ABSTRACT
The moderating changes in the refugee provisions, like the rescue of legal immigration and the elimination of additional restrictions on benefits for legal immigrants, resulted from the combined effort of legislators who opposed Smith and Simpson and of non-governmental organizations that organized constituents and lobbied both Congress and the administration for more than three years. It is, of course, risky to draw firm conclusions from a single case study. But based on the experience of advocacy by human rights and religious groups with respect to the immigration bill and its implementing regulations, I offer sixteen hypotheses that may be of use to public interest advocates and can be tested through future studies of efforts by non-profit organizations to affect public policy.2
