User:Advancedlegalwriting/Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

History
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA or IIRAIRA), Division C of Pub. L.  104–208, 110 Stat. 3009-546, enacted September 30, 1996, made major changes to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). IIRIRA's changes became effective on April 1, 1997. As part of the legislative history, it was introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative C.W. Bill Young in June 1996. It passed in the House by a vote of 278-126 and in the Senate by a vote of 72-27, all within just a week of introduction. The Act enforced strict policies for individuals entering the United States, whether documented, or not. One of the largest changes consisted of implementeing major consequences, the most common of which was removal, for undocumented individuals who were invovled in criminal activity. Some of the crimes and aggrevated felonies that prevent people from immigrating to the U.S. are racketeering, smuggling undocumented persons, and the use of creationg of fraudulent immigration-related documents. Even more radical, is the retroactive nature of this Act which allowed for now documented residents or citizens, to face deportation for previous felonious acts or misdemeanors.

The United States has a long history of welcoming immigrants from around the world, and it has been a popular destination for people seeking better economic opportunities, political freedom, and a better life. However, the increasing number of illegal immigrants in the country has raised concerns about border security, public safety, and the strain on social services.

The IIRIRA was enacted in response to these concerns and sought to address the issue of illegal immigration by strengthening border security, cracking down on undocumented aliens, and reforming the immigration system. The act was also a response to a series of high-profile incidents, including the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, which highlighted the need for tighter immigration controls.

The act brought about major changes in the immigration procedures in the country. Some of the major provisions include:


 * Border Security, The act provided funding for additional border patrol agents and the construction of new border barriers and infrastructure to enhance border security.
 * Criminal Aliens: The act established mandatory detention for aliens convicted of certain crimes, including drug offenses, and expanded the list of crimes that could result in deportation.
 * Asylum Reform: The act introduced reforms to the asylum system, including tighter restrictions on eligibility for asylum, expedited removal procedures, and limitations on judicial review.

The purpose of the Act was to strenghten previously immigration policies for the country. Former United States President Bill Clinton asserted that the legislation strengthened "the rule of law by cracking down on illegal immigration at the border, in the workplace, and in the criminal justice system — without punishing those living in the United States legally." Proponents of the IIRIRA present the case that the policy provided a much needed end to numerous loopholes present beforehand in US immigration policy, which ultimately undermined their efficacy. The law allowed for stricter enforcement at the Southern border with the U.S.,

Before IIRIRA, nonimmigrants who overstayed their visas or violated their status could pay a fine that would allow them to adjust their status to permanent residence status. With IIRIRA, however, lawfully admitted nonimmigrants who overstay their visas by one day or longer became ineligible for a new nonimmigrant visa. If the period of overstay ranged from 180-365 days, the noncitizen would face a 3-year bar to reentry. An overstay of more than 365 days would require a 10-year bar where a petition can be requested only under specific processes. Thus, a noncitizen who falls under these categories would be subject to summary removal if attempting to reenter the United States years down the line. To broaden the scope even further, as mentioned prior, the retroactive quality of this Act meant that these provisions impact noncitizens who were admitted even before the enactment of IIRIRA.

For these reasons, IIRIRA has been criticized as overly punitive "by eliminating due process from the overwhelming majority of removal cases and curtailing equitable relief from removal." The nature of the hearings is to deny the individual any legal representation by an attorney and a jury, which raises fair questions about the Constitutionality of the Act. A range of critiques have emerged concerning the provisions enacted with IIRIRA, such as the expansion of aggravated felonies, creation of the 287(g) program, reduction in due process rights, and intensified funding of border militarization. With IIRIRA, all noncitizens, regardless of legal status and including long-term legal permanent residents, became subject to removal and greatly expanded the offenses that could lead to formal deportation.

Ultimately, the goal of the IIRIRA has been to deter further illegal immigration into the US. Despite a noticeable increase in annual deportations since the policy was enacted in 1996 from around 50,000 to over 200,000 by the beginning of the 2000's, overall illegal immigration has increased since the policy's enactment according to data compiled by the Pew Research Center.

