Category: Uncategorized

by Sarah Boone

Ever since Jay Johnson-Castro learned about the other-than-Mexican immigrants (OTMs) being detained at Rolling Plains Prison in Haskell, I’ve been trying to comprehend how the salt-of-the earth, God-fearing, family-centered people, who reside in this part of Texas allow the inhumane mistreatment of the ICE ‘prisoners,’ most of whom are seeking political asylum. I know this part of Texas well – prior to my husband’s death in 1999, I was ‘married to’ it for 38 years.
This week, in an online Abilene Christian University report entitled “Haskell County Economic View Book,” I realized my feminine intuition was correct. “It’s all about money.” The most revealing information in the report was ‘no information,’ as data regarding numbers of employees, salaries, etc., for the prison was ‘suppressed’ throughout.

Like many counties in Texas’ rolling plains, there has been a decline in population as family farms have disappeared and income is lower than the state average. When the study was produced in 2004, there were no higher education programs available in the county, and there was a smaller percentage of college degree-holders than the average Texas County, while there was a higher than average percentage of high school graduates.

The study states that ‘rural communities should carefully monitor declines and develop long-term strategies to retain population.’

Based on above data, is a privately run prison a good strategy for Haskell County since there has been a significant migration in the 24-45 age group to seek better employment (more money)?

Does the prison require a college degree for most positions? Graduation from high school?

In 2004 why did the County export more workers to surrounding counties than it imported – – would this information be correct if the suppressed’ data about the prison had been available?

Was the prison responsible for a 6% increase in employment in the county in 2003 and a 5.4% increase in 2004? If not, what was?

Why was information ‘suppressed’ regarding employers with more than 100 employees? What employers other than the prison would have had more than 100 employees? The City of Haskell? Haskell County? (Only a hospital was shown as having more than 100.)

With a 75% Anglo population (smaller families) and an increasing population of those 54 and older, there’s a predicted low growth rate – unless there are jobs to keep the younger residents at home.

Will prison jobs keep them there? Will prison jobs provide adequate income for the 20% of the county’s population living below the poverty level?

The following quote from the study provides some answers: “Haskell County economic growth is limited by its slow-growing population, but unincorporated in both the population and many of the economic figures, however, is the prison, which added jobs in 2002 and represents a major gain for the county.”

Thus one has to wonder if jobs and money have bought the silence of the Haskell County residents, who go to church on Sunday and pray for forgiveness for their sin of omission (or is it commission) for allowing immigrants, just like their forefathers, to be mistreated, abused, and treated inhumanely?

Sarah Boone is a retired banking executive from the Dallas area who now serves as innkeeper at the Villa Del Rio Bed and Breakfast.

By Greg Moses

SaveTexasReps / ILCA Online /
Indymedia Austin / Houston / North Texas / L.A.

The three-ring binder known as the Bettencourt Audit is as thick from cover to cover as my middle finger is long from tip to knuckle. Named after Harris County Voter Registrar Paul Bettencourt, the elected Republican official whose office put it together, the audit contains 167 cases of alleged illegal voting in the contested race for Houston’s House District 149. On Dec. 20, 2004, it was handed over to the Harris County District Attorney.

Although officials say the Bettencourt Audit was nothing but a routine report, no different from any post-election review of voting irregularities, questions about the audit remain. For one thing, it is not yet clear that any other report from the Harris County Voter Registrar has ever targeted voters in a specific election contest. For another thing, it is not clear how the Republican Voter Registrar for Harris County decided to produce an accelerated report that would be turned over to the District Attorney in time to have influence in an ongoing election contest.

Questions about the Bettencourt Audit remain important if one follows the claim of Republican attorney Andy Taylor, who repeatedly argued that, “every Texan has an interest in the outcome of this race.” Not only does every voter have an interest in the outcome of election contests, but every voter has an interest in the way evidence is gathered when one party to an election contest charges publicly that the race was stolen by illegal votes. Should a partisan allegation of widespread illegality be considered enough to activate collection of evidence by a Voter Registrar who then turns over that evidence to the local District Attorney?

In the context of an election contest, the precedent of the Bettencourt Audit raises serious questions that should be addressed before there is a next time. In effect, such a report by an official government agency makes it easier for partisan attorneys to target voters for subpoena during an election contest, even if the investigation shows that voters were not trying to deceive anyone when they returned to their old neighborhoods on election day.

According to the letter of transmittal from Bettencourt to the Harris County D.A., the ‘review of election materials’ from Texas House District 149 was conducted pursuant to Texas Election Code 15.028, which reads as follows: “If the registrar determines that a person who is not a registered voter voted in an election, the registrar shall execute and deliver to the county or district attorney having jurisdiction in the territory covered by the election an affidavit stating the relevant facts.”

As a result of his review of precincts in House District 149, Bettencourt says in the cover memo that he found four voters not registered; two cancelled registrations; five registrations cancelled out of county after the election from provisional ballots; 139 voter registrations cancelled out of county after reviewing statements of residency filed by voters; one voter registration cancelled for lack of citizenship; and 16 voters who went to the wrong precinct. That’s how 167 illegal votes were identified by Bettencourt on Dec. 20.

No indictments came from the Bettencourt Audit, although the D.A.’s Division Chief for Public Integrity Donna Goode says that she and her investigator did treat the book seriously. ”Most election code violations aren’t what they appear to be,” says Goode via telephone from her Houston office. “The voters didn’t do anything deceptive.” The version of the book that was archived in the election contest by Republican attorney Andy Taylor contains mostly photocopies of Statements Of Residency (SOR) filled out on election day by voters who had moved away from Harris County, but who returned there to vote. However, some forty names appear to be missing from the archived version.

”Both sides already have it,” said Taylor on Jan. 27, 2005 as he introduced the hefty sheaf of papers into evidence during the opening hours of the legislative hearing. Democrat attorney Larry Veselka objected that the report had some errors in it, that it contradicted in some places the findings of Republican attorneys, and that it offered lots of redundant material. But legislative Master of Discovery Will Hartnett (R-Dallas) accepted the materials as Heflin Exhibit 283. As a public record subject to impeachment, as a snapshot of a certain date, and as an analysis conducted by the Harris County Voter Registrar, Hartnett ruled that the documents had some relevance worth considering.

Veselka was correct to notice that the Bettencourt Audit contained a substantial amount of “redundant” evidence gathered against the voters of House District 149. Of the 167 voters named in the report, at least 125 would find themselves listed in the final report of the legislative challenge, at least 90 would eventually be served with subpoenas to reveal their votes, and of those, at least 73 would see their votes deducted from the election. In the end, 31 voters from the Bettencourt Audit would see their ballots subtracted from Republican Talmadge Heflin. And another 42 voters would see their votes taken away from Democrat Hubert Vo, winner of the original election, the recount, and the legislative challenge. So we might say the Bettencourt Audit changed history by taking at least eleven votes away from Hubert Vo. No biggie, perhaps.

Director of Voter Registration for the Harris County Tax Collector’s Office George Hammerlein explained via telephone on Mar. 7 that the Bettencourt Audit should be considered as no different than any “poll book audit” that is routinely conducted after every “major election” and that a countywide review is still underway. To get an idea about how “routine” was the referral to the District Attorney’s Office of 167 voters in a single election contest, the Texas Civil Rights Review has filed an Open Record Request with Hammerlein, asking for copies of cover memos from other “poll book audits” that have been similarly forwarded for prosecution since 2000. We will post the results of that request when they become available.

Hammerlein explains also that special attention paid to HD 149 voters was prompted partly by phone calls “from both campaigns” looking for information about particular voters and partly by a request from Master of Discovery Will Hartnett (R-Dallas) who, according to Hammerlein, said he would “appreciate you frontloading the research” for the race. [We have been unable to confirm that claim with Hartnett, who said in an email of March 10 that he first heard of the audit after it was issued. Hartnett also said he thinks the audit was part of Bettencourt’s duties and served a helpful purpose.] Meanwhile, says Hammerlein, “we probably won’t segment anything else.” In other words, only the voters of House District 149 will be getting special treatment from their Voter Registrar’s office this year.

Comparing names from the Bettencourt Audit with names that made the final report in the legislative election contest, it appears that Republican attorneys did much better scoring hits with illegal voters when using names matched to the Bettencourt Audit than when using names that fell outside the audit’s list. Out of a total of 268 ‘problematic’ voters listed in the final report of the legislative c
hallenge, 68 were ruled legal by M
aster Hartnett. That’s a 25 percent miss rate. But among 125 names that were imported into the hearing from the Bettencourt audit, there were only nine legal voters found. That leaves 59 legal voters among the 143 names that still remain outside the Bettencourt Audit, a miss rate of 41 percent.

Chasing down illegal voters in the race for House District 149 was a very sloppy business when not assisted by the Voter Registrar’s own audit. The list may have had flaws and at times contradicted the Republican case, as Democrat attorney Veselka warned, but it was a list not nearly as flawed or contradictory as the one that attorneys generated all by themselves. Careful consideration of the Bettencourt Audit yields the interesting conclusion that the further attorneys strayed from it, the more desperate their search came to be.

Once again, we make reference to the “deportation” of District 149 voters into another district. Two voters who were victim to this scheme filed provisional ballots that clearly explained they were victims of a scheme, and those ballots were accepted by Harris County voting authorities. Yet along comes Andy Taylor who scoops these voters up into his net of alleged illegal voters, along with plainly written evidence that they were victims of unknown others, not perpetrators of voter fraud.

As we have reported, Hartnett called up at least one of these voters at home and ruled they were legal voters. But why did things get that far in the first place? The version of the audit that Taylor placed into the record does not include these names, although Taylor’s argument during the hearing indicates that one of the voters may have been flagged as not registered, leading investigators to the spouse.

How else were voters identified for pursuit? I find three other examples where one spouse is identified in the Bettencourt audit, but both spouses end up in the final report. Two of the couples in question are identified through depositions as Vo households. The third couple was not deposed. So this is one way that subpoenas might be served next time this sort of thing is done. Attorneys can just match spouses to voters flagged by the Voter Registrar.

Cautionary evidence regarding the relationship between the Voter Registrar’s Office and partisan attorneys also comes from two cases where attorneys affected official records while the election contest was underway.

Consider the case of a voter who turned 18 last Sept. On Oct. 3 she filled out her first-ever voter registration and mailed it the next day, forgetting to check the citizenship box. On Oct. 17, she filled out another form, and again forgot the citizenship box. Finally, on election day, she got the form filled out right and her vote was accepted. During the legislative hearing, attorney Taylor said that the Bettencourt Audit had flagged the voter as not registered (although the pertinent pages appear to be missing from the report we viewed at the archives.) Yet in public records posted by the Voter Registrar’s Office on Jan. 9, the voter continued to be listed as eligible.

Attorney Veselka introduced the public record from the Harris County Voter Registrar’s web page dated Jan. 9, 2005 showing that our first-time voter was considered registered as of Oct. 31, just in time to vote.

”Okay, so how does contestant respond to that?” Master Hartnett asked Taylor during the afternoon hearing of Jan. 27.

”They updated their records,” explained attorney Taylor. “We demonstrated that [the voter] was not registered to vote.”

The debate about the voter went back and forth for twenty-five minutes, much to the amusement of Hartnett, who is caught grinning from ear to ear as he listens to Taylor explain the fine points of the ten-day rule or “relation back doctrine” which must be strictly interpreted to dis-allow the voter’s late attempt to re-register in time for the election. But the important admission had already been made for the record. Taylor told Hartnett flat out that Republican attorneys “demonstrated” to the Voter Registrar’s Office that the voter should be considered illegal.

Said Democrat attorney Larry Veselka, the Bettencourt records of Jan. 9 showed that the voter was effectively registered. “And but for them [the Republican attorneys] going back for this proceeding and trying to get records changed, it would still be that way.”

Sometime between Jan. 9 and Jan. 26, the online records were changed to reflect new effective dates for her voter registration. A voter registration that on Jan. 9 (three weeks after the Bettencourt review) had been listed effective as of Oct. 31, 2004 was by Jan. 26 changed to reflect an effective date of Nov. 24. That vote was eventually deducted from the Vo column by Master Hartnett. Two phone calls were not able to reach the voter, and I doubt I will try again.

In another case of changing records, a 24-year-old woman registered to vote on Sept. 21, 2003. According to notes that I took at the archives, she filled out a “new registration” with her name and address, but failed to check the citizenship box. In August 2004 (why the eleven month gap?) she was notified by mail to complete her registration, so she sent it in again, forgetting once more to check the citizenship box, which had been moved outside the form field containing all other questions. Finally on Oct. 22 she got the box checked properly and she voted on election day 2004.

A Dec. 7 record from the Voter Registrar’s online database showed the voter registered as of Jan. 1, 2004. ”This is a muddle,” complained Hartnett, as attorney Taylor explained that he was simply looking at a “photograph of facts prior to rejection of the registration.” Taylor encouraged Hartnett to focus on the significance of the rejection letter of August. But on Dec. 7 the voter was still listed as registered. ”Maybe they have updated their records,” added Taylor as he walked casually to the Master’s bench and handed over a Jan. 26 printout showing an effective registration date, not of Jan. 1, but of Nov. 12, not eleven months prior to the election, but ten days too late. At which point Hartnett could not suppress a laugh. Said Taylor quietly, “I think I said yesterday that Mr. Bettencourt’s office constantly updates his records.” To which Hartnett responded without looking up, “Sure!.” And Veselka quipped, “Particularly as it pertains to this race!” In the end, Taylor succeeded in having the vote deducted from the Vo total.

After a couple of phone calls to the voter’s house, I can tell you that she is not much interested in talking about all this. And I’m probably not going to try again. But it is interesting to see how a voter can submit at least three registrations prior to election day, be listed in good standing in early December, and then see her records “updated” by the Voter Registrar’s Office during the course of a legislative contest.

Here we have two young voters, both women, who filled out three consecutive registrations each, who were allowed to vote, and who were at one point officially listed as registered on election day. Both women saw their voter registration records changed by the Voter Registrar and their votes deducted from the Vo column. The plain explanation for this is the one offered by Republican attorney Andy Taylor during live broadcast, that his partisan team of advocates was allowed to “demonstrate” the fine-print technicalities of these cases to the Voter Registrar while an election contest was underway.

As for serious questions that should be asked about the existence of the Bettencourt Audit in the first place, we’ll wait to see the history of materials routinely given to the Harris County District Attorney by the Voter Registrar. For our part, the matter of the Bettencourt Audit is a case not yet closed.

“I feel like I’m on a merry-go-round!” declared Hartnett as he considered the shifting evidence of a voter whose

records passed from legal to illegal during the month of January. That merry-go-round is the one that spins us all a little too quickly whenever the distinction between partisan advocate and official record-keeper gets blurred during the course of an election contest. The Bettencourt Audit and the shifting records of the Bettencourt database are signs of a merry-go-round between partisans and officials that should not be spun in times of election contest. To paraphrase “Sheriff” Andy Taylor, “every voter has an interest in this.”

The above story includes passages from a previous article entitled “Notes from the Bettencourt Audit”, adds information from telephone interviews, and attempts to sharpen questions important to the Texas Civil Rights Review. Several revisions posted on March 8 update details and issues in two cases of voter records that were changed during the election contest for Texas House District 149. In those cases, the account has been augmented by review of the archived broadcast of the hearing. Furthermore, all numbers assessing the impact of the Bettencourt Audit on the final legislative report should be considered both preliminary and low, since there were about 40 names missing from the copy of the Bettencourt Audit that we examined in archives. For the same reason, any assumptions about names missing from the Bettencourt Audit must also be discounted pending review of a fuller record.

For the past month or so we’ve been meaning to get around to this — thanking “The Mexico Trucker” for giving us a front page link. Friends like this remind us what the internet is making possible. If you don’t know about “The Mexico Trucker” we’d encourage you to check it out. The following paragraph from “The Mexico Trucker” entry on “The Geopolitics of Dope” is just one example of how a working mind works–gm

“The U.S. border with Mexico has been intermittently turbulent since the U.S. occupation of northern Mexico. The annexation of Texas following its anti-Mexican revolution and the Mexican-American War created a borderland, an area in which the political border is clearly delineated but the cultural and economic borders are less clear and more dynamic. This is the case with many borders, including the U.S.-Canadian one, but the Mexican border has gone through periods of turbulence in the past and is going through one right now.”

Note: the Texas Civil Rights Review would like to thank Laura Mszar, media aide to Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX) for supplying the transcript.

The complete context of the hearing is instructive. For example, one Congressman supports one private bill, because siblings of the petitioner have been granted status. Yet, when it comes to the case of Mr. Neza, the same Congressman does not seem to place equal weight on the fact that Rrustem’s brothers have been granted asylum.

On the other hand, the same Congressman is raising interesting questions about what DHS calls “inconsistencies” in Mr. Neza’s record. And it is troubling to see how Congressmen are unable to secure records of Mr. Neza’s case for their own critical review.

For readers who want to focus on the Neza materials, TCRR has put into bold type the sentence that opens the discussion of Rrustem Neza’s case–gm

CONGRESSIONAL TRANSCRIPTS
Congressional Hearings
Feb. 26, 2008

House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law Holds Markup of Immigration Relief Legislation

LOFGREN:

The committee will come to order. We welcome everyone.

Today the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law will entertain motions to request U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement report on three private bills, H.R. 1485, H.R. 4070, and H.R. 5221. We will also mark up H.R. 2760.

Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a (inaudible) subcommittee.

Pursuant to those, the chair calls up H.R. 1485, a private bill for the relief of Esther Karinge. The chair calls up the bill for purposes of requesting a department report from the U.S. and Immigrations Customs Enforcement or ICE.

Esther Karinge was born in Kenya on April 24, 1962. She came to the United States on September 30, 1994, to escape persecution in her home country.

She subsequently applied for asylum but that claim wound its way through the administrative process until it was finally denied in 2003.

Prior to denial, Esther has been allowed to remain in the country (inaudible) of removal which DHS has granted annually. Esther’s son, Nicholas, was born in Cambridge, Massachusetts on September 2, 1995, with multiple birth defects. He suffers from severe physical and mental disabilities including cerebral palsy, spastic quadriplegia, hearing loss, and development delays.

On learning of these birth defects, Nicholas’ father abandoned the family, leaving Esther as Nicholas’ only parent and caretaker. As a result, Nicholas is completely dependent on Esther for survival. He needs to continue medical care, required (inaudible) from a specialist.

He has made significant improvements. The doctors believe any progress will be lost if he were to return to where such services are not available to him.

Nicholas’ removal to Kenya or separation from his mother would have serious detrimental impacts on his development and, according to his doctors, he might not survive if he were taken back to Kenya.

While he has exceeded doctor’s expectations with treatment within the U.S., the treatment he depends on for survival is not available. Doctors also believe that separating Nicholas from his mother would be emotionally devastating and potentially life-threatening because of his mental and physiological disabilities.

One of Nicholas’ specialists knows that children separated from their parents (inaudible) syndrome which can include deterioration of physical and mental health.

H.R. 1485 appears to present the only hope for Esther and Nicholas to stay in this country where Nicholas can get the help he needs to survive.

I now recognize our ranking member, the gentleman from Iowa , Steve King, (inaudible).

KING:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I support requesting a DHS report for Esther Njeri Karinge. Esther was born in Kenya in 1962. She came to the United States in 1994 and applied for asylum in 1997. Her asylum request was denied in 1998.

Esther’s son, Nicholas, was born in Massachusetts in 1995 with multiple birth defects. He continues to suffer from several severe physical and mental disabilities including cerebral palsy, spastic quadriplegia, hearing loss, and developmental delays.

Upon learning of these birth defects, Nicholas’ father abandoned the family, leaving Esther as Nicholas’ only parent and caretaker. Nicholas is completely dependent upon Esther.

He needs continuous medical care and requires medical management from numerous specialists.

There is fear that taking him back to Kenya will eliminate the sophisticated therapy that is Nick’s lifeline to diminishing the effects of cerebral palsy on his development.

He’s now receiving services in, arguably, the finest settings available in the world. Without these interventions, this extremely bright boy would be unable to navigate either physically or linguistically.

His potential which, with continued therapy and education is limitless, will be drastically curtailed should current interventions be terminated.

Due to the severity of Nicholas’ medical condition, DHS has granted Esther stays of removal. The most recent stay of removal expires this month.

Esther filed an extension request in November 2007 with DHS but has not yet received a decision.

There’s ample precedent in the modern era for the enactment of private bills where the alien’s U.S. citizen family member suffered serious illnesses which would be exacerbated if the aliens were returned home or the U.S. citizens accompanied them home.

A private bill was enacted in the 104th Congress for an alien who had earlier been deported to Mexico for marriage fraud. Before his deportation, he married his second wife in a legitimate marriage and they had two children.

His wife and one of their children were carriers for Ryders Syndrome, a severe disabling and curable arthritic disease which could be triggered by an intestinal infection with an organism widespread in Mexico. Thus, they risked serious injury by joining him in Mexico.

The private bill waived the grounds of inadmissibility for marriage fraud.

The House report stated that this legislation acknowledges the previously set precedent in private legislation that separation due to medical circumstances is viewed at satisfying the standard of extreme hardship to an American citizen.

Additionally, in the 106th Congress, a private bill was enacted granting permanent residence to an alien whose petition for permanent residence filed by his U.S. citizen wife had been denied because of marriage fraud in his first marriage.

The INS believed the second marriage was valid. The alien’s U.S. citizen wife had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and her doctor indicated that she might rapidly deteriorate as a result of any type of severe stress.

I urge my colleagues to support a request for a DHS report.

And I thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.

LOFGREN:

The gentleman will yield back because we have a working forum but not one sufficient for a vote. I will call for the yea’s and nay’s.

We will defer this vote until after the first vote on the floor of the House where we will meet in the Rayburn Room.

We now move to H.R. 4070. Pursuant to notice, I call up H.R. 4070, a private bill for the relief of Rrustem Neza.

I call up the bill for the purpose of requesting a department report from ICE.

I will note, however, that we have had a discussion. We have communicated extensively with both of the minority and the majority on these private bills, and we have asked that ICE defer any action on this bill until early April so t

hat the ranking member might have an opportunity to (inaudible) of the decisions of the brothers (inaudible).

So if we receive word that that deferral is agreed to, then we will just reagendize this if necessary. However, if we do not get that insurance, then we will have a vote on this matter (inaudible) options that we have not (inaudible) back from ICE.

I thank you very much, Mr. Gohmert.

And Mr. Neza was born in Albania on February 18, 1975. He entered the U.S. on January 27, 2001 to escape (inaudible) asylum.

According to the documents in his file, he has gone public with information concerning the (inaudible) of a close aide to the prime minister.

(Inaudible) were murdered for the knowledge of the assassination, and the two brothers fled Albania, received asylum in the U.S. Fearing for his life, Rrustem first fled to Belgium and later to join his brothers in the U.S.

Despite the fact that his two brothers obtained asylum in the country, however, his claim for asylum, which was based on the same set of facts, was denied. Due to this and other factors, there’s reason to believe that Rrustem (inaudible) during his asylum proceedings.

And there appears to be a reasonable belief that he bases the fascination (inaudible) Albania.

H.R. 4070 may represent his only opportunity to stay in the U.S.

And I would now recognize ranking member (inaudible).

KING:

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am going to agree with the description of these proceedings as you have laid them out in your statement.

And I want to express my reservations. And that is that it would be a precedent to overturn the appeals board’s decision. And this gentleman has had a hearing, and he’s had an appeal. In both cases, they found against his asylum.

But the distinctions in this case come to the evidence or information that one of his two brothers, who has been granted asylum, was a witness of an assassination and that two of his cousins were then subsequently killed that were, apparently, not witnesses to the assassination but family members of the witness to the assassination.

I have my concerns about the inconsistencies that may be in his record, that apparently are. And I have my concerns about not having, at this point, access to the hearing records and the transcript of that hearing.

I am interested in reading those transcripts and becoming familiar with the information and to be able to identify just what inconsistencies there are. And I know that there is at least one of them that is inconsistent that isn’t rational if he was seeking to defeat the system unjustly.

So I appreciate the patience here on the part of the chair and Mr. Gohmert.

I believe that I have an obligation to scrutinize these private bills as they come before this committee in a fashion without regard to who might be advancing them, but simply — or the names that are on there — but the evidence that is before us.

And so we have an opportunity to do that, and I certainly don’t reject the opinions that have been presented here. And I call upon the Department of Homeland Security to suspend any deportation until such time as we have had an opportunity to review those records and for this subcommittee to act on this request as a private bill.

So with that, Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

LOFGREN:

The gentleman yields back. I yield to Mr. Gohmert.

GOHMERT:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I won’t take much time other than to say, as usual, I have the same concerns as my friend Mr. King.

Our ranking member of the overall committee has concern about precedents being set.

My feeling is in a case in which I personally have come to a reasonable belief that a man is in jeopardy of being murdered by his own country, then I don’t have a problem filing a private bill and pushing that to try to help them avoid that situation.

I have such a reasonable belief in this case. I appreciate Mr. King’s concern and interest in wanting to get all the information before making a decision.

So I am OK with waiting so long as Homeland Security is not going to pull him out like they did last week, apparently, to this time give him the injections and then ship him off.

I don’t think that we should be sedating people just so they don’t cry on the way going back to the murdered.

I appreciate the chair’s assistance, (inaudible), and patience. I appreciate it very much (inaudible) who wants to try to avoid (inaudible) being done in this case.

I don’t want the Congress (inaudible) Homeland Security could be blamed. But, ultimately, (inaudible) certificate (inaudible) executed (inaudible) to an innocent.

LOFGREN:

The gentleman yields back. The chair will now entertain a motion to request a report from ICE on the private bill.

A voting quorum not being present, we will postpone further proceedings on this bill until after the first vote in the Rayburn Room.

Pursuant to notice, I call up H.R. 5243, a private bill for the relief of Kumi Iizuki-Barcena.

I call up the bill for the purpose of requesting a department report from ICE.

Ms. Iizuki was born in Japan on October 28, 1965. She entered the United States in 1992.

While in the U.S. , she met and fell in love with Andrew Barcena, a U.S. citizen. She married Andrew on July 29, 2004, while he was training police officers through the El Paso Police Department.

Two weeks later, Andrew filed immigration petitions for her based on their marriage. A little over one month later, Andrew was shot and killed while attempting to subdue an aggressive spouse during a domestic disturbance and died before DHS could process and improve the immigration file on behalf of his wife.

Due to the circumstances, DHS granted Kumi deferred action to continue to care for Andrew’s father, who was diabetic and who suffered partial paralysis due to a stroke.

As if she had not experienced tragedy enough, less than two years after Andrew’s death, she was diagnosed with breast cancer for which she required two rounds of surgery as well as chemo and radiation therapy.

It appears that H.R. 5243 is her only opportunity to remain in the United States.

I now recognize our ranking member, Mr. King.

KING:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I support requesting a DHS report for Kumi Iizuki.

Kumi was born in Japan in 1965. She entered the United States on a student visa in 1992 and received a bachelor’s degree from West Virginia Wesleyan College and a master’s degree from the University of Hartford.

In ’98, Kumi began working for Elcom, Inc. on an H1B Visa.

In ’04, she married Andrew Barcena, a U.S. citizen, and he filed a petition for personality residence for Kumi.

Andrew was training to be a police officer for the El Paso Police Department. He graduated from the police academy in August of ’04, but just one month later, he was shot and killed while attempting to subdue an aggressive spouse during a domestic disturbance call.

Andrew died before DHS could process and approve Kumi’s immigration petition. Upon his death, the petition expired.

However, DHS granted Kumi deferred action status along with employment authorization so that she could continue to care for Andrew’s father, who was a diabetic and suffers partial paralysis due to a stroke.

In ’06, Kumi was diagnosed with breast cancer. DHS recently extended Kumi’s grant of deferred action until next February.

There’s ample modern error precedent for the private bill. Congress has often looked favorably on private bills where the alien spouse of an American citizen wants the right to immigrate because of the death of the Amer

ican citizen before the approval of the petition for conditional permanent residence for the alien.

Congress has also passed private bills where the beneficiary was the spouse of a U.S. citizen or legal alien who died while in service to the United States such as the military or the State Department.

This was a police department. It also fits within that category.

I urge my colleagues to support this request for a DHS report, and I yield back.

LOFGREN:

The gentleman yields back.

The chair will entertain a motion to request a report from ICE offered by the gentleman from Iowa.

A voting quorum not being presently, we will postpone further proceedings on this bill.

Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 2760, a private bill for the relief of Shigeru Yamada for the purpose of markup.

CLERK:

H.R. 2760, a bill for the relief of Shigeru Yamada, being enacted by the Senate and House…

LOFGREN:

The bill will be considered as (inaudible) and open for (inaudible).

When he was only ten years old, Shigeru and his sisters were brought to the U.S. from Japan by their mother, a student who came over on a visa.

They lived here for over three years. During this time, Shigeru’s mother became engaged to (inaudible). Had she married her fiance, she and her children would have been able to (inaudible) presence in the country.

Unfortunately, Shigeru’s mother was killed in a car accident. After his mother’s death, Shigeru and his sisters were raised by (inaudible).

Shigeru’s natural father was an alcoholic and had been physically abusive to his mother.

Shigeru’s aunt, thereupon after, attempted to formally adopt Shigeru, but the adoption was not completed before his 18th birthday. (Inaudible).

His sisters, however, were able to obtain status. In the meantime, Shigeru became a model student, graduating from high school with honors. In 2000, he was named (inaudible) player of the year (inaudible).

He has no basis to immigrate to the United States other than H.R. 2760.

Here’s a report from ICE (inaudible).

KING:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Shigeru Yamada was born in Japan. In 1992, when Shigeru was ten years old, his mother brought him to the United States as a dependent on her student visa. She intended to enter and study in the United States.

In 1995, when Shigeru was 13 years old, his mother was killed in a car accident.

At the time of her death, Shigeru’s mother was engaged to be married to a U.S. citizen.

If his mother had survived and married the U.S. citizen, Shigeru would have obtained legal, permanent resident status, and potentially, even U.S. citizenship through his mother and/or, potentially, his future stepfather.

Because Shigeru’s natural father was an alcoholic and physically abusive to Shigeru’s mother and siblings, Shigeru and his siblings, at the time, had few choices on which adult to live with after their mother’s death.

They were subsequently raised by an aunt in Chula Vista, California.

Although Shigeru’s aunt attempted to formally adopt Shigeru, the adoption was not completed before his 18th birthday.

Regardless, under current immigration law, Shigeru would have had to be adopted before the age of 16 to obtain legal immigration status in the United States.

Shigeru’s younger sibling, now at the age of 14, was adopted by another family while another sibling has married a U.S. citizen.

Shigeru attended East Lake High School and graduated with honors. He’s now 25 years old.

The Department of Homeland Security report indicates that he currently works at Nordstrom’s. The DHS report revealed no deleterious information regarding Shigeru.

The private bill does fit within modern era private immigration precedent, however, narrowly.

Private immigration bills have been enacted where the aliens have been abandoned by their parents or the parents have died.

As this bill is consistent with private immigration bill precedent and the DHS report revealed no deleterious information about the beneficiary, I am going to, with some reservations, support this.

I would note that Shigeru is 25 years old. He’s no longer under a threat of his father being abusive if he were to go back to Japan.

The point of his mother was engaged to be married to a U.S. citizen is a difficult case to prove.

And I am reluctant and concerned about that being advanced on the allegations of engagement because that is not a legal structure; it’s simply a promise. And we know they are often not kept.

But because his two siblings have been granted lawful status in the United States and have passed the U.S. citizenship, because of the case that’s before us, and I think because of the — I will say, the consensus that’s here before this committee and the deliberations that we have had in our discussions — I’m going to support this.

And I yield back the balance of my time, Madam Chair.

LOFGREN:

I thank the gentleman.

Are there any amendments?

There being no amendments, the question is on reporting the bill favorably to the whole of the Judiciary Committee.

All those in favor — a voting quorum not being present, we will postpone further proceedings on this bill until after the first vote today in the Rayburn Room where we will be (inaudible) around nine members of the committee (inaudible) all of those categories.

I do thank the members who have shown up to allow us to act.

CQ Transcriptions, Feb. 26, 2008

PANEL MEMBERS:
REP. ZOE LOFGREN, D-CALIF. CHAIRWOMAN
REP. LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, D-ILL.
REP. HOWARD L. BERMAN, D-CALIF.
REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE, D-TEXAS
REP. MAXINE WATERS, D-CALIF.
REP. BILL DELAHUNT, D-MASS.
REP. LINDA T. SANCHEZ, D-CALIF.
REP. ARTUR DAVIS, D-ALA.
REP. KEITH ELLISON, D-MINN.
REP. ANTHONY WEINER, D-N.Y.
REP. JOHN CONYERS JR., D-MICH. EX OFFICIO
REP. STEVE KING, R-IOWA RANKING MEMBER
REP. ELTON GALLEGLY, R-CALIF.
REP. ROBERT W. GOODLATTE, R-VA.
REP. DAN LUNGREN, R-CALIF.
REP. J. RANDY FORBES, R-VA.
REP. LOUIE GOHMERT, R-TEXAS
REP. LAMAR SMITH, R-TEXAS EX OFFICIO

All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ Transcriptions. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.

© 2008 Congressional Quarterly Inc. All Rights Reserved.