citizenship rights to it's minor U.S. citizen members and counsel them about these rights has been substantially impaired by confusion and uncertainty resulting from INS's practice of arresting, incarcerating and deporting/removing the parents of these U.S. citizen children and then the U.S. citizen children themselves. The Honduran Unit continues to face difficulties counseling and provide orientation to U.S. citizen children who seek advice about their ability to exercise any of their rights as United States citizens when they and their parents are at any moment subject to immediate arrest, incarceration, deportation/removal. Further, the parents of the minor plaintiffs desire that Mr. Muchnik be appointed Guardian Ad Litem. 13. Muchnik is now faced with the likelihood that many of these minor U.S. citizen members and their parents will be arrested, incarcerated and deported/removed. Muchnik does not know how to counsel U.S. children as to.their constitutional rights when they are subject to immediate arrest, incarceration and deportation/removal. Any investment of time or money in pursuing 11 98- 438 their constitutional rights will be futile since they are subject to immediate arrest, incarceration and deportation/removal. B. INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS 14. S. F. A. Doe 1., is a minor child who is a citizen of the United States of America within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. He is the Child of parent(s) who are Citizen(s) of Honduras and who are illegally in the United States. Under current immigration law his parent(s) are subject to immediate arrest, incarceration and deportation/removal. He has exercised his deliberate decision to make the United States of America his home and has the constitutional right to do so. It is the best interest of the Child to remain in the United States. He asserts that only a totalitarian country would demand that he be forced to abandon his country of nativity. He would suffer extreme and unusual hardship if he and/or his parents were arrested, incarcerated and deported/removed from the United States. The child is not in violation of any immigration law. The arrest, incarceration and deportation/removal of his parent(s) and/or himself is not in the best interest of the child. If the parent(s) of this child were removed or deported from the United States he would have to inevitably abandon his country of nativity; de facto he would be deported without any due process rights to receive any form of relief under the Law.' There exists appealing and compelling humanitarian factors which would support a halt to any arrest, 12 98- 43,E incarceration and deportation/removal of his parent(s) and/or himself. The acts committed by the defendants as against the minor U.S. citizen children are based on their parents national origin and made with discriminatory intent. 15. The following children are also in the same conditions, predicament and situations as is S.F.A. Doe 1. Their names have been filed through seal but for the purposes of this complaint are as follows: J. A. Doe 1.; S. A. Doe 2.; C. A. Doe 3.; P. A Doe 4.; L.D.P.A. Doe 5.; Y.Y.A. Doe 6.; R.N.A. Doe 7.; C.A Doe 8.; G.S.A. Doe 8.; K.A.A. Doe 9; M.A.A. Doe 10; A.J.A. Doe 11; G.A. Doe 12.; M.N.G.A. Doe 13; A.A.B. Doe 14; R.A.B. Doe 15; J.L.B. Doe 16; S.M.B. Doe 17; D.B. Doe 18; R.E.B. Doe 19; R.E.B. Doe 20; V.M.B. Doe 21;K.K.V. Doe 22; A.S.G.B. Doe 23; I.C.C. Doe 24; J.A.C. JR. Doe 25; A.V.C. Doe 26; C.M.C. Doe 27; N.E.B.C. Doe 28; ;S.V.C. Doe 29; J.J.C. Doe 30; C.E.0 Doe 31; D.M.C. Doe 32; M.C. Doe 33; J.C. Doe 34; A.A.C. Doe 35; B.A.C. Doe 36; E.C. Doe 37; E.M.C. Doe 38; J.C. Doe 39; J.C. Doe 40; V.G.C. Doe 41; A.B.C. Doe 42; C.A.C. Doe 43; J.A.C. Doe 44; K.J.C.D Doe 45; E.G.D. Doe 46;M.D. Doe 47; S.D. Doe 48; A.J.D. Doe 49; R.D. Doe 50; A.D.E. Doe 48;G.C.E. Doe 49; G.J.E. Doe 50; J.A.E. Doe 51; J.J.F. Doe 52 ;S.M.F. Doe 53; J.A.R. Doe 54; J.L.C.F. Doe 55; V.R.C.F Doe 56; Y.G.Doe 57; E.S.G. Doe 58; A.J.G. Doe 59; M.'J.G. Doe 60; J.G. Doe 61; J.A.G. Doe 62; K.E.G. Doe 63; K.G.Doe 64; A.D.G. Doe 64; C.G.G. Doe 65; C.A.G. Doe 66; C.J.G. Doe 67; S.B.H. Doe 68; C.J.H Doe 69; C.J.H. Doe 70; G.I- 13 nn 98 — � H Doe 71; H.R.H. Doe 72; J.P.H. Doe 73; M.E.H. Doe 74; M.H. Doe 75; N.H. Doe 76; J.H. Doe 77; J.H. Doe 78; J.H. Doe 79; J.C.H. Doe 