Public Charge
IIRIRA imposed new regulations concerning public charge determinations for noncitizens seeking admission. Despite historically deemed unnecessary, IIRIRA requires that the individual(s) petitioning a family-sponsored immigrant must provide an affidavit of support. In the affidavit, the petitioner must "agree to provide support to maintain the sponsored alien at an annual income that is not less than (check percentage) 125 percent of the federal poverty guidelines" until the noncitizen naturalizes as a U.S. citizen or the noncitizen, the noncitizen's parent, or the noncitizen's spouse has worked for 40 qualifying quarters. Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-120. 110 Stat. 300-675-676 §231A(a)(3)(A), §231A (a)(3)(B)(i), §231A (a)(3)(B)(ii). (1996). (2) PERIOD OF ENFORCEABILITY.—An affidavit of support shall be enforceable with respect to benefits provided for an alien before the date the alien is naturalized as a citizen of the United States, or, if earlier, the termination date provided under paragraph (3). (3) Termination of Period of Enforceability Upon Completion of Required Period of Employment, ETC.— (A) IN GENERAL.—An affidavit of support is not enforceable after such time as the alien (i) has worked 40 qualifying quarters of coverage as defined under title II of the Social Security Act or can be credited with such qualifying quarters as provided under subparagraph (B), and (ii) in the case of any such qualifying quarter creditable for any period beginning after December 31, 1996, did not receive any Federal means-tested public benefit (as provided under section 403 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996) during any such period. (B) QUALIFYING QUARTERS.—For purposes of this section, in determining the number of qualifying quarters of coverage under title II of the Social Security Act an alien shall be credited with— (i) all of the qualifying quarters of coverage as defined under title II of the Social Security Act worked by a parent of such alien while the alien was under age 18, and (ii) all of the qualifying quarters worked by a spouse of such alien during their marriage and the alien remains married to such spouse or such spouse is deceased. No such qualifying quarter of coverage that is creditable under title II of the Social Security Act for any period beginning after December 31, 1996, may be credited to an alien under clause (i) or (ii) if the parent or spouse (as the case may be) of such alien received any Federal means-tested public benefit (as provided under section 403 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996) during the period for which such qualifying quarter of coverage is so credited.

Aggravated Felonies
.......... Any noncitizen who is convicted of an aggravated felony can face collateral immigration consequences: "noncitizens who have been convicted of an 'aggravated felony' are prohibited from receiving most forms of relief that would spare them from deportation, including asylum, and from being readmitted to the United States at any time in the future." There is a "presumption of deportability" for noncitizens convicted of aggravated felonies, in which noncitizens "convicted of an aggravated felony shall be conclusively presumed to be deportable from the United States." Importantly, aggravated felony charges can be applied retroactively, so if a change in the law deems a new category of offense an aggravated felony, any noncitizen previously convicted of that offense can then face removal even if they currently hold legal documentation.

.... Vartelas v. Holder,

Expedited Removal
IIRIRA also established expedited removal, in which immigration officials gained the authority to summarily remove certain noncitizens. This is different from the expedited removal proceedings for noncitizens convicted of aggravated felonies. Noncitizens subject to expedited removal include noncitizens "who are inadmissible because they lack valid entry documents or have sought admission through fraud (may also include aliens inadmissible on same grounds if they are present in the United States without being admitted or paroled and have been in the country less than two years)". This type of removal breaks individuals into seperate categories depending on how they entered. The first category consists of people who entered without valid travel documents, the second are those who had false travel documents, and lastly are those who fraudulently obtained the documents.

Expedited removals can be considered removals without hearings: these removals do not require judicial review by immigration judges within the Executive Office of Immigration Review unless the individual plans to apply for asylum or indicates fear of persecution. Therefore, noncitizens subject to expedited removal do not have the right to administrative review or the right to administrative appeal and judicial review. Because expedited removals do not require judicial or administrative review, noncitizens who are subject to expedited removals are not afforded the right to an attorney during their interviews with immigration officials. The Act allows for some type of "represnetation" prior to the hearings, whoever, the representation may not be present during the actual hearing nor may the counsel cause an unreasonable delay in the process. This specific type of removal raises many concerns around due process to be afforded as a right and whether the proceedings unfairly disadvantage individuals who have lived in the country with documentation other than their own.

Bars to Re-Entry
As mentioned above, depending on the time that noncitizens overstayed their legally permitted time, various bars for reentry of noncitizens were established by IIRIRA.

...
Lifetime bars to reentry were established for any noncitizen who was deported due to criminal convictions of aggravated felonies. These individuals face a lifetime bar to reentry and often are not able to remedy this bar.

Higher education restriction (citations)
....

Several states have passed tuition-equality laws by allowing anyone regardless of legal status to apply for in-state tuition if they meet the state's eligibility requirements. States have overcome these restrictions by basing eligibility on in-state tuition on factors besides residence, such as attendance at a high school in the state. These provisions allow anyone, regardless of their immigration or citizenship status, to apply for in-state tuition if they meet the eligibility requirements. In doing so, the states have complied with the mandates established by IIRIRA and PRWORA. Additionally, because undocumented individuals can pay for taxes and therefore have legal records of income, some county colleges have made tuition completely free for all people fallling under a certain economic level.