HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-96-0948J-97-32
12/30/96
RESOLUTION N09 9 L U
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION URGING
THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION TO RECONSIDER THE
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION
SERVICE'S POLICY OF DEPORTING ALL CUBAN NATIONALS,
INCLUDING THOSE CLAIMING POLITICAL ASYLUM IN THE
UNITED STATES, WHO ILLEGALLY ENTER INTO THE UNITED
STATES' TERRITORY AFTER DECEMBER 6, 1996, AND TO
CONTINUE EVALUATING THE SITUATION OF THOSE
CLAIMING POLITICAL ASYLUM, ON A CASE -BY -CASE BASIS,
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUBAN ADJUSTMENT ACT OF
1966; DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO TRANSMIT A COPY
OF THIS RESOLUTION TO THE WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF '
STAFF AND DIRECTOR OF THE IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION SERVICE.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The Miami City Commission hereby urges the Clinton Administration
to reconsider the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service's Policy of
deporting all Cuban Nationals, including those claiming political asylum in the United
States, who illegally enter into the United States' Territory after December 6, 1996, and to
continue evaluating the situation of those claiming, political asylum, on a case -by -case
basis, in accordance with the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966.
Section 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a copy of this Resolution
to the White House Chief of Staff and the Director of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service.
Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.
CITY COM USSION
MEETING OF
DEC 3 0 1996
Resolution No.
960948
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO. Honorable Mayor and DATE; December 23, 1996
FILE:
Members of the City Commission
SUBJECT:
Pocket Item
FROM: Vice Mayor Tomas Regalado REFERENCES:
ENCLOSURES:
The Commission of the City of Miami, would like to express it's concern with regard to
the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service's policy of deporting Cuban
nationals who illegally enter into United States' territory after December 6, 1996. The
City of Miami Commission absolutely supports the United States laws, and the practice
of deporting illegal aliens, especially those who have committed crimes within United
States territory. Our concern is that despite an unresolved situation in Cuba, the Clinton
Administration has denounced the long standing policy comprised within the framework
of the Cuban Adjustment Law of 1966. This law, that empowered Cubans with legitimate
claims of political persecution, has been abolished despite the Cuban Adjustment Act
remaining in effect.
We call upon the Clinton Administration to direct the INS to evaluate each case
individually, in an attempt to determine if the Cuban Adjustment Act may be applied
when deciding the outcome of some cases.
FAM
WALTER J. FOEMAN
City Clerk
op
i
rSK, 9� EDWARD MARQUEZ
c Mill! !V,I Ct City Manager
.. f VAS.
March 19,1997
Doris H. Meissner, Commissioner
Immigration & Naturalization Service
425 Eye Street Northwest
Washington, D.C. 20536
RE: Resolution #96-948
Dear Commissioner Meissner:
The City of Miami Commission, at its meeting of December 30, 1996, passed and adopted
Resolution No. 96-948, and requested the City Clerk to transmit said instrument to you.
Attached hereto, please find the above -cited Resolution, which is self-explanatory.
sp ctfuily submitte
alter F an
City Clerk
Enc. Reso. #96-948
OFFICE OF THE CITY r 13500 Pan American Drive/P.O. Box 330708/Miami, FL 33233/(305) 250-5360/FAX: (305) 858-1610
WALTER ). FOEMAN
City Clerk
1
c.�J' of
�o
March 19,1997
Erskin Bowies
Chief of Staff
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest
Washington, D.C. 20500
RE: Resolution #96-948
EDWARD MARQUEZ
City Manager
Dear Mr. Bowles:
The City of Miami Commission, at its meeting of December 30, 1996, passed and adopted
Resolution No. 96.948, and requested the City Clerk to transmit said instrument to you.
Attached hereto, please find the above -cited Resolution, which is self-explanatory.
Respe tfuily submitted,
Iter J. F
City Clerk
Enc. Reso. #96-948
f'
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/ 3500 Pan American Drive/P.O. Box 330708/Miami, FL 33233/(305) 250-5360/FAX: (305) 858-1610
�i
LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART
215T CISTRICT, FLORIDA
COMMITTEE ON
RULES
VICE CHAIRMAN,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
RULES AND ORGANIZATION
OF THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
ISENIORITV RETAINED)
Dear Friend:
r
i C
Ji.. .
Congrezz of the Uniteb *tateg
wouze of AeprezrntatibO
Wa*110011, MSC 20515-0921
December 9, 1999
PLEASE REPLY TO:
WASHINGTON OFFICE:
❑ 404 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 20515-0921
(2021225-4211
DISTRICT OFFICE:
❑ *25
�M 53RD TERRACE
() ��
%JMITE 102
M1Afil, FL 3 V
r
(M 470 15r.
('7
z
<
cY
z
Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding your
views on immigration. Given your interest in the topic, I wanted
to share with you an article which appeared in the
November/December 1999 issue of the Florida League of Cities
publication, Quality Cities. I look forward to your continued
input on immigration as well as other issues you wish to bring to
my attention.
The Importance of Immigration to Florida
The United States is a nation of immigrants and Florida continues to be a gateway for welcoming
newcomers to this great land. As immigration laws, which are passed and executed at the federal level,
change, Floridians must be aware of how federal guidelines may affect state and local programs and
services. Florida has now become the fourth most populous state, with almost a fourth of our residents
being foreign -born. There is much to be learned from our diverse immigrant heritage and I would like
to review some recent changes as well as current proposals that will have major impacts on our state.
In 1996, the primary U.S. immigration law, the Immigration and Nationality Act which was
enacted in 1952, underwent serious and significant alterations due to the combined effects of welfare
reform legislation (the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation" law) and
immigration legislation (the "Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act", IIRIRA.)
I did not support either of these bills, specifically because of the unfair treatment of legal immigrants that
I felt would result from the laws' implementation.
The welfare law of 1996 barred legal immigrants from receiving Food Stamps and SSI. Many
needy immigrants --such as the elderly and infirmed-- depend on food stamps and SSI as their primary
means of subsistence, I worked with the House leadership, the Budget Committee and the Ways and
Means Committee to ensure that as many needy immigrants as possible would be able to continue to
receive vital SSI assistance by including in the 1997 Balanced Budget Act (P.L. 105-33) the restoration
of SSI for those legal immigrants who were receiving benefits on August 22, 1996, when the ban became
law, and for those who were here then and later become disabled. On May 15, 1997, 1 offered an
amendment to legislation then being considered by the House in order to extend SSI and Medicaid
coverage for legal residents and my amendment was adopted by an overwhelming vote of 345-74.
I also worked to restore food stamp eligibility for immigrant children, elderly, or disabled persons
who were in the U.S. before the 1996 law (P.L. 105-195). Without this federal assistance, the state and
local governments could have been faced with a tremendous challenge to provide scarce resources to this
This mailing was prepared, published and mailed at taxpayer expense.
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
[i
Page Two
needy population.
An unfortunate consequence of the 1996 IIRIRA put many Central Americans who were already
present in the United States in legal limbo for their immigration status. During the 1980s, thousands of
Nicaraguans, Salvadorans and Guatemalans fled conflicts in their homelands, and put down roots in this
country, many by starting businesses and contributing to the U.S. economy and local communities. The
1996 Immigration Law retroactively imposed a yearly cap of 4,000 on suspensions of deportation --
including those that were filed for in the 1980s. Thus, even if they met all requirements to be able to
stay here in the U.S., hundreds of thousands of Central Americans would no longer be able to stay here.
It was my opinion that this retroactive application violated due process and penalized immigrants who had
received formal assurances from the Reagan, Bush and Clinton Administrations that they could stay while
their applications were backlogged at the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
To remedy this situation, House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Lamar Smith and I began
discussions on possible legislative solutions, and with the assistance of Senator Mack, Senator Abraham
and other colleagues, I formulated the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act
(NACARA). This legislation was included in the District of Columbia Appropriations Law in 1997 (PL
105-100), and it granted permanent residency to Nicaraguans and Cubans who arrived before December
1995, and allows Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and Eastern European refugees who had fled communism,
to avoid deportation and have their cases heard under the law as it existed before IIRIRA .
In the spirit of NACARA, I have introduced in the 106th Congress, legislation to grant similar
relief to address the immigration difficulties faced by Peruvians and Colombians who had to flee their
homelands due to the violence caused by Marxist terrorists. This bill, the Andean Adjustment Act, H.R.
2741, has the support of numerous colleagues and has generated a great deal of interest. I look forward
to working to move this legislation in the second session of the 106th Congress.
Yet another unfair consequence of the 1996 Immigration Law was to, in effect, retroactively
change the penalties for crimes committed prior to the law's enactment. The 1996 law broadened the
category of deportable crimes and made immigrants subject to deportation without a hearing, even if they
had committed relatively minor crimes decades before. In most cases, the immigrant has already served
his or her time for the crime, thus paying what was considered at that time appropriate punishment. And
yet this person, due to the changed definitions in the 1996 law, is now subject to deportation without a
hearing.
For example, a gentleman who committed a teenage prank in 1968, who served his time, and has
since established strong community ties and owns a business in Michigan, is being deported due to the
changed definitions included in the 1996 law. This gentleman is being deported for something that
happened 30 years ago, and after he had served his time and is now a rehabilitated, productive member
of his community. This is just unfair.
To help alleviate this aspect of the 1996 law, I have joined with my fellow colleague from
Florida, Congressman Bill McCollum, to introduce the Fairness for Permanent Residents Act, legislation
which restores due process for permanent resident aliens who have committed non-violent crimes in the
past that IIRIRA retroactively made deportable without the right to a hearing.
We are not advocating the release into our society of criminals who have committed violent acts
and clearly remain a threat. We simply wish to restore fairness to our system by allowing immigrants
1i
�1
4
` Page Three
who were convicted of certain crimes prior to the 1996 law to have the Attorney General review their
case.
In addition, I have co-authored legislation sponsored by Mr. McCollum to reduce the income
requirement on a sponsor trying to bring in a family member, as long as the immigrant has a job offer.
IIRIRA requires U.S. permanent residents and U.S. citizens who petition for an immediate relative to
permanently immigrate to the United States to submit a legally binding "Affidavit of Support" and have
an annual household income that is 125 % above the poverty guideline. It is difficult for many immigrant
families to meet this threshold especially if the family is separated.
Since the implementation of this measure, there has been a significant increase in the denial of
permanent immigrant visas to the United States, causing an unfortunate burden on family reunification.
While we continue to discourage immigrants from becoming a public burden, it is important that we not
penalize hard working families that seek reunification. Our legislation offers a fair alternative to the
current problem by reducing the poverty guideline threshold to petition for an immediate relative to enter
the United States from 125 % to 100%-, provided that the applicant obtains a letter securing employment
for a minimum of one year for the intending immigrant, maintains the Affidavit of Support legally
binding, as established in IIRIRA; and keeps the threshold at 125 % if a letter of employment is not
provided for the immigrating family member.
Florida has been a destination for immigrants since before the United States was a country. From
St. Augustine, our nation's oldest permanently settled European city, to Miami, a city much closer
geographically to Havana than to Tallahassee, our state has been and continues to be a fascinating and
favorite place for immigrants. It is important that we keep in mind that the United States of America was
founded by immigrants --people fleeing political and religious oppression, hoping to find a better life here.
I am proud of both our nation and our state's immigrant heritage and will continue to work toward justice
in the treatment of immigrants.
Cord' lly,
incoln Diaz-Balart