Download issue (PDF) - Nieman Foundation - Harvard University

INS Coverage
Why Write About
Immigration?
During a five-year period I wrote several
dozen columns about the 1996
Asylum and Immigration Act and its
consequences. Nieman Reports asked
me to try to explain why, as a columnist,
I did this—and to say whether, in
my judgment, what I reported and
wrote had any effect.
While the legislation was going
through Congress in 1996, I wrote
about its harsh provisions. I was critical
of the Congressional draftsmen and of
President Bill Clinton and Attorney
General Janet Reno, who hardly objected
to the cruelest clauses.
The effect of those early columns
was nil, so far as I could
tell. Politicking against
immigrants was the fashion,
and that was the
spirit that prevailed in
what Congress passed
and the President signed.
The press took almost
no interest in the legislation,
scarcely covering it
and certainly not explaining
the drastic
changes it was going to make.
The lesson, I think, is that describing
immigration legislation in the abstract—without
providing human examples
of its consequences—does not
excite either readers or editors. That
was so in this case, even though the law
was so harsh on its face.
My first encounter with an individual
result of the 1996 act came when I was
telephoned in 1997 by John
Psaropoulos, a British subject who
worked for CNN in Atlanta. He had
taken a two-week vacation in Greece.
When he flew back to Atlanta, he was
told to go to an INS office because his
work visa had expired, and the necessary
papers for its renewal were filed
late.
When he went to that office, two
men put him in handcuffs. He was held
in a detention center overnight, then
put on a plane to Greece and told he
was barred from re-entering the United
States for five years. The “expedited
removal” and five-year ban were under
provisions of the 1996 act.
The punitive treatment for what was
at worst a filing lapse was made worse
by bureaucratic tyrants who over
months promised to let Psaropoulos
back in and then changed their minds.
He was in the more acute anguish because
he and his American fiancée were
about to get married—if they could. I
wrote a column.
The column brought a phone call
about another victim, Martina
Diederich. She was in a German tour
group when she met Baxter Thompson
of Alexandria, Louisiana. They fell
in love and married. Martina was back
in Louisiana when she ran afoul of INS
officials who said she had the wrong
The lesson, I think, is that describing
immigration legislation in the
abstract—without providing human
examples of its consequences—does not
excite either readers or editors.
kind of visa. She was held in the Orleans
Parish Prison for eight days, then
taken to a plane in handcuffs and sent
back to Germany. (The 1996 act called
for such mandatory detention.) I wrote
a column.
Gradually, the public unveiling of
cases like those began to evoke outrage
in local communities around the
country. Newspapers began to publish
stories about them: The Oregonian in
Portland, notably so. [See story by The
Oregonian’s Richard Read on page 27.]
The INS became increasingly sensitive
to being portrayed as the bully it often
was.
Doris Meissner, INS commissioner
in the Clinton administration, moved
to try to bring some humanity—and
common sense—into the agency’s practice.
She promulgated guidelines for
the exercise of “prosecutorial discretion,”
in an attempt not to bring trivial,
abusive deportation cases. Even Congressional
sponsors of the 1996 act
urged Meissner to take that step. The
House then passed a bill to let aliens
targeted for deportation seek discretionary
mercy, but that effort died in
the Senate.
Why did I write about the 1996 Immigration
Act and its consequences?
Because I believe in American justice,
and I thought the 1996 law and its
applications violated that ideal. It was
that simple.
The Impact Reporting Has
on Individuals and the INS
Did the columns make a difference? I
think they helped to create understanding
of how harsh immigration procedures
could be. During the time I was
writing these columns,
the INS did try to moderate
the most senseless
actions.
Many individuals
about whom I wrote
were not helped: They
remain expelled and excluded.
But some were.
John Psaropoulos returned
to the United
States and was married.
Mary Anne Gehris took the oath of
citizenship on February 9, 2001.
Martina Diederich Thompson came
back to Baxter in Louisiana. And every
Christmas her mother-in-law, Cynthia
Thompson, sends me a box of their
homegrown pecans. ■
Anthony Lewis, a 1957 Nieman
Fellow, was a columnist for The New
York Times from 1969 to 2001.
26 Nieman Reports / Winter 2002