MASARYK UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
Changes in U.S. Immigration Policy as a Consequence of 9/11 Diploma Thesis
Brno 2007 Supervisor: Written by:
Michael F. George, M.A. Kateřina Chmelíková
CHMELÍKOVÁ, Kateřina. Changes in U.S. Immigration Policy as a Consequence of 9/11: diploma thesis. Brno : Masaryk University, Faculty of Education, Department of English Language and Literature, 2007. 66 p., Supervisor Michael F. George, M.A. SUMMARY In my diploma thesis I dealt with changes in U.S. immigration policy and legislation measures that had to be made after the September 11, 2001 Attacks in order to secure the country against the threat of terrorism. I devoted the first chapter to brief history of the immigration policy so the reader can better grasp the basic principles of U.S. immigration legislation and thus the measures taken after the tragedy. The driving objective of my work was to describe the most important immigration policy measures taken as necessary consequences of September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. RESUMÉ Tématem mé diplomové práce jsou změny imigrační politiky a legislativních opatření Spojených Států v důsledku teroristických útoků 11. září 2001. Hlavním cílem všech opatření učiněných vládou USA byla ochrana země před dalšími útoky tohoto druhu. První kapitola je věnována stručné historii imigrační politiky USA a čtenář tak lépe porozumí principům imigrační politiky jejím nutným změnám po 11. září 2001. Hlavním cílem práce bylo popsat nejdůležitější změny imigrační politiky vedoucí k nezdaru celé akce a poukázat na vážné důsledky této operace pro světové dění.
2
1. Introduction The United States of America since their beginning has been a nation of immigrants coming from all the countries of the world. The American culture and history have been formed by contribution of the immigrants’ and divergence. People of various origins have bee driven by various motives in different times in the past. What they almost all had in common was hope for better future for themselves and their families. However, not all the people came of their own free will and not all the people desiring to enter the U.S. have always wanted to benefit from the opportunities it offers. The majority of today’s African Americans are descendants of slaves brought to the New Continent in 17th century. In history of the immigration policy, admission and naturalization restrictions have been changing towards different nations both quantitatively and qualitatively often in compliance with political relations, public sentiments and economic situation. At the end of the 18th century, the new country’s welcoming essentials started to change. Not long after ratification of the Constitution, automatic citizenship gaining ended and begun getting stricter since then and not all immigrants became eligible for gaining it. First in the history of the U.S. immigration policy was the law limiting immigration on the basis of race and social status. The racial restrictions, which effects felt especially the people of Asian race, have lasted until the modern times. In the middle of 19th century, the federal government took over the immigration control and later broaden the range of inadmissible immigrants of transgressors and sick people and at the beginning of 20th century, immigrants were required to even have some knowledge of English language. The immigrant inpour after World War I resulted in another, this time quantitative constraint. The Congress established a new immigration policy based on national origins quota system and introduced the requirement of visa, which resulted in beginning of the illegal immigration and undocumented population issue and subsequent start of controlling the borders. Besides other factor immigration legislation has often been influenced by politic situation. Significant changes were introduced after WW II. Negative public sentiments towards immigrants fleeing form Nazi persecution led to adoption a law requiring registration of newcomers, however after the war ended, fugitives from wrecked Europe were accommodated under by Congress newly established refugee system for people who faced the threat of political, racial, or religious persecution in their country of origin. The outbreak of Cold War, on the other side, restricted admission of people with connections of communist organizations. This law was soon tightened up by notorious McCarran Walter Act, broadened the limitations of health conditions, sexual orientations and connections to terrorism. By the legislations passed in 1921 and 1924, Congress established a national origin quota system which
3 limited immigration by assigning each nation a quota base on its representation rate in the U.S.With the passage of The Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments in 1965 was established a new categorical preference system to meet certain economical requirements providing preferences for immigrants with job skills useful to the United States. As the previuos and subsequent legislations, this law focused on family reunification as a main goal of immigration policy. Caps for individual categories, each hemisphere as well as the annual ceiling were set and merged into a single annual worldwide ceiling. The country set refuge regulations for people who face political, racial, or religious persecution risk in their country of origin with the passage of 1980 Refugee Act determined a fixed annual cap of refugee admission. The lawmakers tried to address today’s frequently discussed issue of undocumented aliens present in the U.S. already in 1986 by IRCA, an amnesty directed act under which around 2.7 million illegals became lawful permanent residents. The last time in the U.S. history when the mjor objective of immigration lawmakers was to prevent the admission only of undesired person was IIRIRA of 1996.
