The Snakehead: An Epic Tale of the Chinatown Underworld and the American Dream (58 page)

167.
As it happened, in February 1993:
“Hijacked Merchant Ship Awaits Permission to Land,” United Press International, February 10, 1993.

168.
Then the United States turned:
Peter Woolrich and Michael Chugani, “Hong Kong Rejects Chinese Illegals,”
South China Morning Post
, February 14, 1993.

168
The
East Wood
had become:
Interview with Eric Schwartz, former National Security Council official responsible for boat smuggling issues, January 5, 2006.

168
The UN monitors ultimately concluded:
“More than Five Hundred Chinese Nationals Repatriated from Marshall Islands,” Agence France Presse, March 6, 1993.

168
But no sooner:
Peter Woolrich, “Dreams Crash Land on the Shores of Home,”
South China Morning Post
, March 7, 1993.

168
In a series of stories:
Paul Tyrrell, “Bilateral Deal on Illegals Violated,’”
South China Morning Post
, March 13, 1993; Peter Woolrich, “China Slammed over
East Wood
Illegals,”
South China Morning Post
, March 14, 1993.

169
Officials in Beijing:
“Peking Denies Detention of
East Wood
Migrants,” Central News Agency—Taiwan, March 17, 1993.

169
What is clear:
E-mail from Ambassador E. Michael Southwick, May 29, 2008.

169
In 1993 there was:
Interview with Donald Monica, June 9, 2008.

169
Some at the INS:
Confidential interview, June 6, 2007.

One plan that was briefly:
Interview with Mark Riordan, June 7, 2007; interview with Ben Ferro, former INS official, June 24, 2008.

Don Monica was still trying:
Interview with Donald Monica, June 9, 2008.

On April 15, 1993:
Department of Justice limited official use executive intelligence brief, HQ-EB-93-33, “People’s Republic of China: An Update on Current Smuggling Trends,” April 15, 1993.

On April 4, 1993:
Peter Woolrich, Matiko Bohoko, and Chris Dobson, “Immigrants Escape in High Seas Drama,”
South China Morning Post
, April 4, 1993.

172.
On April 16:
Diplomatic cable from U.S. Consulate in Durban to various recipients in Washington and internationally, April 16, 1993.

173.
The next time Kin Sin Lee:
Lee testimony, Lee trial.

173
There wouldn’t be any:
The details of this conversation are drawn from Weng Yu Hui testimony, Sister Ping trial, and Lee testimony, Lee trial.

173
But the first officer turned captain:
United States v. Moe, 64 F.3d 245, at 248.

173
Weng suggested that:
Lee testimony, Lee trial.

174
If Lwin could:
Letter from Carter to Raggi, re: United States v. Kin Sin Lee, et al.

174
The following day:
Lee testimony, Lee trial; government brief in United States v. Fei, appellate brief, Second Circuit Court of Appeals, November 4, 1999.

174
At Charlie’s urging:
Lee testimony, Lee trial.

174
Sean Chen was huddled:
Interview with Sean Chen, February 6, 2008.

174
Then, around midday:
United States v. Fei, 225 F.3d 167, at 170.

174
According to some accounts:
Government brief in United States v. Lee, 122 F.3d 1058, appellate brief, Second Circuit Court of Appeals, April 12, 1995.

174
But according to others:
Letter from Carter to Raggi, re: United States v. Kin Sin Lee, et al.

175
It is a frequent refrain:
Interview with Mark Riordan, June 7, 2007; see also William Claiborne, “Elusive Ships Frustrate Coast Guard,”
Washington Post
, July 21, 1993.

175
What we do know:
Richard Pyle, “Ship Carrying Chinese Aliens Runs Aground Off NYC; at Least Seven Dead,” Associated Press, June 6, 1993.

175
When the ship reached:
Lee testimony, Lee trial.

175
Shortly after midnight:
Testimony of Sam Lwin in United States v. Kin Sin Lee, et al., 93 CR 694, June 23, 1994.

175
As darkness fell:
Lee testimony, Lee trial.

176
“Let’s do it”:
Brief for the defendant appellant, Lee Peng Fei, in United States v. Fei, 225 F.3d 167, Second Circuit Court of Appeals, October 1, 1999.

176
In the last moments at sea:
These details are drawn from interviews with Sean Chen, February 6, 2008, and June 5, 2008.

CHAPTER 11: A WELL-FOUNDED FEAR

This chapter is based primarily on interviews with Bill Slattery, Doris Meissner, Eric Schwartz, and other officials who were involved in handling the difficult policy decisions in the days, months, and ultimately years following the arrival of the
Golden Venture
. Some of the current and former officials in question agreed to speak with me at length about the experience but did not want any facts or assertions attributed to them by name. The chapter also draws on an extensive collection of internal Clinton administration documents and memoranda. These materials were released through discovery in the lawsuit that was eventually filed against the Justice Department on behalf of the
Golden Venture
detainees, and were supplied to me by Craig Trebilcock, of York, Pennsylvania, one of the lead lawyers in that suit.

178
One historian referred:
Alexander Saxton,
The Indispensable Enemy: Labor and the Anti-Chinese Movement in California
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975). Saxton makes a more nuanced point as well, suggesting that the Chinese were indispensable to the development of organized labor in California during the nineteenth century because anti-Chinese animus became a galvanizing rallying force.

179
In March the
New York Times:
Francis X. Clines, “After Bombing, New Scrutiny for Holes in Immigration Net,”
New York Times
, March 12, 1993.

179
He sounded dire warnings:
Marlowe Hood, “Riding the Snake,”
Los Angeles Times Magazine
, June 13, 1993.

180
Slattery was hard-nosed:
Unless otherwise noted, material relating to Bill Slattery is from an interview with Bill Slattery, July 7, 2008.

181
Since the inauguration:
Interview with Eric Schwartz, January 5, 2006.

181.
Sean Chen and the other passengers:
Wendy Lin and Jessie Mangaliman, “Woes of Smuggling,”
Newsday
, June 10, 1993.

182.
“It’s been our tradition”:
Tim Weiner, “Smuggled to New York,”
New York Times
, June 8, 1993.

182
Some snakeheads had been known:
No major cases had been brought against lawyers for cooperating with snakeheads in 1993, but in 2000 one of the most prominent immigration attorneys representing the Chinese community in New York, Robert Porges, was arrested and charged, along with his wife, in a ninety-count racketeering indictment. See United States of America v. Robert Porges, aka “Lawyer Bao,” et al., S6 00 Cr. 934 (DLC), United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Porges and his wife pleaded guilty to racketeering, conspiracy, and tax fraud and were sentenced to serve eight years in prison (though in letters to me from prison, both Robert and Sheery Lu Porges maintained their innocence). See also Elizabeth Amon, “The Snakehead Lawyers,”
New York Law Journal
, July 17, 2002.

182.
It wasn’t unheard of:
Mark Ham-blett, “Government Outlines Case Against Porges,”
New York Law Journal
, September 27, 2000.

183.
At Varick Street:
Diane Jean Schemo, “Refugees Blocked from Get ting Legal Help,”
New York Times
, June 10, 1993.

183
The attorneys had maintained:
Ibid.

183
Sean Chen found himself:
Interview with Sean Chen, February 6, 2008.

184
On that first day:
Melissa Robinson, “Chinese Prisoners Endured Painful Journey for Chance at Freedom,” Associated Press, June 9, 1993.

184
But Sean was beginning:
Seth Faison, “U.S. Tightens Asylum Rules for
Chinese,”
New York Times
, September 5, 1993.

184.
On Friday, June 11:
White House meeting agenda prepared by Carol Rasco and Sandy Berger, June 10, 1993.

185.
Before the
Golden Venture:
Pamela Burdman and Ken Hoover, “U.S. Organizing to Repulse Smuggler Ship Invasion,”
San Francisco Chronicle
, May 28, 1993.

185
It emerged that the month before:
Interview with James Puleo, former State Department and INS official, June 10, 2008. Also see Burdman and Hoover, “U.S. Organizing to Repulse Smuggler Ship Invasion.”

185
Before the Oval Office meeting:
Letter from Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell to National Security Adviser Anthony Lake, June 9, 1993.

185
“Alien smuggling is a shameful practice”:
President William J. Clinton, remarks on the nomination of Doris Meissner to be INS commissioner, June 18, 1993.

185.
As he concluded:
Gwen Ifill “President Chooses an Expert to Halt Smuggling of Aliens,”
New York Times
, June 19, 1993.

186
Meissner had been informed:
Interview with Doris Meissner, December 5, 2005.

187
During the cold war:
Tim Weiner, “Smuggled to New York: Fixing Immigration,”
New York Times
, June 8, 1993.

187
Throughout the 1990s:
Nina Bernstein, “In New York Immigration Court, Asylum Roulette,”
New York Times
, October 8, 2006.

187
If you are a Chinese asylum-seeker:
See Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz, and Philip Schrag, “Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication,”
Stanford Law Review
60 (2008): 15, 25.

187
One immigration judge in Los Angeles:
Ibid., p. 44.

187
Interestingly, female judges:
Ibid., p. 47.

187
“Whether an asylum applicant”:
Ibid., p. 82.

188
For no other nationality:
Ibid., p. 32.

188
With one fifth of the world’s population:
Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl Wudunn,
China Wakes: The Struggle for the Soul of a Rising Power
(New York: Times Books, 1994), p. 10.

188
There is a famous story:
This story is true, though the precise wording of Deng’s reply varies from one account to the next. See George J. Borjas,
Heaven’s Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999), p. 3; Kishore Mahbubani,
The New Asian Hemisphere: The Irresistible Shift of Global Power to the East
(New York: PublicAffairs, 2008), p. 314; Adlai E. Stevenson and Alton Frye, “Trading with the Communists,”
Foreign Affairs
(Spring 1989).

188.
Shortly after Chang’s claim:
Memo from the Office of Attorney General Meese to INS Commissioner Alan Nelson, August 5, 1988.

189.
Instead, the board held:
“Matter of Chang,” Interim Decision: 3107, Board of Immigration Appeals, 1989.

189
Chang’s attorney:
Interview with Jules Coven, June 16, 2008.

190
Tiananmen unfolded:
See 135 Cong. Rec. S. Doc. No. 8241-2 (July 19, 1989).

190
The bill passed:
Memorandum on Disapproval for the Emergency Chinese Relief Act of 1989, 25 Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents at 1843-54 (1989).

190
The executive action:
Executive Order No. 12,711, §4, 55 Fed. Reg. 13,897 (1990). Because of the peculiarity of the regulatory process in Washington, in order for Bush’s wishes to take effect, the attorney general needed to
promulgate a “rule” that would be published in the
Federal Register
. But when Attorney General Richard Thornburgh issued his final rule on procedures for determining who would and would not get asylum, he somehow neglected to include anything about family-planning policies in China. No explanation was ever offered for this oversight. Some speculated that it was a drafting error. But the result was that there was no general agreement on how to proceed with asylum applications, and this period of uncertainty happened to coincide with the snakehead boom of the early 1990s and a great proliferation of asylum requests. In practice, immigration inspectors from the INS began following the guidelines established in the executive order, taking an expansive view of who could be granted asylum, while immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals took a much narrower view, following
Matter of Chang
and insisting that simply saying “one-child policy” was not grounds for admission to America. This resulted in great uncertainty for the Chinese, as the result of their cases would vary depending on which of these bodies ended up hearing their claim. In keeping with the legal fiction that people had not entered the country, “exclusion” cases, for those detained at airports or on the beach with wet feet, were heard by the relatively sympathetic INS immigration inspectors, whereas “deportation” cases, for those who were already here, were heard by immigration judges. The frustration for the Chinese who were denied asylum before the BIA, as an opinion in one later case would put it, was that the generous interpretation of American policy had been adopted “in various forms at various times by the President of the United States, both houses of Congress, three Attorneys General and the General Counsel of the INS,” but that the BIA had been pretty consistent in its own more restrictive interpretation. Zhang v. Slattery, 55 F.3d 732 (2d Cir. 1995).