ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers

Home Page

Advanced search

Immigration Daily


RSS feed

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network


Chinese Immig. Daily


Connect to us

Make us Homepage



Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily

The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of free

Immigration LLC.

Immigration Daily: the news source for
legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers
Enter your email address here:

< Back to current issue of Immigration Daily < Back to current issue of Immigrant's Weekly

[Congressional Record: March 26, 2003 (Senate)]
[Page S4436-S4444]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access []


      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Fitzgerald):
  S. 708. A bill to redesignate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 7401 West 100th Place in Bridgeview, 
Illinois, as the ``Michael J. Healy Post Office Building''; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to name 
the U.S. Post Office at 7401 W. 100th Place in Bridgeview, IL after 
Postal Police Officer Michael Healy.
  On June 21, 1981, while guarding the Chicago Main Post Office at 
Harrison Avenue and Canal Street, Officer Healy's life was senselessly 
cut short by a random act of violence. Officer Healy was murdered by 
three assailants in a foiled robbery attempt. Sadly, Michael Healy 
became the first officer of the Postal Inspection Service to be killed 
while on duty.
  Shortly after his murder, the Postal Inspection Service retired 
Michael's badge, number 3972. Subsequently, Michael's name was added to 
the Federal Law Enforcement Memorial in Washington, DC as well as the 
Law Enforcement Memorial in Springfield, IL.
  In 2001, the Northern Illinois Division of the United States 
Inspection Service honored the 20th anniversary of Michael's death. The 
Fraternal Order of Police, FOP, has tried for two years to rename the 
local post office after Officer Healy.
  In protecting others, Officer Healy made the ultimate sacrifice. I 
believe it is fitting to pay tribute to him by designating the postal 
facility in honor of Michael J. Healy. I think that it is the most 
appropriate way to recognize and remember a man who gave so much to his 
family, his friends, the Postal Inspection Service, and his community 
of Hometown, IL.
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. 
  S. 710. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
provide that aliens who commit acts of torture, extrajudicial killings, 
or other specified atrocities abroad are inadmissible and removable and 
to establish within the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice 
an Office of Special Investigations having responsibilities under that 
Act with respect to all alien participants in war crimes, genocide, and 
the commission of acts of torture and extrajudicial killings abroad; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. I am pleased today to introduce the Anti-Atrocity Alien 
Deportation Act of 2003, a bill intended to close loopholes in our 
immigration laws that have allowed war criminals and human rights 
abusers to enter and remain in this country. Senator Hatch has joined 
me in offering this bill, along with Senators Lieberman and Levin. In 
the other body, Representatives Mark Foley and Gary Ackerman today 
introduce identical legislation.
  Our bill would update the charter of the Justice Department's Office 
of Special Investigations, OSI, which for years has investigated and 
has sought justice in the cases of Nazi war criminals who have sought 
refuge on our shores. It is time to renew the OSI charter to take into 
account the new generations of war criminals who try to escape justice 
by living among us.
  This bill closely mirrors legislation I had offered that was reported 
unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee last year, and which 
passed the Senate during the 106th Congress. I hope and expect that, 
with the help of Senator Hatch and others, this bill will become law 
during this Congress.
  As we introduce this bill, our armed forces are fighting to replace 
an Iraqi regime that has been marked by its utter disregard for the 
human rights of its people. We must not fight this war on the one hand, 
and let human rights abusers from around the world enter our Nation 
with impunity on the other.
  When they learn it is so, the American people are appalled to learn 
that our country has become a safe haven for those who exercised power 
in foreign countries to terrorize, rape, murder and torture innocent 
civilians. A report issued last year by Amnesty International claims 
that nearly 150 alleged human rights abusers have been identified 
living here and warns that this number may be as high as 1,000. 
Meanwhile, an article in the New York Review of Books stated that 
``hundreds, if not thousands, of foreign nationals who have been 
plausibly accused of the most heinous human rights crimes, including 
torture and assassination, either have lived or still live freely in 
the U.S.'' [William Schulz, ``The Torturers Among Us,'' New York 
Review, p. 22, April 25, 2002.]
  I introduced a similar version of this bill on May 10, 2001, and the 
Judiciary Committee reported the bill with a Leahy-Hatch managers' 
amendment on April 18, 2002. Unfortunately, the bill was subject to an 
anonymous hold on the Senate floor.
  I introduced similar legislation in the 106th Congress and was 
pleased when the proposal garnered bipartisan support in both the House 
and the Senate. The legislation passed the Senate on November 5, 1999, 
as part of S. 1754, the Hatch-Leahy ``Denying Safe Havens to 
International and War Criminals Act,'' but unfortunately it was not 
acted on by the House before the end of the 106th Congress. 
Nevertheless, Representatives Foley and Ackerman have provided 
consistent leadership in moving this legislation in the House, by 
introducing the measure in the l06th Congress as H.R. 2642 and H.R. 
3058, in the 107th Congress, as H.R. 1449, and again today.
  The problem of human rights abusers seeking and obtaining refuge in 
this country is real, and requires an effective response with the legal 
and enforcement changes proposed in this legislation.
  For example, three Ethiopian refugees proved in an American court 

[[Page S4437]]

Kelbessa Negewo, a former senior government official in the military 
dictatorship that ruled Ethiopia in the 1970s, engaged in numerous acts 
of torture and human rights abuses against them when they lived in that 
country. Negewo oversaw and participated in the torture of opposition 
political figures in Ethiopia, and then moved to the United States only 
to work at the same Atlanta hotel as one of his own victims. The 
court's descriptions of the abuse are chilling, and included whipping a 
naked woman with a wire for hours and threatening her with death in the 
presence of several men. The court's award of compensatory and punitive 
damages in the amount of $1.5 million to the plaintiffs was 
subsequently affirmed by an appellate court. [See Abebe-Jira v. Negewo, 
72 F.3d 844 (11th Cir. 1996).] Yet during the pendency of his appeal of 
the civil verdict, the Immigration and Naturalization Service granted 
Negewo citizenship.
  This situation is an affront both to the foreign victims of torture 
who fled here to escape their persecutors, and to the American victims 
of such torture and their families. As Professor William Aceves of 
California Western School of Law has noted, this case reveals ``a 
glaring and troubling limitation in current immigration law and 
practice. This case is not unique. Other aliens who have committed 
gross human rights violations have also gained entry into the United 
States and been granted immigration relief.'' [20 Mich. J. Int'l.L. at 
  Indeed, another case actually involves American victims. In 1980, 
four American churchwomen were raped and murdered by the Salvadoran 
National Guard. Two former Salvadoran government officials who 
allegedly covered up the murders currently reside in Florida.
  Unfortunately, criminals who wielded machetes and guns against 
innocent civilians in countries like Haiti, Chile, Yugoslavia and 
Rwanda have been able to gain entry to the United States through the 
same doors that we have opened to deserving refugees. We need to lock 
that door to human rights abusers who seek a safe haven in the United 
States. To those human rights abusers who are already here, we should 
promptly show them the door out.
  We have unwittingly sheltered the oppressors along with the oppressed 
for too long. We should not let this situation continue. We waited too 
long after World War II to focus prosecutorial resources and attention 
on Nazi war criminals who entered this country on false pretenses, or 
worse, with the collusion of American intelligence agencies. Thousands 
of declassified CIA documents were made public last year, as a result 
of the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act that I was proud to help enact in 
1998. These documents made clear the extent to which the United States 
relied upon and helped Nazi war criminals. As Eli M. Rosenbaum, the 
head of the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations, 
noted at the time, ``These files demonstrate that the real winners of 
the Cold War were Nazi criminals.'' We should not repeat that mistake 
for other aliens who engaged in human rights abuses before coming to 
the United States. We need to focus the attention of our law 
enforcement investigators to prosecute and deport those who have 
committed atrocities abroad and who now enjoy safe harbor in the United 

  When I first introduced this bill, the Rutland Daily Herald in 
Vermont editorialized that:

       For the U.S. commitment to human rights to mean anything, 
     U.S. policies must be strong and consistent. It is not enough 
     to denounce war crimes in Bosnia and Kosovo or elsewhere and 
     then wink as the perpetrators of torture and mass murder slip 
     across the border to find a home in America. (October 31, 

  The Clinton Administration recognized the deficiencies in our laws. 
One Clinton Administration witness testified in February 2000 that:

       The Department of Justice supports efforts to enhance our 
     ability to remove individuals who have committed acts of 
     torture abroad. The department also recognizes, however, that 
     our current immigration laws do not provide strong enough 
     bars for human rights abusers. . . . Right now, only three 
     types of human rights abuse could prevent someone from 
     entering or remaining in the United States. The types of 
     prohibited conduct include: (1) genocide; (2) particularly 
     severe violations of religious freedom; and (3) Nazi 
     persecutions. Even these types of conduct are narrowly 
     defined. [Hearing on H.R. 3058, ``Anti-Atrocity Alien 
     Deportation Act,'' before the Subcomm. on Immigration and 
     Claims of the House Comm. On the Judiciary, 106th Cong., 2d 
     Sess., Feb. 17, 2000 (Statement of James E. Costello, 
     Associate Deputy Attorney General).]

  The Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act would provide a stronger bar 
to human rights abusers and close loopholes in our current laws. The 
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) currently provides that (i) 
participants in Nazi persecutions during the time period from March 23, 
1933 to May 8, 1945, (ii) aliens who engaged in genocide, and (iii) 
aliens who committed particularly severe violations of religious 
freedom, are both inadmissable to the United States and removable. [See 
8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182(a)(2)(G) & (3)(E) and Sec. 1227(a)(4)(D).] This bill 
would expand the grounds for inadmissibility and deportation to: (1) 
add new bars for aliens who have engaged in acts, outside the United 
States, of ``torture'' and ``extrajudicial killing,'' and (2) remove 
limitations on the current bases for ``genocide'' and ``particularly 
severe violations of religious freedom.''
  The definitions for the new bases of ``torture'' and ``extrajudicial 
killing'' are derived from the Torture Victim Protection Act, which 
implemented the United Nations' ``Convention Against Torture and Other 
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.'' These 
definitions are therefore already sanctioned by the Congress. The bill 
incorporates the definition of ``torture'' codified in the federal 
criminal code, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340, which prohibits:

     an act committed by a person acting under the color of law 
     specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental 
     pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to 
     lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or 
     physical control.'' [18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340(1).]

  ``Severe mental pain or suffering'' is further defined to mean:

     prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (A) the 
     intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe 
     physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or 
     application, or threatened administration or application, of 
     mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to 
     disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and (C) the 
     threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another 
     person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical 
     pain or suffering, or the administration or application of 
     mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to 
     disrupt profoundly the senses or personality. [18 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 2340(2).]

  The Torture Victim Protection Act also included a definition for 
``extrajudicial killing.'' Specifically, this law establishes civil 
liability for wrongful death against any person ``who, under actual or 
apparent authority, or color of law, of any foreign nation . . . 
subjects an individual to extrajudicial killing,'' which is defined to 
mean ``a deliberated killing not authorized by a previous judgment 
pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial 
guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. 
This term, however, does not include any such killing that, under 
international law, is lawfully carried out under the authority of a 
foreign nation.''
  The bill would not only add the new grounds for inadmissibility and 
deportation, it would expand two of the current grounds. First, the 
current bar to aliens who have ``engaged in genocide'' defines that 
term by reference to the ``genocide'' definition in the Convention on 
the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. [8 U.S.C. 
1182(a)(3)(E)(ii).] For clarity and consistency, the bill would 
substitute instead the definition in the federal criminal code, 18 
U.S.C. Sec. 1091(a), which was adopted pursuant to the U.S. obligations 
under the Genocide Convention. The bill would also broaden the reach of 
the provision to apply not only to those who ``engaged in genocide,'' 
as in current law, but also to cover any alien who has ordered, 
incited, assisted or otherwise participated in genocide. This broader 
scope will ensure that the genocide provision addresses a more 
appropriate range of levels of complicity.
  Second, the current bar to aliens who have committed ``particularly 
severe violations of religious freedom,'' as defined in the 
International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA), limits its 
application to foreign government officials who engaged in such conduct 
within the last 24 months, and also bars from admission the 

[[Page S4438]]

spouse and children, if any. This bill would delete the reference to 
prohibited conduct occurring within a 24-month period since this 
limitation is not consistent with the strong stance of the United 
States to promote religious freedom throughout the world. As Professor 
Aceves has written:

       This provision is unduly restrictive . . . The 24-month 
     time limitation for this prohibition is also unnecessary. A 
     perpetrator of human rights atrocities should not be able to 
     seek absolution by merely waiting two years after the 
     commission of these acts. [William J. Aceves, supra, 20 Mich. 
     J. Int'l L., at 683.]

  In addition, the bill would remove the current bar to admission for 
the spouse or children of a violator of religious freedom. This is a 
serious sanction that should not apply to individuals because of 
familial relationships that are beyond their control. The purpose of 
these amendments is to make those who have participated in atrocities 
accountable for their actions. That purpose is not served by holding 
the family members of such individuals accountable for the offensive 
conduct over which they had no control.
  Under current law, most aliens who are inadmissible may receive a 
waiver under section 212(d)(3) of the INA to enter the nation as a 
nonimmigrant, where the Secretary of State recommends it and the 
Attorney General approves. Participants in Nazi persecutions or 
genocide, however, are not eligible for such a waiver. Our bill retains 
that provision. It does not, however, ban waivers for those who commit 
acts of torture or extrajudicial killings. I would hope that such 
waivers are used sparingly and only under the most compelling of 
  Of course, changing the law to address the problem of human rights 
abusers seeking entry and remaining in the United States is only part 
of the solution. We also need effective enforcement. As one expert 

     [s]trong institutional mechanisms must be established to 
     implement this proposed legislation. At present, there does 
     not appear to be any agency within the Department of Justice 
     with the specific mandate of identifying, investigating and 
     prosecuting modern day perpetrators of human rights 
     atrocities. The importance of establishing a separate agency 
     for this function can be seen in the experiences of the 
     Office of Special Investigations. 20 Mich. J. Int'l L., at 

  Our country has long provided the template and moral leadership for 
dealing with Nazi war criminals. The Justice Department's specialized 
unit, OSI, which was created to hunt down, prosecute and remove Nazi 
war criminals who had slipped into the United States among their 
victims under the Displaced Persons Act, is an example of effective 
enforcement. Since OSI was created in 1979, more than 60 Nazi 
persecutors have been stripped of U.S. citizenship, almost 50 such 
individuals have been removed from the United States, and more than 150 
have been denied entry.
  OSI was created almost 35 years after the end of World War II and it 
remains authorized only to track Nazi war criminals. Specifically, when 
Attorney General Civiletti, by a 1979 Attorney General order, 
established OSI within the Criminal Division of the Department of 
Justice, that office was directed to conduct all ``investigative and 
litigation activities involving individuals, who prior to and during 
World War II, under the supervision of or in association with the Nazi 
government of Germany, its allies, and other affiliated governments, 
are alleged to have ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise 
participated in the persecution of any person because of race, 
religion, national origin, or political opinion.'' (Attorney Gen. Order 
No. 851-79). The OSI's mission continues to be limited by that Attorney 
General Order.
  I believe it is time to reward the tremendous work that OSI has done 
by expanding its mission to ensure effective enforcement against war 
criminals of all stripes.
  Little is being done about the new generation of international human 
rights abusers and war criminals living among us, and these delays are 
costly. As any prosecutor knows instinctively, such delays make 
documentary and testimonial evidence more difficult to obtain. Stale 
cases are the hardest to make. We should not repeat the mistake of 
waiting decades before tracking down war criminals and human rights 
abusers who have settled in this country. War criminals should find no 
sanctuary in loopholes in our current immigration policies and 
enforcement, and should never come to believe that they will find safe 
harbor in the United States.
  The Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act would amend the INA, 8 U.S.C. 
Sec.  1103, by directing the Attorney General to establish an Office of 
Special Investigations (OSI) within the Department of Justice with 
authorization to denaturalize any alien who has participated in Nazi 
persecution, torture, extrajudicial killing or genocide abroad. Not 
only would the bill provide statutory authorization for OSI, it would 
also expand its jurisdiction to deal with any alien who participated in 
torture, extrajudicial killing and genocide abroad not just Nazis.
  The success of OSI in hunting Nazi war criminals demonstrates the 
effectiveness of centralized resources and expertise in these cases. 
The knowledge of the people, politics and pathologies of particular 
regimes engaged in genocide and human rights abuses is often necessary 
for effective prosecutions of these cases and would best be 
accomplished by the concentrated efforts of a single office, rather 
than in piecemeal litigation around the country or in offices that have 
more diverse missions.
  These are the sound policy and practical reasons that experts in this 
area recommend that the United States ``establish an office in the 
Justice Department similar to the one that has tracked Nazi war 
criminals, with an exclusive mandate to carry out the task of 
investigation [of suspected human rights abusers].'' [William Schulz, 
supra, at p. 24.]
  I appreciate that this part of the legislation has in the past proven 
controversial within the Department of Justice, but others have 
concurred in my judgment that the OSI is an appropriate component of 
the Department to address the new responsibilities proposed in this 
bill. Professor Aceves, who has studied these matters extensively, has 
concluded that the OSI's ``methodology for pursuing Nazi war criminals 
can be applied with equal rigor to other perpetrators of human rights 
violations. As the number of Nazi war criminals inevitably declines, 
the OSI can begin to enforce U.S. immigration laws against perpetrators 
of genocide and other gross violations of human rights.'' 20 Mich. J. 
Int'l. 657.
  Unquestionably, the need to bring Nazi war criminals to justice 
remains a matter of great importance. Funds would not be diverted from 
the OSI's current mission instead, additional resources are authorized 
in the bill to cover the costs of the Office's expanded duties.
  Significantly, the bill further directs the Attorney General, in 
determining what action to take against a human rights abuser seeking 
entry into or found within the United States, to consider whether a 
prosecution should be brought under U.S. law or whether the alien 
should be deported to a country willing to undertake such a 
prosecution. Despite ratifying the Convention Against Torture in 1994 
and adopting a new law making torture anywhere in the world a crime, 
federal law enforcement has not used this authority. In fact, one 
recent observer noted that ``the U.S. has never prosecuted a suspected 
torturer; nor has it ever extradited one under the Convention Against 
Torture, although it has surrendered one person to the International 
Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.'' [William Schulz, supra, at p. 23 - 24.]
  As one human rights expert has noted:

       ``The justifiable outrage felt by many when it is 
     discovered that serious human rights abusers have found their 
     way into the United States may lead well-meaning people to 
     call for their immediate expulsion. Such individuals 
     certainly should not be enjoying the good life America has to 
     offer. But when we ask the question `where should they be?' 
     the answer is clear: they should be in the dock. That is the 
     essence of accountability, and it should be the central goal 
     of any scheme to penalize human rights abusers.'' [Hearing on 
     H.R. 5238, ``Serious Human Rights Abusers Accountability 
     Act,'' before the Subcomm. on Immigration and Claims of the 
     House Comm. On the Judiciary, 106th Cong., 2d Sess., Sept. 
     28, 2000 (Statement of Elisa Massimino, Director, Washington 
     Office, Lawyers Committee For Human Rights).]

  Finally, the bill directs the Attorney General to report to the 
Judiciary Committees of the Senate and House on implementation of the 
new requirements in the bill, including procedures for referral of 
matters to the OSI, any

[[Page S4439]]

revisions made to immigration forms to reflect amendments made by the 
bill, and the procedures developed, with adequate due process 
protection, to obtain sufficient evidence and determine whether an 
alien is deemed inadmissible under the bill.
  I urge my colleagues in the Senate again to give their approval to 
this bill, and for the House to help us finally make it law. I ask 
unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the 
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 710

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,


       This Act may be cited as the ``Anti-Atrocity Alien 
     Deportation Act of 2003''.

                   KILLINGS ABROAD.

       (a) Inadmissibility.--Section 212(a)(3)(E) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(E)) is 
       (1) in clause (ii), by striking ``has engaged in conduct 
     that is defined as genocide for purposes of the International 
     Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide is 
     inadmissible'' and inserting ``ordered, incited, assisted, or 
     otherwise participated in conduct outside the United States 
     that would, if committed in the United States or by a United 
     States national, be genocide, as defined in section 1091(a) 
     of title 18, United States Code, is inadmissible'';
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) Commission of acts of torture or extrajudicial 
     killings.--Any alien who, outside the United States, has 
     committed, ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise 
     participated in the commission of--

       ``(I) any act of torture, as defined in section 2340 of 
     title 18, United States Code; or
       ``(II) under color of law of any foreign nation, any 
     extrajudicial killing, as defined in section 3(a) of the 
     Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (28 U.S.C. 1350 note);

     is inadmissible.''; and
       (3) in the subparagraph heading, by striking ``Participants 
     in nazi persecution or genocide'' and inserting 
     ``Participants in nazi persecution, genocide, or the 
     commission of any act of torture or extrajudicial killing''.
       (b) Deportability.--Section 237(a)(4)(D) of such Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1227(a)(4)(D)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``clause (i) or (ii)'' and inserting 
     ``clause (i), (ii), or (iii)''; and
       (2) in the subparagraph heading, by striking ``Assisted in 
     nazi persecution or engaged in genocide'' and inserting 
     ``Participated in nazi persecution, genocide, or the 
     commission of any act of torture or extrajudicial killing''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to offenses committed before, on, or after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.


       (a) Ground of Inadmissibility.--Section 212(a)(2)(G) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(G)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(G) Foreign government officials who have committed 
     particularly severe violations of religious freedom.--Any 
     alien who, while serving as a foreign government official, 
     was responsible for or directly carried out, at any time, 
     particularly severe violations of religious freedom, as 
     defined in section 3 of the International Religious Freedom 
     Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6402), is inadmissible.''.
       (b) Ground of Deportability.--Section 237(a)(4) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(4)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) Participated in the commission of severe violations 
     of religious freedom.--Any alien described in section 
     212(a)(2)(G) is deportable.''.


       Section 212(d)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and 3(E)'' and 
     inserting ``and clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph (3)(E)''; 
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and 3(E)'' and 
     inserting ``and clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph (3)(E)''.


       Section 101(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1101(f)) is amended--
       (1) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) one who at any time has engaged in conduct described 
     in section 212(a)(3)(E) (relating to assistance in Nazi 
     persecution, participation in genocide, or commission of acts 
     of torture or extrajudicial killings) or 212(a)(2)(G) 
     (relating to severe violations of religious freedom).''.


       (a) Amendment of the Immigration and Nationality Act.--
     Section 103 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1103) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h)(1) The Attorney General shall establish within the 
     Criminal Division of the Department of Justice an Office of 
     Special Investigations with the authority to detect and 
     investigate, and, where appropriate, to take legal action to 
     denaturalize any alien described in section 212(a)(3)(E).
       ``(2) The Attorney General shall consult with the Secretary 
     of the Department of Homeland Security in making 
     determinations concerning the criminal prosecution or 
     extradition of aliens described in section 212(a)(3)(E).
       ``(3) In determining the appropriate legal action to take 
     against an alien described in section 212(a)(3)(E), 
     consideration shall be given to--
       ``(A) the availability of criminal prosecution under the 
     laws of the United States for any conduct that may form the 
     basis for removal and denaturalization; or
       ``(B) the availability of extradition of the alien to a 
     foreign jurisdiction that is prepared to undertake a 
     prosecution for such conduct.''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Department of Justice such sums as may be necessary to 
     carry out the additional duties established under section 
     103(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (as added by 
     this Act) in order to ensure that the Office of Special 
     Investigations fulfills its continuing obligations regarding 
     Nazi war criminals.
       (2) Availability of funds.--Amounts appropriated pursuant 
     to paragraph (1) are authorized to remain available until 

Immigration Daily: the news source for
legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers
Enter your email address here: