Illegal Immigration Issues

Illegal Immigration Issues

Dawn Bonner

 

Part I on the series Illegal Immigration Issues

A law was passed in 1986 to secure our borders, the law was ignored. The issue did not resolve. The Congress and the Senate made and passed another law in Sept. of 2006 to secure our borders. Twenty-two years after the first law was passed and our borders are still not secure.

The United States of America Laws on Immigration:
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952
Excerpts from Wikipedia

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952 (also known as the McCarran-Walter Act) restricted immigration into the U.S. and is codified under Title 8 of the United States Code. The Act governs primarily immigration and citizenship in the United States. Before the INA, a variety of statutes governed immigration law but were not organized within one body of text. As a result of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the INA has undergone a major restructuring beginning in March 2003 and its provisions regarding the admissibility and remove ability of terrorist suspects has received much media and scholarly attention.

Background

The bill was named after the bill’s sponsors: Senator Pat McCarran (D-Nevada), and Congressman Francis Walter (D-Pennsylvania).

Racial restrictions which previously existed were abolished in the INA, but a quota system was retained and the policy of restricting the numbers of immigrants from certain countries was continued. Eventually, the INA established a preference system which selected which ethnic groups were desirable immigrants and placed great importance on labor qualifications.

The INA defined three types of immigrants:

1. immigrants with special skills or relatives of US citizens who were exempt from quotas and who were to be admitted without restrictions;

2. average immigrants whose numbers were not supposed to exceed 270,000 per year;

3. refugees.

“Today, we are protecting ourselves as we were in 1924, against being flooded by immigrants from Eastern Europe. This is fantastic… We do not need to be protected against immigrants from these countries, on the contrary; we want to stretch out a helping hand, to save those who have managed to flee into Western Europe, to succor those who are brave enough to escape from barbarism, to welcome and restore them against the day when their countries will, as we hope, be free again…these are only a few examples of the absurdity, the cruelty of carrying over into this year of 1952, the isolationist limitations of our 1924 law. In no other realm of our national life are we so hampered and stultified by the dead hand of the past, as we are in this field of immigration.”
~President Harry Truman’s veto message.

“I believe that this nation is the last hope of Western civilization and if this oasis of the world shall be overrun, perverted, contaminated, or destroyed, then the last flickering light of humanity will be extinguished. I take no issue with those who would praise the contributions which have been made to our society by people of many races, of varied creeds and colors. America is indeed a joining together of many streams which go to form a mighty river, which we call the American Way. However, we have in the United States today hard-core, indigestible blocs, which have not become integrated into the American way of life, but which, on the contrary are its deadly enemies. Today, as never before, untold millions are storming our gates for admission and those gates are cracking under the strain. The solution of the problems of Europe and Asia will not come through a transplanting of those problems en masse to the United States…. I do not intend to become prophetic, but if the enemies of this legislation succeed in riddling it to pieces, or in amending it beyond recognition, they will have contributed more to promote this nation’s downfall than any other group since we achieved our independence as a nation.”
~Senator Pat McCarran, Cong. Rec., March 2, 1953

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965
Excerpts from Wikipedia

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Hart-Celler Act, INS Act of 1965, Pub.L. 89-236) abolished the national-origin quotas that had been in place in the United States, since the Immigration Act of 1924. It was proposed by Emanuel Celler, co-sponsored by Philip Hart and heavily supported by Senator Ted Kennedy.

An annual limitation of 170,000 visas was established for immigrants from Eastern Hemisphere countries with no more than 20,000 per country. By 1968, the annual limitation from the Western Hemisphere was set at 120,000 immigrants, with visas available on a first-come, first-served basis. However, the number of family reunification visas was unlimited, and it is only now that there are any country-origin quotas for spouses of US citizens, and numerical quotas for other relatives of U.S. citizens.

In the Congress, the House of Representatives voted 326 to 69 (82.5%) in favor of the act while the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 76 to 18. Opposition mainly came from Southern delegates. In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed the legislation into law.

During debate on the Senate floor, Senator Kennedy, speaking of the effects of the act, said, “First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same … Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset … Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia … In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think … The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.”

(U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965. pp. 1-3.) The act’s supporters not only claimed the law would not change America’s ethnic makeup, but that such a change was not desirable.

The Immigration Act of 1965 shifted the focus of immigration law from non-European countries to countries that were considered to be third world. Presidents Johnson and Kennedy hoped that by reforming immigration law, they would not only improve relations with non-European nations, but they would reaffirm America’s principles of freedom and equality.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 became law on July 1, 1968. Along with the act of 1952, it serves as one of the parts of the United States Code until this day.

The Secure Fence Act of 2006
Excerpts from Wikipedia

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 (Pub.L. 109-367) was enacted Oct. 26, 2006 in the United States. The act allows for over 700 miles of double-reinforced fence to be built across cities and deserts alike, between Calif. and Texas, in areas that have been prone to illegal drug trafficking and illegal immigration. It authorizes the installation of more lighting, vehicle barriers, and border checkpoints, while putting in place more advanced equipment like sensors, cameras, satellites, and unmanned aerial vehicles in an attempt to watch and control illegal immigration into the United States. Officials say that it will help cut down on the number of illegal vehicles that go back and forth across the border bringing illegal drugs.

“This bill will help protect the American people. This bill will make our borders more secure. It is an important step toward immigration reform”
~President George W. Bush October 26, 2006

Congressional action

The Fence Act passed 283-138 in the House on September 14. In the House vote, 219 Republicans and 64 Democrats voted yes, while 6 Republicans, 131 Democrats, and 1 Independent voted no.

The Fence Act passed 80-19 in the Senate on September 29.In the Senate vote, 54 Republicans and 23 Democrats voted yes, while 1 Republican, 17 Democrats, and 1 Independent voted no.

Appropriation

After the bill was passed, Senate Republicans suggested that there wouldn’t be any money appropriated to the bill so House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter wrote a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff informing them that the bill didn’t suggest that the fence be built; it ordered it to be built. To ensure that the fence would be built, Hunter referenced the language in the Homeland Security law that would withhold $950 million if they didn’t go along with the plan within 60 days. Soon afterwards, President Bush signed the bill into law.

Congress approved a homeland security spending bill that was separate from the Secure Fence Act that would allocate $1.2 billion dollars to put the plan into action, although some people believe that somewhere near $5 billion is what is actually needed to put the plan into action. An additional $3 billion was included on October 3rd in the Defense Appropriations Bill. But by November 13 when it was signed into law, these funds had been removed. They were cut from the bill in House-Senate committee.

Amendments

The above are the Immigration Laws that are on the books currently, yet there are 1,000 amendments recorded by the 110th Congress on Illegal Immigration Amendments at the Library of Congress. Click here to read them.

The amendments are interesting in several ways. One being the fact representatives are asking over and over again for our laws to be enforced, adding more detrimental facts of the borders not being engored, and these facts are from our own government statistics. After perusing them, you will probably be convinced that our government officials do not believe all ‘Illegal Immigrants’ are here to help us out with the work ‘we Americans don’t want to do,’ as some try to convince us.

Accomplishments

Taken from the Library of Congress from the Senate of the United States in June 19, 2007. Mr. Sessions for himself, Mr. DeMint, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Vitter submitted the following resolution:

Whereas an estimated 40 percent of the estimated 12,000,000 to 20,000,000 illegal immigrants in the United States have overstayed their non-immigrant visas;

Whereas the decision of the Department of the Treasury to allow financial institutions to accept the Mexican matricula consular card as valid identification for the purpose of opening bank accounts encourages illegal immigrants to remain in the United States;

Whereas Federal Bureau of Investigation officials have testified under oath that the matricula consular card `is not a reliable form of identification, due to the nonexistence of any means of verifying the true identity of the card holder’ and because the card is so vulnerable to fraud and forgery `there are 2 major criminal threats posed by the cards, and 1 potential terrorist threat.’;

Whereas the lack of such enforcement sends a message to immigrants that they can wrongfully take advantage of government benefits paid for by American taxpayers;

Whereas 98 percent of illegal immigrants arrested along the international border between the United States and Mexico between 2000 and 2005 were released across the border without prosecution, and many of such illegal immigrants were caught and released multiple times.

Whereas such a catch and return without prosecution policy encourages illegal immigrants to keep trying to enter illegally and creates a revolving door of illegal immigration;

Whereas such a policy unfairly burdens United States citizens because there are fewer places for legal residents in those colleges or universities and out-of-State students pay higher tuition than the tuition charged to illegal immigrants;

Whereas in some judicial jurisdictions alien smugglers will not be prosecuted by the United States Attorney’s Office unless they are caught smuggling at least 12 illegal immigrants;

Whereas such a policy acts as an incentive for smugglers to continue their trade as long as they do not breach the arbitrary threshold for prosecution;

Whereas, as of June 2007, there are only 13,500 active border patrol agents, which is 1,306 less than the number Congress required be in place by the end of fiscal year 2007 under section 5202 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004;

Whereas more Border Patrol agents would help ensure effective control of the international border between the United States and Mexico;

