The REAL ID Act of 2005 (H.R.1268)

April 27-2005:

As your constituent, I am writing to urge you to make sure that the REAL ID Act of 2005, an anti-refugee bill, is not attached to the emergency spending bill on Iraq and tsunami aid (H.R.1268). It is a complex bill that should be duly considered, not pushed through hastily.

Dear Senator;
As your constituent, I am writing to urge you to make sure that the REAL ID Act of 2005, an anti-refugee bill, is not attached to the emergency spending bill on Iraq and tsunami aid (H.R.1268). It is a complex bill that should be duly considered, not pushed through hastily.

I am glad that the Senate has chosen not to attach REAL ID to its version of the supplemental appropriations bill, and now I hope you will do all you can to make sure that REAL ID is not attached in conference.

I wish to express particular concern about sections 101, 103, and 104 of the bill. Section 101 is titled, “Preventing Terrorists from Obtaining Relief From Removal,” but that makes no sense to me. Terrorists and suspected terrorists are already categorically barred from asylum, as you know, and this bill would not actually protect me, you, or any other Americans from terrorists.

Instead it would place burdens on asylum-seekers that would likely fall hardest on the most vulnerable among them, such as women who have been victims of gender-based persecution. How can a woman who was raped show that her ethnicity, or her religion, was “a central reason” for her persecution? Similarly, the most frightened and traumatized asylum-seekers may be just the ones whose “demeanor” does not strike a judge as credible, since torture survivors often recount their sufferings without apparent emotion.

Section 101 would also increase the burden of proof for some asylum applicants, by allowing judges to require supplemental evidence, and to deny asylum if it isn’t provided. Obtaining such evidence can be difficult for refugees who often flee without their belongings, and who are often put into detention after they arrive here. Finally, asking their family or friends back home to collect the evidence often puts them in danger.

I am also worried that immigrants, including asylum-seekers and asylees, could be wrongfully deported under the extremely broad definitions of terrorist activity in Sections 103 and 104.

The definition of terrorist organizations includes a “group of two or more, whether organized or not” or a subgroup of such a group that is involved in vaguely defined terrorist activities. And section 103 would create an impossibly high standard, requiring immigrants to prove by “clear and convincing evidence” that they did not know that an organization with which they had some association was involved in broadly defined terrorist activities.

This is a virtually impossible level of proof because it would require a person to prove what they did not know, so immigrants would be unable to defend themselves against a mistaken accusation.

Section 103 also penalizes people for espousing or endorsing terrorist activity. This broad language extends beyond conduct and has the potential to infringe on a person’s freedom of speech. To verbally endorse an activity is currently well permitted in the Constitution of the United States. The bill in its current form imposes dangerous penalties on freedom of speech in this country.

I hope that you will consider my concerns as the Senate negotiates with the House on whether to include REAL ID in the supplemental spending bill.

Sincerely,

Derryck S. Griffith.Political Educator & Advocate.http://profiles.yahoo.com/derryckgrifith