2. History of North America’s Settlement
Northern America, from its very beginning, has been a land of immigrants. People have come from all nations seeking free choice of worship, escape from cruel government and relief from war, famine, poverty. All came with dreams of a better life for themselves and their children. America has accommodated these people of varied backgrounds, customs, and beliefs, although not without considerable struggle along the way. (Handlin 7)
The first continuously occupied settlement of European origin in North America was established by Spanish conquistadors in 1565 on the eastern shore of the peninsula, today’s Florida. However, the City of St. Augustine was never more than a fortress, and was repeatedly attacked and burned by pirates and British forces from their new colonies, with most residents killed or fled. (Pratt 14)
The first permanent English colony was established as a barely successful business enterprise, after much loss of life, in 1607 in Jamestown, Virginia. Once tobacco was found to be a lucrative crop, many plantations were established along the Chesapeake Bay and along the Southern rivers and coast. Nearby Maryland, Virginia’s first neighbor and the second “plantation colony” was established in 1634. The restoration of the Stuarts in 1660 resulted in the creation of two new colonies. Charles II rewarded his eight court favorites for helping him regain his throne by conferring title to all land between the thirty first and thirty sixth latitudes. They settled the
4
Carolinas in 1663. The last of the southern settlements, Georgia, was founded 125 years after the first. (Bedford and Colbourn 21)
102 English colonists later referred to as the Pilgrims 1 established a small settlement near Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1620. This is generally considered by many to be the "start" of planned European migration. Much larger numbers of English Puritans came to Boston, Massachusetts and adjacent areas from about 1628 to 1640. (Handlin, 12)
Not long after first British establishment, the Dutch developed a settlement along the Hudson River in New York starting about 1626. These brought in farmers who became renters. Other Dutch established rich trading posts for trading with the Indians and founded cities such as New Amsterdam (now New York City) and Albany, New York. (Becker 4)
Swedes settled their colonies mainly along the Delaware River with other settlements such as New Stockholm and Swedesboro in New Jersey. As the Dutch perceived the presence of Swedish colonists in North America as a threat to their interests, they later conquered these colonies.
(Becker 5)
In 1681, Charles II granted Delaware, the only Sweedish settlement, to a British Quaker 2 William Penn, in payment of his debt owed to Penn’s father. This new strategicaly situated settlement, Pennsylvania, was soon joined by Quakers and other English and German Protestant sects. In addition, Penn’s 1862 Frame of Government guaranteed religious freedom and civil liberties for all. Therefore Jews from Brazil, Protestant Hugenots from France, Puritans and Catholics from England all came to elude persecution for their religious beliefs and practices. (Handlin 13)
Other main colonial center of settlement is what is called the western "frontier" in the western parts of Pennsylvania and the South which was colonized in the early 1700s to late 1700s by mostly Scotch Irish, Scots and others mostly from northern England border lands. Despite the enormously high death rates from diseases like malaria, yellow fever in mostly agricultural Southern colonies, a steady flow of new settlers mainly from central England and London Area kept the population growing. Many immigrants came as indentured servants, required to work for five to seven years to earn back the cost of their passage. Some of them were convicts who accepted being shipped across
1 a group of English religious separatists searching for a home where they could freely practice their Puritan style of religion and live according to their own laws. 2 Religious Society of Friends: a Christian sect founded by George Fox in England about 1660
5 the ocean as an alternative to imprisonment or death. However, primary labour force soon became slaves brought from Africa. (Barbour 16)
The first Africans arrived in the New World as indentured servants, but gradually the term of servitude became accepted in the South as life for them. From about 1619, when the first cargo of black slaves appeared for sale in Virginia until 1865, people of African descent were legally enslaved within the boundaries of the present United States by whites, American Indians and free blacks. By the time of the American Revolution there were about five hundred thousand black slaves in the colonies. However, even before the Revolution, some Americans voiced discomfort with the slave system which did not seem compatible with the ideas of freedom that were widely disseminated in the colonies. By 1780 nearly all Blacks were native born with only occasional additions of new slaves being brought in. In 1808 Importation of slaves into the United States was officially banned, although it continued ilegally for long after the ban. (Becker 6)
The War of Independence (1763 1776) gained the colonies sovereignty by unbinding their ties to Britain. Between 1770 and 1820 the Americans, besides enduring federal and state governments, developed a thriving economy. The population rose from about 2 million to more than 9 million and the way of settlement pushed westward beyond the Allegheny Mountains. (Becker 7)
3. Historical Overwiew of the U.S. Immigration Policy
During the colonial period, most immigrants came from Northern Europe, mainly Britain, France, Scandinavia and the Netherlands. In addition, about a half million Africans were brought to the Colonies as slaves. After the revolutionary war ended in 1781, immigrants began streaming into the new country. (Bedford and Colbourn 25)
Immigration was the the way of life in the coutry’s first century and the Founders wellcomed it in principle. Nevertheless The Founding Fathers 3 worried about the immigration’s impact. Thomas Jefferson in his Notes on the State of Virginia concerned that immigrants from countries still ruled by kings might impair the new republic’s political foundations.
“Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet, from such, we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, 3 The political leaders who signed the Declaration of Independence or the United States Constitution
6 imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass…“
(Notes on the State of Virginia)
Simillary George Washington and the Federalists worried that new immigrants might lean too far in the opposite direction and challenge the federal government‘s powers. However, the need for more people to drive the economy and implement the westward expansion outbalanced such concerns. Consequently, a specific policy governing immigration did not arise until the 20th century. The U.S. Constitution (1787) made only one straight reference to immigration. Article I, Section 9, Clause I says:
„The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.“ Also article I, Section 8, Clause 4 gave Congress the power „To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…“
(U.S. Constitution)
In 1753, other prominent political figure of that time Benjamin Franklin also expressed high concerns about immigrants fladding the country. He specifically warned about the Germans coming to Pensylvania:
„Those who came hither are generally the most stupid of their own nations, and as ignorance is often attended with great credulity, when knavery [mishonest dealing] would mislead it, and with suspicion, when honesty would set it right; and, few of the English understand the German language, and so cannot address them either from the press or pulpit, it is almost impossible to remove any prejudices they may entertain. Not being used to liberty, they know not how to make modest use of it.“ (Becker 10)
Shortly after the Constitution was ratified Congress passed the Naturalization 4 Act of 1790. The act provided that „any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and 4 the act of an alien becoming a citizen of a new country after immigration
7 under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the Constitution of the United States...“ (Naturalization Act of 1790)
The Act did not apply to indentured servants, slaves, free African Americans, and later Asian Americans. These racial restrictions of the act were not nullified until 1952, when the McCarran Walter Act was passed. It also established the United States Citizenship of children of citizens, born in a different country. They automatically became considered as natural born citizens. This act was succeeded by the Naturalization act of 1795, which revoked the Naturalization Act of 1790 and differed from it in two areas: The period of required residence increased from two to five years in the United States and from one to two years in the state of residence. It also specified that naturalized citizeship was ment only for white people. Immigrants intending to naturalize had to go to their local court and declare their intention at least three years prior to their formal application. In the declaration, the immigrant would also indicate his understanding that upon naturalization, he would take an oath not only of allegiance to the United States but also of abnegation of his former sovereign.
The next Naturalization Act, passed three years later, is considered as a part of Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.
The United States stood on the edge of war with France in 1798. The Federalists, who were in control of Congress believed that democratic Republican criticizm of Federalist policies was disloyal and concerned that the aliens living in the United States would sympathize with the French during a war. As a result, a Federalist controlled Congress proposed four laws, known collectively as the Alien and Sedition Acts. The ''Sedition Act'' (official title: An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States) made served for arresting and silencing a number of mostly Republican newspaper editors and prohibited to publish any "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government or its officials. Further, the act applied to all who might „aid, encourage or abet any hostile desings of any foreign nation“. Violators of the Sedition Act were to put on trial in federal court and could be punished by fines up to $2,000 and imprisonment for up to two years. The first and most extraordinary prosecution under the Sedition Act was of Mathew Lyon who became a martyr for Republicans after being fined $1,000 and sentenced to four months in jail. Enacted July 14, 1798, with an expiration date of March 3, 1801. (Landsberg 65)
8
The ''Naturalization Act of 1798'' (official title: An Act to Establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization) extended the duration of residence required for aliens to become citizens, from five years to fourteen. Enacted June 18, 1798, with no expiration date, it was revised in 1802 by The Jefferson Administration by reducing the residency requirement from 14 to five years.
The ''Alien Friends Act'' (official title: An Act Concerning Aliens) authorized the president to deport any resident alien considered "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States." president Adams, however, never used the Alien Acts. Enacted June 25, 1798, with a two year expiration date.
The ''Alien Enemies Act'' (official title: An Act Respecting Alien Enemies) authorized the president to apprehend and deport resident aliens if their home countries were at war with the United States. Enacted July 6, 1798, with no expiration date, it remains in effect today as 50 USC Sections 21 24.
The laws, passed during the administration of President John Adams, were directed against Democratic Republicans, the party typically prefered by new citizens. The strong public protest against the acts was partly responsible for the election of the Republican candidate, Thomas Jefferson, as the next president. He pardoned the individuals prosecuted under the Sedition Act. The Naturalization Act was annuled by Congress and the other two laws were allowed to lapse. However, one act (the Alien Enemies Act) is still the law in 2007, and has frequently been enforced in wartime.
In 1820, only 8,385 immigrants entered the United States. However, the number began to increase in that year and continued rising for more than a century, until the Great Depression in 1920. (DHS, Office of Immigration Statistics)
Due to The Irish Potato Famine in 1845 forced Irish farmers and their families to abandon their land and find a new home in America. I the ten year period from1831 1840, a little over 207,000 Irish people entered the United States. Driven by the potato famine, between 1841 and 1850 the number of Irish newcomers rose more than 375% to 780,719. The fow of immigrants from Ireland reached its peak at more than 900,000 in the 1851 1860 decade. (Becker 12)
Nevertheless, the influx of German immigrants exceeded the Irish by 37,548 during the years 1851 1860. Also affected by crop losses and failed political revolutions, raising numbers of German immigrants paralleled that of the Irish, continued to grow to a peak of more than 1.4 million arrivals from 1881 to 1890. (Barbour 6)
9
This new wave of immigration led to strong anti Irish, anti German and anti Catholic sentiments among the predominantly Protestant Anglo Saxon populations of the Northeastern part of America. These anti immigrant sentiments gave rise of secret nativist societies. In 1954 out of these groups grew a new political party, The Native American Party (also called the „Know Nothings“). The Know Nothings, seeking to icrease restrictions on immigration, managed to win seventy five seats ain Congress and six governorships in 1855 before the party was dissolved. (Heath 5)
„The Civil War itself (1861 1865) seemed to have little impact on immigration. Although the number of immigrants dropped from 153,604 in 1860to just under 92,000 in both 1861 and 1862, there were more than 176,000 new arrivals 1863 and the numbers continued to grow.“ (Becker 6)
On May 20, 1862 The Homestead Act, which offered 160 acres of free land to any adult citizen (at least 21years old) who agreed to occupy and improve the land for five years, was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln. The Homestead Act helped immigrants from overpopulated countries in Europe seeking land of their own create more than 372,000 farms. “By 1900, settlers had filed 600,000 claims for more than 80 million acres (320,000 km²) of land in the West under the Homestead Act.“ (Becker 6)
The Naturalization Act of 1870 restricted all immigration into the U.S. to only "white persons and persons of African descent," meaning that all Chinese were placed in a different category, a category that placed them as ineligible for citizenship from that time untill 1943. Also, this law was the first significant bar on free immigration in American history, making the Chinese the only culture to be prohibited to freely migrate to the United States for a time. (Immigration: The Journey to America)
Immigration from China was mainly spurred by The California Gold Rush (1848 1855). An act to protect free white labor against competition with Chinese coolie labor, and to discourage the immigration of the Chinese into the State of California, The Anti Coolie Act of 1862, was passed on April 26. Besides protecting the native residents of the state from an influx of Chinese Coolie labor, the act also instituted special taxes on employers who hired Chinese workers. However, in 1863 thousands of Chinese immigrats started to be recruited for constructing the first transcontinental railroad, completed in 1869. (Landsberg 83)
In 1875, after considerable debate over the importation of contract labor and limiting such immigration, Congress passed The Page Act, the first major piece of restrictive immigration
10 legislation. The law required migrants from Oriental countries be processed at the port of departure by representatives of U.S. Consulates. It prohibited alien convicts and prostitutes from entering the country and those whom were found to be obnoxious were denied departure rights to America. Even though this law was ostensibly paternalistic to prevent the entry of both prostitutes and forced Coolie labourers, it also substantially reduced the opportunities for all oriental women to enter the United States, with unfavorable consequences for the wives of immigrants already in the country.” (The Page Act)
As mentioned above, Chinese immigrants began arriving predominantly to seek for the gold in California or to be recruited for building railroads. Many became domestic servants, worked in mines, construction, or manufacturing. Between 1851 and 1880 about a quarter of a million immigrants arrived from China, while only a few thousands came from other Asian countries. Chinese numbers reached 10 percent of the state’s population and one quarter of its labor orce. Some people became alarmed by these continuing and unlimited flows of Chinese peasant labor. Their fears were fueled by a combination of racism and fears among American born workers since the employers started replacing them by foreign cheap labor workers. O. Graham quotes John Higham “Transpoted and largely controlled by certain Chinese societes, they awakened fears of a new kind of slavery in a nation already convulsed by the struggle over African slavery.” (Graham 10)
In 1882 Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act to prohibit the immigration of Chinese laborers for ten years. Exceptions included teachers, diplomats, students, tourists and merchants. It also prohibited Chinese immigrants in the United States from becoming naturalized American Citizens, however, Chinese laborers already residing in the U.S. obtained a certificate of residency and were allowed to leave and return the United States, though it was necessary to carry a certificate, proving one’s status to reenter. The 1882 act resulted in restrictions on other Asian immigrants. The Act marked the first time the United States barred immigration of a specific ethnic group. Other laws that prohibited the Chinese laborers followed up with the Chinese Exclusion Act. The 1892 Geary Act, the 1888 Scott Act, The Immigration Act of 1904. The Chinese exclusion was fully erased only in 1943. (Commager 559)
„Whereas, in the opinion of the Government of the United States the coming of Chinese laborers to this country endangers the good order of certain localities within the territory thereof:
Therefore,
11
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the expiration of ninety days next after the passage of this act, and until the expiration of ten years next after the passage of this act, the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States be, and the same is hereby, suspended; and during such suspension it shall not be lawful for any Chinese laborer to come, or, having so come after the expiration of said ninety days, to remain within the United States.“ (Commager 560)
The icreasing numbers of immigrants aroused a belief that there should be some type of administrative order to the constantly growing influx. “In 1864 Congress created a Commission of Immigration under the U. S. Department of State. A one man office was set up in New York city to oversee immigration.” (Becker 7)
With the creation of the Commission of Immigration, the federal government started to play a central role in immigration, which had previously been controlled by the individual states. Court decisions beginning in 1849 reinforced the federal government’s role and limited the states’ role in managing immigration. In 1875 the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in Henderson v. Mayor of the City of New York , that the immigration laws of New York, California, and Lousiana were unconstitutional. This ended the states’ right to handle immigration and exclude undesirable comers. From then on Congress and the federal government had absolute responsibility for immigration. (Graham 14)
The Alien Labor Contract Law of 1885 prohibited to any company or individual from shiping foreigners to the United States under contract to perform labor. The only exceptions were skilled workmen needed to establish a new trade or industry in the US and those immigrants brought in order to perform domestic service. (USCIS)
The Scott Act signed by President Cleveland on October 1, 1888 was introduced to be based on the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. It was part of a series of legislation intended to check and finally ban all immigration to the US from China and ended the certification (exit visa) process. About 20,000 Chinese had left the U.S. temporarily for China and were refused reentry, including about 600 who were already traveling to America when the legislation was esanctioned. The act was introduced by Representative William Scott of Pennsylvania, chair of the Democratic National Campaign Committee. (ChineseAmericans)
12
The Geary Act passed in 1882 written by California Congressman Thomas J. Geary extended the Chinese Exclusion Act for ten more years and added the requirement that all persons of Chinese nationality carry resident permits (lacking one was punishable by deportation or a year at hard labor). In addition, it denied Chinese bail in habeas corpus proceedings and Chinese were not allowed to bear witnesses in court. (geary.com)
In 1902 The Chinese Exclusion Act was renewed with no ending date and was made a law. In 1904 Congress indefinitely extended the various extensions of the act the last of which was in 1902. (Becker 7)
Compared to the influx of Chinese newcomers Japanese immigration was hardly noticable. Since Japanese immigrants were not covered by the Chinese Exclusion Act, Japanese laborers were brought in to replace workers from China. Japanese immigration increased from 2,270 in the 1880s to almost 130,000 during the first decade of the twentieth century. Consequently the same anti Asian attitudes that had let to the Chinese Exclusion Act climaxed in President’s Theodore Roosevelt’s Gentleman Agreement of 1907, which was an informal agreement between the United States and the Empire of Japan. The agreement consisted of six diplomatic notes exchanged between these two parts and resulted in cutting the flow of Japanese immigration to a trickle. Owing to President Roosevelt’s positive attitude toward Japan, the agreemen was only an alternative to a more formal and restrictive immigration legislation. However, the anti Asian sentiment resurfaced a generation later in the national Origins Act (Immigration act of 1924). (Becker 8)
With the exeption of Asian immigration, the federal government had done very little to restrict immigration. In 1891 (March 3) the Immigration Act established the post of the U.S. Office of Immigration under the Treasury Department. This first comprehensive immigration law expanded the list of inadmissible persons to include polygamists, people convicted of crimes and those suffering from certain contagious diseases. The law also prohibited using advertisements encouraging immigration. „By 1903 both houses of Congress for the firs time had standing committees on immigration. The national government was taking the first halting steps toward equipping itself to make immigration policy“ (Graham 16)
In 1903 the Bureau of Immigration was shifted to the Department of Commerce and Labor. The basic Naturalization act of 1906 enacted on June 29 merged the immigration and naturalization functions of the federal government under the new title Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization.
13
The act tightened the conditions of citizenship by requiring some knowledge of the English language. (Naturalization Act)
The new regulations reflected public concern over the continued rise of immigrants into the 20th century. From 1900 to 1920, 14.5 million people came to the United States, exceeding a million in certain years. Anti emigrant sentiment increased as the economy stagnated, prompting congress to pass, despite President Woodrow Wilson’s veto, the Immigration Act of 1917. It reiterated all the exclusions enumerated by previous legislation required that all the immigrants over the age of sixteen to be able to read and write in their native language and pass a literacy test. It also added the following groups to the inadmissible groups of immigrants: “idiots,” “feeble minded persons,” “epileptics,” “insane persons,” alcoholics, “professional beggars,” all persons “mentally or physically defective,” polygamists, and anarchists. The most controversial part of the act was the section that designated an “Asiatic Barred Zone,” an area that included much of eastern Asia and the Pacific Islands from which people could not immigrate. (Barbour 13)
World War I temporarily stopped the flow of immigrants and by 1918, the final year of the war, only around 110,000 immigrants ventured to America. However, as people fled the war ravaged Europe, the heavy inpour started again. In 1921 more than 800,000 immigrants arrived. Hostility toward new immigrants mounted even further with high unemployment, economic stagnation and a housing shortage. Such circumstances led Congress to introduce a major change in American immigration policy. The Emergency Quota Act of 1921 was the first quantitative immigration law. Besides maintaining the country’s ethnic and cultural status quo, Congres limited the number of admissible immigrants of any nationality who could enter the United States to 3% of the number of foreigh born persons of that nationality who lived in America in 1910. (Graham 18)
The Immigration Act of 1924, also known as the National Origins Act, Asian Exclusion Act or the Johnson Reed Act superseded the Quota Act of 1921. It immediatelly limited the number of people of each nationality to 2% of the population of that nationality who were already living in the United States in 1890. It excluded immigration to the U.S. of Asian laborers and Chinese prostitutes. The law was aimed at further restricting the Southern and Eastern Europeans who had begun to enter the country in large numbers beginning in the 1890s, as well as East Asians and Asian Indians, who were restricted from immigrating entirely. It set no limits on immigration from Latin America. The 1924 law further required immigrants to obtain visa from the U.S. embassies in their countries before they entered the country. The new quota laws resulted in increasing of illegal aliens. Those who had failed the immigration standards tried to sneak in via the U.S. Mexico or the U.S, Canada
14 borders. Congress responded to this new problem in 1924 by creating the border patrol to oversee the nation’s borders. The 1917 and 1924 acts remained the American immigration law until 1952.
(Becker 10)
Immigration plummeted during the Great Depression of the 1930s since it eliminated American job opportunities. However, in the latter half of the 1930s Nazi persecution of Jewes and other minorities in Germany caused a new round of immigrants to flee Europe. During the World War II, national security concerns influenced immigration legislation, further reducing new arrivals. Growing anxiety about an increase in refugees that might result from the war in Europe led Congress to pass the Alien Registration Act of 1940. Among other provisions, the act required the fingerprinting (people over fourteen years old), registration of all new immigrants and mandated deportation of criminals and subversives. During this period of registration which proceeded between August 27 and December 26, 1940 five million aliens registered, nearly 4% of the total U.S. population of 132 million people. (Spartacus)
As a result of the United States‘ wartime alliance with China, The Magnuson Act also known as the Chinese Exclusion Repeal Act of 1943 was passed by the U.S. Congress to repeal the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and subsequent acts, allowing for the first time in 60 years the legal immigration of Chinese nationals already residingin the coutry to become naturalized citizens. However, the quota for Chinese was very low compared to European countries, a fact which was not altered until 1965. It limited Chinese immigrants to only 105 persons to be selected by the U.S. government. (Barbour 16)
In the Wake of World War II, a wave of refugees from the devastation in Europe requested for entry into the United States. Under the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, Congress established a refugee system separate from the apparatus governing immigration, which over the next four years admitted almost 400,000 fugitives. Congress extended the program in the early 1950s to accommodate people running away from communist countries, mainly Cuba and Hungary. Many of them were given status as permanent residents. However, at the same time, the outbreak of the Cold War and its attendant anti comunism led to a growing fear of “communist infiltration”. The law obliged resident aliens to report their addresses annually and made rading, writing, and speaking English prerequisites for naturalization. One of the further results was the passage of the Internal Security Act of 1950, known as the McCarran Act, which made association with communist or anarchist organizations cause for denial of entry in the U.S., denial of naturalization or deportation and was
15 used over the years against such luminaries as Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Graham Greene, Carlos Fuentes, Czeslaw Milosz, Yves Montland and Charlie Chaplin. Congress removed most of the ideological grounds for exclusion and deportation from the immigration law in 1990.
(Cole and Dempsey 139)
Also know as the McCarran Walter Act after its sponsors, absorbed most of the Internal Security Act of 1950. It added preferences for relatives and skilled aliens, gave immigrants and aliens certain legal protection , ended the flat exclusion of immigrants based on race. The act decreased the national origin quotas to only one sixth of 1% of the number of people in the United States in 1920 whose national origin was attributable to a specific area of the world. It also eliminated aliens on ideological grounds, homosexuality, health restrictions, criminal records, narcotics addiction, and involvment in terrorism. (Commager 578)
President Harry Truman tried to veto the the legislation, declaring:
"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."
(presidency.ucsb.edu)
Congress overruled Truman’s veto. The Immigration and Naturalization Act remained the basic law governing who could gain entry into the United States until the passage of new laws following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack. The act was amended in 1986 by introducing The Visa Waiver Program (VWP), a program which allowes citizens of specific countries to travel to the US for tourism or business for up to 90 days without having to obtain a visa. All countries partaking in program have high HDI 5 and most are regarded as developed countries. (Daniels 134)
The Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965 (The Hert Celler Act of 1965) marked a crucial turnaround in national policy and helped breathe life into new era of mass immigration. In 1963 President John F. Kennedy presented a plan to change the national origin quota system, which featured the racial and ethnic preferences. Two years later Congress passed The Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments. The 1965 legislation cancelled the national origins quota system and
5 The Human Development Index, a standard means of measuring well being, especially child welfare.
16 made visas available on a first come, first served basis. However, the number of visas for the purpose of family reuification was unlimited. In the national origins system’s place a seven category preference system was implemented for relatives of U.S. citizens and permanent residents and to immigrants who possessed special occupational skills needed by industry. Refugees were also granted preference status and icluded in the general immigration syatem. It established an annual quota of 170,000 Eastern Hemisphere entrants with a 20,000 per country limit. By 1968, the annual limit of 120,000 was set for the Western Hemisphere without a per country limit or preference system. (Becker 10)
In 1976 The Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments extended the 20,000 per country limit to Western Hemisphere countries. The Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of of 1978 combined the separate upper limits for Eastern and Western Hemisphere into a single worldwide ceiling of 290,000. (USICS)
Not until the Refugee Act 1980 did the United States have a general policy governing the admission of refugees on systematic basis for humanitarian reasons. During the late 1970, refugee admissions were often more generous than most Americans preferred. Between 1975 and 1979 alone, 300,000 Indochinese refugees were permitted admission under executive paroles. Since these presidental actions, which constantly produced refugee admissions seven to ten times greater than the annual refugee ceiling determined by the Hart Celler Act, Congress started to call for new limits. The Act passed by Congress placed the new refugees outside the general preference system and set a worldwide ceiling on immigration of 70,000 refugees, with 270,000 immigrants total and 20,000 from any one country. It also removed the prerequisite that refugees had to originate from a Communist or Middle Eastern nation. (Refugee and Asylum Policy)
On November 6, 1986, after thirty four years with no new major immigration law the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (Simpson Mazzoli Act) was signed into law by President Ronald Regan. IRCA amended and repealed sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Besides resolving other problems, the act stipulated legalization of undocumented aliens who had been continuously unlawfully present since 1982, legalization of certain agricultural workers, sanctions for employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers, and increased enforcement at U.S. borders. First it established a one year amnesty program for undocumented population who had already worked and lived in the U.S. since January 1982. The law gave a temporary resident status to suitable residents, who could later become permanet residents. Two groups of immigrants became elligible to apply for regularization of this status and eventually full citizenship. The first,
17 larger group of the Lawful Temporary Residents (LTR) cosisted of aliens who had entered the United States either as illegal aliens before January 1, 1982 or as temporary visitors before January 1, 1982, with their autorized stay expiring before that date or with the government’s knowledge of their unlawful state before that date. To adjust to legalization, aliens were required to prove at least a minimal knowledge of the English language, no serious criminal record and a negative HIV test. They could apply for citizenship five years after granting the permanent resident status. The second eligible group of immigrants to be legalized under IRCA was referred to as Special Agricultural Workers (SAWs). This category was created for the reason of shortage of legal agriculture workers. Many fruit and vegetable farmers hired illegal, seasonal laborers from Mexico. The SAW program permitted aliens who had performed labor in perishable agricultural products for a minimum of ninety days between May 1985 and May 1986 to apply for legalization. More than three million illegal aliens applied for temporary residence status and nearly 2.7 million (88%) of them were eventually legalized under the 1986 IRCA amnesty . A majority (75%) of the applicants under IRCA were born in Mexico. IRCA barred the newly legalized aliens from receiving most federally funded public aid for five years. (Magaña 78)
The employer limitations placed by the IRCA corrected the double standard that prevented illegal aliens from working in the U.S., but it still allowed employers to hire them. The act prohibited, employers from recruiting or reffering for a fee aliens known not be authorized to work in the U.S. Employers who violated the law were subject to a fine of up to $10,000 for each illegal alien hired. On those who exhibited a pattern of hiring illegal aliens might be imposed jail sentence. To prevent discrimination against legal immigrants or U.S. citizens who appeared foreign, the IRCA imposed penalties on employers who discriminated in this manner. (Landsberg 184)
The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) required both employers and newly hired employees to complete an employment verification form known as Form I 9 which certifies an employee's identity and employment eligibility. (Becker 19)
„At the time of IRCA's passage, Congressional appropriations already had increased to fund nearly 3,700 Border Patrol staff, growing to over 30 percent of total INS staff. In compliance with the bill's growth requirements, though, that increased to more than 5,500 staff in 1987 with appropriations nearly double what they had been only five years earlier. Moreover, the Border Patrol received an influx of new equipment, including 22 helicopters for all nine sectors (up from a total of two helicopters in one sector) and hundreds of night vision scopes,
18 night vision goggles, and surveillance systems. Additional Border Patrol stations, checkpoints, and new detention centers were also built.“ (migrationinformation)
Historian Reed Ueda calls IRCA „the most generous immigration law passed in U.S. history with novel and generous provisions for the legalization of illegal aliens and a host of quota allotments based on special needs and status.“ (Graham 109)
Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986 (IMFA) was passed in order to restrain immigration related marriage fraud. Its major provision specified that aliens basing their immigrant status on a marriage of less than two years were considered conditional immigrants. To remove their conditional status, the aliens had to apply for permanent residence within ninety days after the second year anniversary of receiving conditional status. If the aliens and their spouses were not able to prove that the marriage did not continue to be a valid one, their conditional immigrant status was determinated and they could be deported. Unfortunately, the two year conditional immigrant status resulted in many cases of spousal abuse. Battered immigrant women were forced to endure the abuse and remain trapped in the relationship until their conditional satus could be lifted. As a result of these issues , two laws were passed to address the plight of such mistreated women. (Becker 20)
The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) was passed as a part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. This law allowed the women and/or children to petition for immigrant status without the abusing spouse’s participation. Abused males could do the same under this law. Battered immigrant women who self petitioned might include their undocumented children in their application. Children who were abused by citizen or resident parents also could apply for this remedy. Finally, a woman who had not been abused herself also could self petition to become a permanent resident if she was a parent of a battered child abused by the woman's citizen or permanent resident husband. (endabuse)
The Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT) enacted on November 29, 1990 presented a major overhaul of immigration law, which focused on the numerical limits of immigrants and gave a greater priority to employment based immigration. It also created a lottery program that randomly assigned a number of visas for immigrants from countries where the United States did not often grant visas. The act established an annual ceiling of 700,000 immigrants from FY 1992 through FY 1994 and a ceiling of 675,000 per year thereafter. The 675,000 level allowed 480,000 family sponsored immigrants, 140,000 immigrants with job skills needed in the U.S. and 55,000 immigrants who were eligible under the „diversity visa“. Additional provision strenghtened the
19
U.S. Border Patrol and altered lenguage regarding disease restrictions in a way that allowed the secretary of Health and Human Services to extract AIDS from the list of illnesses making a prospective immigrant ineligible to enter the country. The goal of IMMACT was to attract specially trained personell with skills that would promote economic development in the U.S. This was in contrast to the unskilled laborers who were legalized through IRCA. The quota of 140,000, however, included the proffesional workers‘ families so the actual number of workers was considerably lower. (Becker 21)
IMMACT made new provisions for the admission of immigrants from „adversely affected countries“. In the first year (1992) of this program the INS ran a lottery based on the chronological order of the receipt of the visa applications, however, in 1993 and 1994 selections were made randomly and multiple applications were no longer permitted. The permanent Diversity Visa Program began in 1995. