The Sb 1070 and the History of Immigration in The

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

The Sb 1070 and the History of Immigration in The WHY ARIZONA? THE S.B. 1070 AND THE HISTORY OF IMMIGRATION IN THE SOUTHWESTERN BORDER STATES A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of The School of Continuing Studies and of The Graduate School of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Arts in Liberal Studies By Mary Kirk Laidlaw, B.A. Georgetown University Washington, D.C. March 21, 2012 WHY ARIZONA? THE S.B. 1070 AND THE HISTORY OF IMMIGRATION IN THE SOUTHWESTERN BORDER STATES Mary Kirk Laidlaw, B.A. MALS Mentor: Kazuko Uchimura, Ph.D. ABSTRACT Geography, history, demography, and economics all bind the United States to Mexico. The four U.S. states that directly border Mexico – Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas – are especially affected by relations between the two countries. These states have been on the receiving end of immigrants from Mexico, largely unauthorized. Arizona in 2010 passed a notably stringent immigration law, S.B. 1070, which provides legal support for the elimination of unauthorized immigrants from the state. Arizona’s focus on unauthorized immigration reflects the challenge of that issue to America in the twenty-first century. As legal challenges to S.B. 1070 proceed, other states have passed similar legislation during an unprecedented period of legislative activism at the state level. What historical, socioeconomic, and political factors led to the passage of S.B. 1070 in Arizona and how do these factors compare to characteristics of the other southwestern border states? To answer this question, the thesis begins in the early nineteenth century and sweeps the history of the American southwest and federal immigration law to identify the national, regional, and state policies and precedents that led up to the passage of S.B. 1070 in 2010. This review illuminates the complex of factors that put Arizona in the forefront of state-level immigration legislation in 2010 and at the center of the current contention over national immigration policy. Understanding this history is a necessary step if America is to legislate effective immigration policy reform. ii NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY The language used in discussions of immigration topics is often emotionally charged and can be unclear in communicating the various levels of legal status that are essential to the conversation. This thesis uses the following terms throughout: “The Southwest” refers to the four states that collectively define America’s border with Mexico which runs for a distance of 1,951 miles from San Diego, California in the west, along the south of Arizona and New Mexico, to Brownsville, Texas in the east. “Anglos” refers to Caucasian Americans who are citizens of the U.S. The term is interchangeable with whites, Caucasians, and Anglo Americans. Various sources that this thesis quotes include these terms; this thesis presents the terms as stated in the quoted works. Katherine Benton-Cohen of Georgetown University noted in her 2010 article, “Immigration and Border Politics in Arizona, Then and Now,” that ‘Anglo’ is “a term used in the Southwest in lieu of ‘white’” (Benton-Cohen 2010a, 6). “Ethnic Mexicans” refers to all those residing in the U.S. who claim Mexican identity or ancestry. The term includes Mexican American citizens, legal residents of Mexican nationality, and unauthorized immigrants from Mexico. “Mexican Americans” refers to American citizens of Mexican ethnicity who were present at the time of annexation of the American Southwest and were thus entitled to American citizenship, Mexican immigrants who have naturalized, the American-born descendents of either, and the American-born children of unauthorized immigrants. “Unauthorized immigrants” refers to those persons who are foreign-born and who reside in the U.S. without federal U.S. documentation. Both those who entered the U.S. without documentation and those who overstayed legal visas are included in this term. Although migration can be circular, especially prior to the increased levels of border enforcement that evolved over time, this thesis refers to all those residing in the U.S. without official authorization as “unauthorized immigrants” regardless of length of stay. Where pertinent, the text identifies temporary or seasonal migration patterns. iii CONTENTS ABSTRACT ii NOTES ON TERMINOLOGY iii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 2. BORDER DEFINITION: THE SOUTHWEST’S IMMIGRATION 10 PERSPECTIVES TAKE ROOT CHAPTER 3. BORDER DEVELOPMENT: ANGLO AMERICANS 33 CAPITIALIZE ON THE SOUTHWEST CHAPTER 4. BORDER TENSION: INCREASING UNAUTHORIZED 74 IMMIGRATION AND THE SOUTHWEST FROM WORLD WAR II TO THE MILLENNIUM CHAPTER 5. BORDER FAILURE: THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FAILS TO 122 REFORM IMMIGRATION POLICY AND THE STATES ACT REFERENCES 163 iv CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Geography, history, demographics, and economics all bind the United States to its southern neighbor, Mexico. Continuous migration across the border, trade and investment agreements such as 1994’s North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and increasing communication networks and cultural exchange provide evidence of the growing integration of the two nations. The U.S. states that directly border Mexico – California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas – are especially affected by relations between the two countries. They “face unique issues caused by the intersection of local, national, and international interests” (Benton-Cohen and Cadava 2010, 4). Since the time of their formation as American states, these four have been on the receiving end of immigration from Mexico, largely unauthorized. Each border state is unique in terms of its response as well as the impact of immigration on local and state issues. Arizona in 2010 passed a notably stringent immigration law, S.B. 1070. “Its aim is to identify, prosecute, and deport” all unauthorized immigrants from the state (Archibold 2010a). The Problem of Unprecedented Levels of Unauthorized Immigration Arizona’s focus on unauthorized immigration reflects the challenge of that issue to America in the twenty-first century. Since the passage of the Hart-Cellar Act in 1965, the national dialog about immigration policy has focused on unauthorized immigrants. History reveals that America’s response to unauthorized immigration since 1965 closely mirrors the response of Americans in earlier periods of high immigration. For example, the years 1880 to 1920 witnessed high levels of European and Asian immigration and the hardening of both of the U.S.’s land borders; the government designated specific border crossing points and created a law enforcement presence along the border. Regardless, unauthorized immigration and human smuggling surged during that period. Post-1965, unauthorized immigrants have crossed the 1 border in unprecedented numbers despite national, regional, and state-level attempts to stem the tide. “Determined migrants, an attractive labor market, and a long border ultimately undermined efforts to fashion an effective system of control over cross-border migration” (Ettinger 1994, 171). Since 1993 when President Clinton responded to citizens’ concerns with a strong border militarization effort, and especially since the terrorist attacks at the Pentagon and in New York City on September 11, 2001, America’s immigration policy has reflected a focus on immigration control through border enforcement. Once again, this approach has not worked to eliminate unauthorized immigration although it has increased costs for the nation and border states as well as the cost and risk for the immigrants themselves. The continued presence of unauthorized immigrants throughout America, especially in the Southwest, and firsthand accounts of life along the border bear witness to the failure of America’s federal immigration policy thus far. “Illegal immigration is a predictable consequence of demographic trends and current U.S. law in the face of global economic realities” (Gans 2006, 1). In an article published on December 26, 2010 in The Washington Post, Roberto Suro of the University of Southern California, in accord with many other scholars, politicians, and journalists, identifies the status of the over eleven million unauthorized immigrants who already reside in the U.S. as “the most intractable problem by far” for the development of effective immigration policy. Of particular concern has been the concentration of unskilled and uneducated migrants from Mexico within the unauthorized population (Jacobson 2008, 49). Each decennial Census has enumerated the increase in this population in America, particularly in the Southwestern states. The unauthorized immigrants of the twenty-first century are typically here to stay. They have established social and economic relationships with institutions and persons in the communities where they are located (Schuck 1984, 43). They often live in families made up of citizens, legal residents, and other unauthorized immigrants (Wroe 2008, 2 20). They marry, have children who are American citizens by birth right, attend school, work, pay taxes, and receive limited public benefits that include education (Schuck 1984, 43). Their integration into American communities poses challenges to the law which must be just and balance the interests of many. If U.S. law creates opportunities for unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. to obtain citizenship, where is the justice for those who wait for legal entry? Law professor Peter H. Schuck recognizes that some Americans benefit from the presence of the unauthorized but writes, “It is also true, however, that most undocumented aliens have
Recommended publications
  • New York State DREAM Act Application