80; K.L.H. Doe 81; F.A.J. Doe 82;J.A.J. Doe 83; I.E.J. Doe 84; D.M.J. Doe 85; M.J.L. Doe 86; C.R.O.L. Doe 87; J.O.L. Doe 88; J.X.L. Doe 89; O.L. Jr. Doe 90; N.J.L. Doe 91; E.R.L. Doe 92; N.Y.C.L. Doe 93; E.M.M. Doe 94; R.S.M. Doe 95; S.L.G.M. Doe 96; A.M.M. Doe 97; E.Y.M. Doe 98; E.M. Doe 99; J.C.M. Doe 100; L.M. Doe 101; M.M. Doe 102; Y.S.M. Doe 103; D.M. Doe 104; D.Y.M. Doe 105; F.M.E.M.M. Doe 106; M.L.M. Doe 107; A.M. Doe 108; N.V.M. Doe 109; S.M. Doe 110; S.M. Doe 111; B.M. Doe 112; E.M. 113; E.P.M. Doe 113; R.P.M. Doe 114; A.M. Doe 115; B.M. Doe 116; A.J.M. Doe 117; W.M. Doe 118; A.E.M. Doe 119; M.M.M. Doe 120; E.F.N. Doe 121; A.R.V.O. Doe 122; R.Y.O. Doe 123; R.Y.O. Doe 124; G.E.O. Doe 125; J.D.O. Doe 126; J.M.O. Doe 127; M.Z.O. Doe 128; O.J.O. Doe 129; Y.S.O. Doe 130; C.O. Doe 131; K.A.P. Doe 132; M.M.P. Doe 133; V.D.P. Doe 134; G.J.P. Doe 135; G.Y.P. Doe 136; B.R.P. Doe 137; C.P.Doe 138; L.P. Doe 139; C.J.P. Doe 140; H.J.P. Doe 141; J.S.P Doe 142; O.G.P. Doe 143; E.R.P. Doe 144; E.I.P. Doe 145; E.I.P. Doe 146; J.J.R. Doe 147; D.G.R. Doe 148; R.R. Doe 149; S.R. Doe 150; B.R.Doe 151; K.J.M.R. Doe 152; R.M.M.R. Doe 153; W.M.M.R. Doe 154; R.N.T.R. Doe 155; C.R.T.R. Doe 156; J.Y.R. Doe 157; D.P.R. Doe 158; F.E.R. Doe 159; C.F.R. Doe 160; F.Y.R. Doe 161; O.A.A.R. Doe 162; Y.A.R. Doe 163; C.R. Doe 164; M.R. Doe 165; A.R.R. Doe 166; E.A.R. Doe 167;M.L.R. Doe 168; S.R.R. Doe 169; O.S. Doe 170; D.J.S. Doe 171; 14 98- 438 M.N.S. Doe 172; A.G.S. Doe 173; K.Y.S. Doe 174; A.J.S. Doe 175; J.T. Doe 176; B.T. Doe 177; N.T. Doe 178;J.T. Doe 179; C.O.T. Doe 180; J.A.0 Doe 181; K.A.U. Doe 182; A.V. Doe 183; L.D.V. Doe 184; L.D.V. Doe 185; M.N.V. doe 186; D.N.V. Doe 187; C.M.F.W. Doe 188; B.A.Z. Doe 189; E.E.Z. Doe 190; E.E.Z. Doe 191; E.A.Z. Doe 192; F.Z. JR Doe 193; L.Z. Doe 194; L.Z. Doe 195; J.Z. Doe 196. DEFENDANTS 16. President William Jefferson Clinton ("Clinton"), is the President of the United States of America. 17. Defendant, Immigration and Naturalization Service, ("INS") is an agency of the United States Department of Justice charged with enforcing the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), U.S.C.§ 1101 et. sea.. 18. Defendant, Janet Reno, ("Reno") is the Attorney General of the United States. Pursuant to § 103 of the INA (8 U.S.C. § 1103), she is charged with administering and enforcing all laws relating to immigration and administering and enforcing all laws relating to immigration and naturalization, and with controlling, directing, and supervising the INS. 19. Defendant, Doris Meissner, ("Meissner") is the Commissioner of the INS. Pursuant to § 103 or the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1103, and C.F.R. § 2.1, she is authorized to direct the administration of the INS, to enforce all laws relating to the immigration and naturalization of aliens, and to issue regulations 15 98- 438 implementing the INA, and the amendments thereto contained in the IRCA. 20. Defendant, Robert Wallis, ("Wallis") is the District Director in the Miami, Florida office of INS. He is responsible for implementation of INA, INS rules and regulation in Florida. CLASS ACTIONS ALLEGATIONS 21. Individual plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a),23(b)(1)(B), and 23(b)(2). The plaintiff class consists of: All U.S. citizen children, past and future, A) Who: 1) Are minor United States Citizens; and 2) Whose Honduran parent(s) are subject to deportation\removal. 22. The requirements of Rule 23 (a), Rule 23 (b)(2) and 23(b)(1)(B) are satisfied in this case. Upon information and belief, the class consists of at least several hundred persons and therefore so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. 23. There are questions of law and fact common to members of the class. The common questions of law include whether INA Sections 241(a)(2) and 241(a)(1)(B) as amended regarding admission under section 101(a)(15) of the Act, its application, and the challenged INS de facto policy or practice: (A) violate class 16 98- 438 members' right to equal protection guaranteed in the Fifth amendment of the United States Constitution; (B) violate class members' right to personal rights that are fundamental liberty rights guaranteed in the Ninth Amendment of the United States Constitution; and O violate class members' rights as citizens of the state of Florida. The common questions of fact include whether the INS has a de facto policy or practice of denying the aforementioned constitutional rights to members of the plaintiff class. 