Throughout our history, the United States has been known for being a nation of immigrants, justice and opportunity. While at times our policies have strayed - sometimes tragically - from those ideals, they have consistently served as a foundation of our democracy.

Today, we seek to correct one of those times when our policies have strayed. Three anti-immigrant laws adopted by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996 tore down our national welcome sign to immigrants and severely restricted their rights to due process of law -- our laws. The very principles of fairness and freedom we advocate abroad were abrogated right here on our shores when Congress enacted:

• The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act   
• The Anti-Terrorist and Effective Death Penalty Act   
• The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act

Taken together, these three bills deeply undermined our tradition of laws, justice, fairness, and family unity.

To redress the injustice, the ACLU has joined a nation-wide campaign to "Fix '96."

The goal of Fix '96 is to restore the balance and wisdom of our traditions as a nation of immigrants and a nation of just laws. Other organizations supporting the Fix '96 campaign include the American Bar Association, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, the National Immigration Forum, the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, the General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church, and many others.

Acting together, these ethnic, religious, professional, civil rights and human rights organizations urge Congress to help right the wrongs of the most dramatic crackdown of immigrants in 70 years.

 TAKE PART IN FIX '96! 

You can help make the Fix '96 campaign a success. Simply read the action alerts on the goals of the Fix '96 campaign and then take a moment to send a FREE FAX to Congress. These action alerts feature four different legislative fixes to the 1996 laws, including those to help immigrants who:

• Are fleeing persecution from their government or are seeking admission to the United States.
• Find themselves facing deportation and continued jailing for mistakes they made many years ago and for which they have already paid their debt to society.
• Face deportation on the basis of evidence kept secret from them.
• Are unable to appeal arbitrary, capricious and illegal actions against them by immigration officials because the courts have been stripped of jurisdiction to hear their claims. 

Although some progress has been made to begin correcting some of these laws, much remains to be done before today's immigrants receive the fair treatment under our laws that everyone in America should be able to take for granted. Take action today!

Political Asylum

Prior to 1996, the United States was seen as a nation of freedom, a safe haven for those fleeing persecution on account of their political beliefs, race, religion, national origin or membership in a particular social group. But because of the 1996 immigration laws, the doors to safety are being slammed in the faces of many refugees seeking asylum and in the face of people entitled to admission. 

 Many refugees flee to the United States as a final attempt to save themselves and their families. They often flee in haste without any documents or with improper documents. After an often traumatic journey they are greeted by the cold shoulders of low-level border officials who they must convince of their claims for asylum in order to even have their case considered. If they are unsuccessful, they risk return to their countries and to possible persecution or torture or even death.

 One Mistake, Two Punishments?

Normally, if a person commits a crime in the United States, they pay their debt to society and they go on with their lives. The 1996 laws changed this normal state of affairs for many immigrants. 

 The 1996 laws require the INS to detain even lawful permanent residents who committed minor criminal offenses for which they had long ago paid their debt to society. In some cases, an immigrant may have pleaded guilty to a crime for which he was advised there would be no adverse immigration consequences. But Congress changed the law retroactively. Now when the immigrant applies for nationalization, he can receive a one-way ticket to an INS lock up or a local jail. Even if he can prove that he would not flee and is not a danger to the community, Congress took from immigration judges the discretion to release him while his case is pending.

Worse still, mandatory detention can become permanent. The 1996 laws have resulted in an explosion in the number of immigrants facing indefinite detention -- approximately 3,500 -- because they were ordered removed and no country, including their own, will accept them.

The 1996 laws also took away judges' ability to oversee the actions of the Immigration and Nationalization Service to ensure that it acts in accordance with the law and not in an arbitrary manner. No other law enforcement agency has as many armed officers with arrest powers than does the INS, and no other law enforcement agency arrests as many people. To strip the courts of jurisdiction to hear claims of the INS has acted illegally is to invite abuse.

Judicial review is the norm in our system of justice. It ensures fairness for people subjected to a deprivation of their liberty, and it promotes professionalism in law enforcement because officers must justify their activities to a neutral decision-maker. The separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution cannot function to protect liberty unless the judicial branch retains authority to correct abuses by the executive branch. The 1996 laws upset the separation of powers in the immigration context, and this must be fixed.

Secret Evidence

No person can defend against the unknown accusation whispered by an unknown person in the ear of a judge charged with deciding the truth of the allegation. The 1996 laws give the INS the power to deport non-citizens and to deny them bond and asylum and other benefits based on secret evidence. The INS is currently using secret evidence in approximately two dozen cases, almost all of which involve Arabs and Muslims. The ACLU believes the use of secret evidence is a feature of totalitarian governments that goes against everything our country stands for. People in this country whose liberty is at stake have the right to know the evidence against them and to be given an opportunity to rebut