Whereas, as of June 2007, there are only 27,500 detention beds for holding illegal immigrants, which is 15,944 less than the number Congress required be in use by the end of fiscal year 2007 under section 5204 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004;

Whereas additional detention beds would help ensure that all criminal aliens and individuals apprehended while crossing the border illegally are detained prior to prosecution and deportation;

Whereas, as of June 2007, there are only 5,571 immigration investigators, which is less than the number Congress required be in place by the end of fiscal year 2007 under section 5203 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004;

Whereas additional investigators would help ensure that sufficient work site enforcement is performed to impose employer sanctions on those who hire illegal immigrants;

Whereas the Secure Fence Act of 2006 requires that more than 700 miles of fencing be built along the international border between the United States and Mexico;

Whereas as of June 5, 2007, only 87 miles of fencing exists, even though such fencing helps deter illegal border crossing;

Whereas the Department of Homeland Security may use expedited removal procedures for any illegal immigrants who have not been admitted, or paroled into the United States and who have not affirmatively shown that they have been inside the United States for 2 years;

Whereas the Department of Homeland Security only uses expedited removal procedures for illegal immigrants who are apprehended within 100 miles of the United States border and within 14 days of entry to the United States even though wider use of expedited removal would help decrease the number of appeals of removal orders which clog the Federal court system;

Whereas the current Immigration Violators File in the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database is being underutilized and could be expanded so that State and local law enforcement could help locate the more than 600,000 alien absconders living in the United States; and

Whereas the current illegal immigration crisis is a direct result of this and previous Administrations failing to enforce or adequately enforce at least eight immigration laws passed by Congress and enacted by the current and previous Administrations.

Click here to read the rest of this bill at The Library of Congress.

So, you may wonder why only as of June 5, 2007, only 87 miles of fencing exists. Great question.

According to FCW.com’s Alice Lipowicz’s online news article of Nov. 13, 2007, titled New Law cuts $3B for border security. Says, the Defense appropriations bill that passed Congress Nov. 8 did not include an amendment to provide $3 billion for border security that included funds for unmanned aerial vehicles and ground sensors.

The border security amendment, sponsored by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), was approved by the Senate in a 95-1 vote Oct. 3. When House and Senate leaders negotiated the final terms of the bill in recent weeks, they removed the border security provision and it’s funding. The Defense fiscal 2008 spending bill passed the House, 400-15, and the Senate in a voice vote, Nov. 8.

Graham said last week he was disappointed that the border security funds were stripped from the final bill.

“The amendment that I offered supported by all my colleagues here, passed 95-1. Only in Washington would that be a mixed signal,” he said at a Nov. 7 press conference.

Under Graham’s amendment, there would have been funding for 700 miles of fencing, unmanned aerial vehicles, ground sensors, vehicle barriers and other technology with the goal of reaching operational control of the borders. In addition, there would be money for enforcement and detention of illegal immigrants.

But, the question still remains, why only 87 feet of the wall was built from Sept. 26, 2006 to Nov. 7, 2007?  The Washington Post may have an inkling of what is going on. According to their article of

Washington Post Sept. 29, 2006:

Critics say House Republican leaders needed to pass the bill in order to seem tough on illegal immigrants. Critics also argue that the legislation does not jibe with President Bush’s vision of a comprehensive overhaul of U.S. immigration laws. Advocates of the measure call it a landmark step toward securing the nation’s porous borders. Neither side, however, thinks that the fence can be built as the bill’s authors envision, because of the terrain and a potential lawsuit from a Native American group whose lands would be impacted by the project.

It seems the House Democratic leaders needn’t concern themselves with an opinion on this matter based on the above statement…

The article went on to say:
Despite those concerns, on Sept. 29, the Senate approved the bill 80 to 19, with 26 Democrats supporting the legislation. House legislators passed the bill 283 to 138 on Sept. 14. President Bush is expected to sign it into law.

Click here to see the tally of who voted for and against the fence, recorded at the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives website. It is here you can find all of the voting records for every law and amendment passed by the House.

On Oct. 26 2006 CNN posted the results from a survey by Opinion Research Corp. to 1,013 Americans regarding border control. Seventy-four percent of those polled said that they are in favor of increasing the number of Border Patrol agents along the southern border, but 55 percent opposed construction of a fence.

On Aug. 18, 2007, Rasmussen Reports published the results of a nationwide survey of 800 Americans on illegal immigration and reported that by a 56 percent to 31percent margin, respondents were in favor of constructing the fence. (Reported by Wikipedia)

 

And, your thoughts? Email Us, we’d love to hear your view point.

 

Click Here: Short videos of what our politicians say about Illegal Immigration in their own words. Part II of the series.