    Step-by-Step User Guide to completing the New York State DREAM Act Application This user guide breaks down the New York State DREAM Act eligibility application and clarifies why certain questions are asked, how to answer each question accurately, and what documentation must be provided to verify your eligibility. Table of Contents Overview of Applications ........................................................................................................................... 3 The New York State DREAM Act Eligibility Requirements .............................................................. 3 NYS DREAM Act Application ................................................................................................................... 5 Student High School Education Details .............................................................................................. 5 High School Status ............................................................................................................................. 5 High School Completion .................................................................................................................... 7 Student Citizenship and Immigration Status ...................................................................................... 8 Social Security Number (SSN) or Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN): .............................. 10 Student Information .............................................................................................................................. 10 Student
    [Show full text]
  • IMMIGRATION PREEMPTION AFTER UNITED STATES V. ARIZONA
    Johnson & Spiro Final.docx (DO NOT DELETE)1/22/2013 5:14 PM DEBATE IMMIGRATION PREEMPTION AFTER UNITED STATES v. ARIZONA OPENING STATEMENT Preemption of State and Local Immigration Laws Remains Robust KIT JOHNSON† Many people, frustrated with what they believe to be a failure of the federal government to police the nation’s borders, have sought to leverage state and local laws to do what the federal government has not: get tough on undocumented migrants. The primary stumbling block for these attempts is federal preemption as the “[p]ower to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power.” DeCanas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 354 (1976). This June, in a victory for local movements against undocumented immigration, the Supreme Court held that federal law did not preempt an Arizona law requiring police to “make a ‘reasonable attempt . to deter- mine the immigration status of any person they stop, detain, or arrest’” whenever they reasonably believe the person is “unlawfully present in the United States.” Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2507 (2012) (quoting Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 11-1051(B) (2012)). The task now falls to lower courts to apply Arizona to the myriad other state and local laws coming down the pike. The en banc Fifth Circuit is presently considering whether a Dallas suburb may use a scheme of “occu- pancy licenses” to prevent undocumented immigrants from living in rental housing within city limits. See Villas at Parkside Partners v. City of Farmers † Associate Professor, University of Oklahoma College of Law; J.D., 2000, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • The Anti-Immigrant Game
    Op-Ed The anti-immigrant game Laws such as Arizona's SB 1070 are not natural responses to undue hardship but are products of partisan politics. Opponents of SB 1070 raise their fists after unfurling an enormous banner from the beam of a 30-story high construction crane in downtown Phoenix, Arizona in 2010. If upheld, Arizona's SB 1070 would require local police in most circumstances to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop based only on a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully in this country. (Los Angeles Times / April 23, 2012) By Pratheepan Gulasekaram and Karthick Ramakrishnan April 24, 2012 The Supreme Court hears oral arguments Wednesday on the constitutionality of Arizona's 2010 immigration enforcement law. If upheld, SB 1070 would require local police in most circumstances to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop based only on a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully in this country. It would also compel residents to carry their immigration papers at all times and create state immigration crimes distinct from what is covered by federal law. A few other states, such as Alabama and Georgia, and some cities have passed similar laws, and many more may consider such laws if the Supreme Court finds Arizona's law to be constitutional. The primary legal debate in U.S. vs. Arizona will focus on the issue of whether a state government can engage in immigration enforcement without the explicit consent of the federal government. The state of Arizona will argue that its measure simply complements federal enforcement, while the federal government will argue that Arizona's law undermines national authority and that immigration enforcement is an exclusively federal responsibility.
    [Show full text]
  • The Widening Impact of Arizona SB 1070: a State by State Look
    The Widening Impact of Arizona SB 1070: A State by State Look Even before Arizona’s new immigration law takes effect, lawmakers in other states are following Arizona’s lead. Here are the states that are considering or have introduced laws similar to Arizona’s statutes that target illegal immigrants. State Bill Status Michigan Sen. Michelle McManus (R) introduced Senate bill 1388 Referred to the Senate Judiciary on June 15, 2010. This requires law enforcement Committee on June 15, 2010. officers make a reasonable attempt when practicable to determine the immigration status of any person Michigan Legislature - Senate Bill 1388 detained under any lawful stop, detention, or arrest if (2010) there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal alien. Minnesota Rep. Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa, introduced The bill introduced to the house, but will legislation that would create a Minnesota Illegal not advance this year. Immigration Enforcement Team and require immigrants to carry an “alien registration” card. The bill uses the Minnesota HF3830 same “reasonable suspicion” protocol that has generated criticism against Arizona’s law. The bill is referred to as “ The Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act” Nebraska The town of Fremont approved a ban on hiring or State Sen. Charlie Janssen of Fremont renting property to illegal immigrants. plans to introduce a stricter immigration bill in 2011 based at least in part on City of Fremont, Nebraska Immigration Ordinance Arizona's law. Oklahoma House Bill 1804 restricts undocumented immigrants Republican state Rep. Randy Terrill from obtaining IDs or public assistance, give police plans to introduce a bill that would also authority to check the status of anyone arrested, and likely include asset seizure and forfeiture make it a felony to knowingly provide shelter, provisions for immigration-related crimes transportation or employment to the undocumented.
    [Show full text]
  • Left Back: the Impact of SB 1070 on Arizona's Youth
    LEFT BACK: The Impact of SB 1070 on Arizona’s Youth Southwest Institute for Research on Women, College of Social and Behavioral Sciences Bacon Immigration Law and Policy Program, James E. Rogers College of Law September 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 1 I. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................... 3 II. BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY ........................................................... 5 III. KEY FINDINGS....................................................................................................... 7 1. Social Disruption and Its Consequences for Students, Families, and Schools7 A. Flight from the State .............................................................................................. 8 1) The Character of Departure ............................................................................... 8 2) Where Did People Go?.................................................................................... 10 3) How Many People Left?.................................................................................. 10 B. What This Social Disruption Meant for Youth .................................................... 11 1) The Strenuous Deliberation over Whether to Leave ....................................... 12 2) Youth Left Behind........................................................................................... 13 3) Distress and its
    [Show full text]
  • Az-Complaint.Pdf
    1 Tony West Assistant Attorney General 2 Dennis K. Burke United States Attorney 3 Arthur R. Goldberg Assistant Director, Federal Programs Branch 4 Varu Chilakamarri (NY Bar #4324299) Joshua Wilkenfeld (NY Bar #4440681) 5 U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division 20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. 6 Washington, DC 20530 Tel. (202) 616-8489/Fax (202) 616-8470 7 [email protected] Attorneys for the United States 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 12 The United States of America, No. ________________ 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. COMPLAINT 15 The State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her 16 Official Capacity, 17 18 Defendants. 19 Plaintiff, the United States of America, by its undersigned attorneys, brings this civil 20 action for declaratory and injunctive relief, and alleges as follows: 21 INTRODUCTION 22 1. In this action, the United States seeks to declare invalid and preliminarily and 23 permanently enjoin the enforcement of S.B. 1070, as amended and enacted by the State of 24 Arizona, because S.B. 1070 is preempted by federal law and therefore violates the 25 Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. 26 2. In our constitutional system, the federal government has preeminent authority to 27 regulate immigration matters. This authority derives from the United States Constitution and 28 numerous acts of Congress. The nation’s immigration laws reflect a careful and considered 1 balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests. Congress 2 has assigned to the United States Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, 3 and Department of State, along with other federal agencies, the task of enforcing and 4 administering these immigration-related laws.
    [Show full text]
  • US Immigration
    BUSHELL (DO NOT DELETE) 5/29/2013 2:45 PM “Give Me Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Huddled Masses”—Just as Long as They Fit the Heteronormative Ideal: U.S. Immigration Law’s Exclusionary & Inequitable Treatment of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, and Queer Migrants Logan Bushell* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 674 II. IMMIGRATION & SEXUALITY: AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF REGULATING SEXUALITY AT THE BORDER .......................................... 677 A. 1875-1917: Establishing a Foundational Blueprint for Exclusion of LGBTQ Migrants .................................................... 678 B. 1917-1990: Adherence to the Blueprint for Exclusion of LGBTQ Migrants ......................................................................... 680 III. REFUGE IN THE COURTHOUSE? THE JUDICIARY’S APPROACH TO EXCLUSIONARY IMMIGRATION LAWS & POLICIES .............................. 683 A. Boutilier v. INS: Not Welcome—The Judiciary’s Sanctioning of Exclusionary Immigration Laws & Policies ............................ 683 B. Hill v. INS: An Inclusionary Olive Branch from the Judiciary ... 685 IV. TWO STEPS FORWARD, TWO STEPS BACK: PROGRESSIVE MEASURES PROVE MERELY PRETEXTUAL ........................................... 687 A. No Longer Categorically Excluded, but Certainly Not Included: Dismissing LGBTQ Persons from Family Unification ................................................................................... 687 B. Defense of Marriage Act: Deciding Exactly Who
    [Show full text]
  • Immigration Law and the Myth of Comprehensive Registration
    Immigration Law and the Myth of Comprehensive Registration Nancy Morawetz†* and Natasha Fernández-Silber** This Article identifies an insidious misconception in immigration law and policy: the myth of comprehensive registration. According to this myth — proponents of which include members of the Supreme Court, federal and state officials, and commentators on both sides of the immigration federalism debate — there exists a comprehensive federal alien registration system; this scheme obligates all non-citizens in the United States to register and carry registration cards at all times, or else face criminal sanction. In truth, no such system exists today, nor has one ever existed in American history. Yet, federal agencies like U.S. Border Patrol refer to such a system to justify arrests and increase enforcement statistics; the Department of Justice points to the same mythic system to argue statutory preemption of state immigration laws (rather than confront the discriminatory purpose and effect of those laws); and, states trot it out in an attempt to turn civil immigration offenses into criminal infractions. Although this legal fiction is convenient for a variety of disparate political institutions, it is far from convenient for those who face wrongful arrest and detention based on nothing more than failure to carry proof of status. Individuals in states with aggressive “show me your papers” immigration laws or under the presence of U.S. Border Patrol are particularly at risk. In an effort to dispel this dangerous misconception, this Article reviews the history of America’s experimentation with registration laws and the † Copyright © 2014 Nancy Morawetz and Natasha Fernández-Silber.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cascading Effects of Arizona's SB 1070 an Overview
    Special Section ARIZONA’S SB 1070 The Cascading Effects of Arizona’s SB 1070 An Overview Erik Lee* lthough at the time of this writing, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton in Phoenix has halted the implemen­ Atation of several parts of Arizona Senate Bill 1070 in advance of a more thorough hearing on the measure, the Henry Romero/REUTERS bill itself necessitates a broader rethinking of how the Unit­ ed States and Mexico interact on a very important yet poor­ ly addressed policy issue: migration. For this reason, on June 16, 2010, the North American Center for Transborder Studies (NACTS ) at Arizona State University and the Center for Re­ search on North America (CISAN ) at Mexico’s National Auto­ nomous University convened a number of researchers to discuss SB 1070 in detail. What emerged was a portrait of com­ plexity at a particularly difficult juncture in the U.S.­Mex ico binational relationship as well as the sense of having witness­ ed a historical milestone with many “cascading” effects and con­ sequences yet to come. The presentations and articles for the most part focused on recent developments in local and state anti­immigration measures, but in his article, “The Immigration Debate about Mexicans,” Jaime Aguila1 gives some even broader historical context to SB 1070. He focuses on the complex decade of the 1930s, which saw economic catastrophe, repatriation of Mex­ icans, and Mexican government attempts to reintegrate re­ * Associate Director, North American Center for Transborder Stu dies, Arizona State University. 79 Voices of Mexico • 88 The enormous increase in Arizona’s Mexican population in the 1990s was largely driven by U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Wins and Who Loses Under the Immigration Act of 1990? Brian Adler
    University of Miami Law School Institutional Repository University of Miami Inter-American Law Review 7-1-1992 Capital v. Labor: Who Wins and Who Loses Under the Immigration Act of 1990? Brian Adler Beth Jarrett Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.law.miami.edu/umialr Part of the Immigration Law Commons, and the International Trade Commons Recommended Citation Brian Adler and Beth Jarrett, Capital v. Labor: Who Wins and Who Loses Under the Immigration Act of 1990?, 23 U. Miami Inter-Am. L. Rev. 789 (1992) Available at: http://repository.law.miami.edu/umialr/vol23/iss3/10 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Miami Inter- American Law Review by an authorized administrator of Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMMENT CAPITAL v. LABOR: WHO WINS AND WHO LOSES UNDER THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1990? I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 790 II. THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT (NAFTA) ............... 793 A. History and Background of NAFTA .............................. 793 B. The Pros and Cons of NAFTA ................................... 795 C. Labor M obility and NAFTA ..................................... 797 IIl. CHANGES IN IMMIGRATION LAW UNDER THE IA90 AND CONGRESS'S UNDERLYING GOALS IN IMPLEMENTING THE ACT ...................................... 799 A . Passage of the IA90 ............................................. 799 B. Congress's Goals - Diversifying the Immigrant Pool and Increasing Skilled Labor Im m igration ...................... ......... ...... 801 IV. DOCTRINAL ANALYSIS OF THE IA90'S THIRD EMPLOYMENT-BASED PREFERENCE AND DISCUSSION OF ITS CONSEQUENCES .................................. 803 A. Third Employment-Based Preference - Skilled Workers, Profession- als, and "O thers" .
    [Show full text]
  • Kim V. Schiltgen
    Find Result - 2002 WL 31016560 06/15/2007 08:28 PM FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY 2002 WL 31016560 (U.S.) For opinion see 123 S.Ct. 1708, 122 S.Ct. 2696 Briefs and Other Related Documents United States Supreme Court Petitioner's Brief. Charles DEMORE, District Director, San Francisco District of Immigration and Naturalization Service, et al., Petitioners, v. Hyung Joon KIM. No. 01-1491. August 29, 2002. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONERS Theodore B. Olson Solicitor General Counsel of Record Robert D. McCallum, Jr. Assistant Attorney General Edwin S. Kneedler Deputy Solicitor General Austin C. Schlick Assistant to the Solicitor General Donald E. Keener Mark C. Walters Hugh G. Mullane Michelle Gorden Attorneys Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 (202) 514-2217 *I QUESTION PRESENTED Section 1226(c)(1) of Title 8 of the United States Code requires the Attorney General to take into custody aliens who are inadmissible to or deportable from the United States because they have committed a specified offense, including an aggravated felony. Section 1226(c)(2) of Title 8 prohibits release of those aliens during administrative proceedings to remove them from the United States, except in very http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?bhcp=1&cite=2002+WL+31016560&FN=%5Ftop&rs=LAWS2%2E0&strRecreate=no&sv=Split&vr=1%2E0 Page 1 of 43 Find Result - 2002 WL 31016560 06/15/2007 08:28 PM limited circumstances not present here. The question presented in this case is: Whether respondent's mandatory detention under Section 1226(c) violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, where respondent concedes that his criminal convictions after admission into the United States put him within the class of removable aliens who are subject to detention.
    [Show full text]
  • Calendar No. 80
    Calendar No. 80 113TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! 1st Session SENATE 113–40 BORDER SECURITY, ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, AND IMMIGRATION MODERNIZATION ACT JUNE 7, 2013.—Ordered to be printed Mr. LEAHY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following R E P O R T together with ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS [To accompany S. 744] The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill (S. 744), to provide for comprehensive immigration reform, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon, with an amendment, and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass. CONTENTS Page I. Background and Purpose of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act ........................................................ 1 II. History of the Bill and Committee Consideration ....................................... 22 III. Section-by-Section Summary of the Bill ...................................................... 75 IV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ................................................ 161 V. Regulatory Impact Evaluation ...................................................................... 161 VI. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 161 VII. Additional and Minority Views ..................................................................... 163 VIII. Changes to Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................... 186 I. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE BORDER SECURITY, ECONOMIC
    [Show full text]