24. The claims of the representative parties named above, are typical of the claims of the class members. 25. The above named plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class. They are represented in this suit by counsels whose experience includes: (1) substantial federal court litigation, and (2) representing individual clients and assisting non-profit organizations on immigration law issues. 26. The prosecution of separate actions would adversely affect absent class members because adjudication of the rights of named members of the class will, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of all class members. Furthermore, the defendants are acting or refusing to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief and corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class a whole. 17 98- 43S CONSTITUTIONAL\STATUTORY VIOLATIONS 27. The declaration of citizenship of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution of the United States is incorporated in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 at section 301(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1401(a)(1). 28. The challenged Section 241(a)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act), as amended, in that after admission as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15) of the Act, and Section 241(a)(2) of the Act and the de facto policy or practice of deporting/removing the parent(s) of minor U.S. citizen children and also U.S. citizen children on the basis of the parent(s) immigration status are inconsistent with the incorporation of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States into the Immigration and Nationality Act at section 301(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1401 (a) (1) . EQUAL PROTECTION VIOLATIONS 29. Upon information and belief the INS has not applied the principles of deporting\removing the parents of minor U.S. citizens and such minor U.S. citizen children to other U.S. citizen children. 30. The INS through its application of the aforementioned sections of the INA, and the challenged de facto policy or practice violate the applicants' right to equal protection guaranteed to them under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 18 1 2 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO THE PLAINTIFF CLASS 31. The defendants' actions in the case of named plaintiffs, above provide representative examples of the INS's unlawful implementation of Section 241(a)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act), as amended, in that after admission as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15) of the Act, the plaintiffs' parents have remained in the United States for a time longer than permitted and Section 241(a)(2) of the Act, in that the plaintiffs' parents entered the United States without inspection without taking into consideration the reasons for such over stays or entry without inspection or the best interest of the minor United States citizen children. 32. All of the named plaintiffs are minor United States citizen children. Their parent(s) are subject to immediate arrest, incarceration, and deportation/removal and thus by default the plaintiffs are subject to removal/deportation. 33. None of the plaintiffs have broken any immigration laws. 34. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief from this Court because there are no adequate remedies at law to redress their injury. Many of those class members above the age of seven live in a constant atmosphere of fear of the state who may arrive and at any moment arrest their parent (s), incarcerate them and deport/remove them and the plaintiffs. Given such conditions many of the class members are deterred from pursuing activities of other 19 98- 438 similarly situated U.S. citizen minor children. Nor are they able to enjoy their lives, liberties and their pursuit of happiness in the same manner of other such children whose parents are of a different alienage. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief from this Court to vindicate the rights of these individuals as well to avoid otherwise irreparable injury. COUNT ONE Immigration and Nationality Act 35. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 to 33. 36. Defendants unlawful INA sections, their application, and the INS de facto policy or practice of deporting/removing minor U.S. citizen children through the removal/deportation of their parent(s) violates the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs, is not in their best interest and are an abuse of authority, unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious when viewed in the context of the plaintiffs' constitutional rights. COUNT TWO Equal Protection 37. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 to 33 above. 38. Defendants' challenged Immigration and Nationality Act Sections 241(a)(2) and 241(a)(1)(B) as amended under section 101(a)(15), its application, and the INS de facto policy or 20 98- 438 practice of arresting, incarcerating, deporting/removing the parent(s) of minor U.S. citizen children and ultimately, de facto, deporting/removing minor U.S. citizen children violates the rights of the plaintiff class members to equal protection under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. COUNT THREE Ninth Amendment 39. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 to 33 above. 40. Defendants' challenged Immigration and Nationality Act sections 241(a)(2) and 241(a)(1)(B) as amended under section 101(a)(15), its application, and the INS de facto policy or practice of arresting, incarcerating, deporting/removing the parent(s) of U.S. citizens minor children and ultimately deporting/removing minor U.S. citizen children violates the rights of the plaintiff class members to the concepts of liberty which protects personal rights that are fundamental. COUNT FOUR TENTH AMENDMENT 41. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 to 33 above. 42. Defendants' challenged Immigration and Nationality Act sections 241(a)(2) and 241(a)(1)(B) as amended under section 101(a)(15), its application, and the INS de facto policy or 21 98- 438 practice of arresting, incarcerating, deporting/removing the parent(s) of minor U.S. citizens children and ultimately, de facto, deporting/removing minor U.S. citizen children violates the rights of the plaintiff class members to protect their rights as citizens of the state of Florida. COUNT FIVE DISCRIMINATION 43. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 to 33 above. 44. Defendants' challenged Immigration and Nationality Act sections 241(a)(2) and 241(a)(1)(B) as amended under section 101(a)(15), its application, and the INS de facto policy or practice of arresting, incarcerating, deporting/removing the parent(s) of minor U.S. citizens children and ultimately, de facto, deporting/removing minor U.S. citizen children violates the rights of the plaintiff class members to be protected from discrimination on the basis of national origin. TRIAL BY JURY 45. Plaintiffs demand trial by jury of all counts where permitted by law. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that this Court grant the following relief: 22 38- 438 1. Assume jurisdiction over this action; 2. Declare INA section 241(a)(2) and 241(a)(1)(B) as amended under section=31(a)(15), its application, and the INS de facto policy or practice of arresting, incarcerating, deporting/removing the parents of minor U.S. citizen minor children and ultimately, de facto, deporting/removing minor U.S. citizen children as unconstitutional, because both violate the equal protection guarantees of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution; the plaintiffs' rights under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. 3. Declare that plaintiff class members are entitled to remain in the United States of America as full citizens of the United States, and that they shall remain here with their parent(s), and that they and their parent(s), shall work and live here as free people and that those detained are set free. 4. Enjoin the INS from applying INA section 241(a)(2) and 241(a)(1)(B) as amended under section 101(a)(15), its application, and the INS de facto policy or practice of arresting, incarcerating, deporting/removing the parents of minor U.S. citizens minor children and ultimately, de facto, deporting/removing U.S. citizen children. 5. Permanently enjoin the defendants from engaging in discriminatory acts against U.S. citizen children based on their parents national origin. 23 98- 438 6. Issue further necessary and proper relief and other forms of relief as are just and appropriate; and 7. Award reasonable attorneys fees and costs to plaintiffs; 8. Retain jurisdiction over this case in the event additional relief or action by the Court is required. VERIFICATION I, Jose Lagos, hereby verify that to the best of my knowledge and belief all matters contained in the above Class Action Verified Complaint for Declaratory, Injunctive and Mandatory Relief are true and correct. By: )-�4 �L DOSE LAGOS STATE OF FLORIDA ) )ss COUNTY OF DADE ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 3rd day of February, 1998 by JOSE LAGOS, who is personallOntiR�i)ca.ion to me or has presented as a photograp is i and who did/didnot take an oath. , #Ott,*, tIR`�OJOONZ"LEZ 111N e /P ed Name Mr co@wr we+oo 004=767 B L I C,Ecmbw Nov. 15, IMBondedbyM TE OF FLORIDA AT eoa+r2-ISW GE MyCommission Expires: I, Burij Muchnik, hereby verify that to the best of my knowledge and belief all matters contained in the above Class 24 98-- 438 Action Verified Complaint for Declaratory, Injunctive and Mandatory Relief are true and correct. 11��\\ By: Burij c ik STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) ss COUNTY OF DADE ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 3rd day of February, 1998 by Burij Muchnik, who is persona y n to me or has presented as a photographic identification, and who did/did not take an oath. iQZet!j IRVING J OONZALEZ Z-� My Conwninnion CC42DM E�iee Nov. 16,1998 Bonded by MM � 'aZ;e e00•422-ISM My Commission Expires:, Respect I in J s. Gonz � t orne r PI�Ain4�f� Florida ar No. 806810 444 Brickell Avenue, Suite 928 Miami, Florida 33131 (305)374-4343 fax(305)374-4348 Michael FeldenkraisQ.�� ly submitted, Attorney for Plaintiffs Florida Bar No. 991708 12000 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 220 Miami, Florida 33181 (305) 892-9565 fax(305)892-9562 25 e d/P me ame RYE OF RIDA AT E (VU�Agrzs �" AlforWo Oviedo Reyes Attorney for Plaintiffs Florida Bar No. 0478172 8370 W. Flagler Street, # 110 Miami, Florida 33144 (305)221-6422 fax(305) Aej� 9 45wy Melanie R. Bradyky Attorney for Plaintiffs D.C. Bar No. 448984 Dorsey & Associates 400 Seventh Street, N.W. # 200 Washington, D.C. 20004 (202)347-9000 fax (202)347-8857 Donald L. Schlemmer D.C. Bar No. 414582 1815 H St. N.W.,"Suite 1110 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 833-9696 fax (202)463-3040 26 98- ` 'j8' UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR r SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORID a CASE NO. 98-022 )-CIV-NESBITT JOSE L AGOS, et al. Iaitlticf, VS PRE. :DENT WILLIAM J. CLINTON, at ;al ORDER THIS CAUSE -is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion f )r Protective Order to Allow • 1naiVK3Ua1 Named Plaintiffs to Proceed Anonymously, fried February 3,1998. Having reviewed the pi,-adtngs filed incident to this matter and being otherwise du y advised in the premises. it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that said motion is GRANTED at this time and without prejudice to the right of Defendants to request the right.to be hear, i on this issue at a later riate. Accordingly, at this time and by virtue- of this Order, the individ°ial named Plaintiffs sh , 0 ; allowed to proceed anonymously and the Court hereby issues a Pt otective Order prohibiting the corrummir-ation -of -aykiantifying detailsAs to the individual. name i.Plainfiffs' identity to anyone outside of the CourL DONE AND ORDERED on February�V, 1998, in Chambf rs, at Miami, Florida. LINNEA R. JOHNSOt I UNITED STATES MA 3ISTRATE JUDGE CC: The Honorable Lenore C. Nesbitt Counsel of Record 98 r,.438 r UNITED 'TATES DISTRICT COUR r SOUTHL.. I DISTRICT OF FLORID a CASE NO. 98-022i)-CIV-NESS117 .DOSE LAC:OS, at a(, Plaintiff, PRLSIUCN i WILLIAM J. CLINTON, Defendant. i ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal, filed Febfi-iE ; 1999. Having reviewed the pleadings fried incident to this matter and being otherviise r:,.;i-, advisLd in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that said motion is GRANTED. DONE AND ORDERED on February 9, 1998, in Chart bers, at Miami. F',-vid a. LINOEA'R. JOHNS04 UNITED STATES WGiSTRATE•JUDGE CC: The Honorable Lenore C. Nesbitt Counsel of Record 98- 48