The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has begun to enforce the act, even though the INS recognizes the act has shortcomings. Before the act was passed, immigrants entering the United States could apply for asylum before an immigration judge, even if they arrived without identifying paperwork. An adverse decision could be appealed to a Federal district court. The act gives border guards essentially unreviewed discretion to keep immigrants who do not have the appropriate documents out of the United States. The act also requires immigrants found inside the United States who were not properly admitted to be subjected to new and less protective deportation procedures, eliminates the Department of Justice's discretion to suspend deportation and grant legal status to long-time illegal immigrants found inside the United States who have strong family or work ties, bars judicial review of orders deporting legal permanent residents who commit crimes, and eliminates Department of Justice discretion to waive deportation for immigrants who can establish they have been rehabilitated. Some critics of the act say it gives terrorists more legal protection than many immigrants. Suspected terrorists have the right to appointed counsel, the right to bond proceedings, the right to a court hearing, and the right to judicial review in removal proceedings. The immigration act takes away these rights for long-term permanent residents who have had even a minor criminal violation, with no possibility of relief from deportation. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) claims the act is unconstitutional, and the ACLU's Immigrant Rights Project has entered into several cases pending in Federal appeals courts that involve immigrants. 1 photograph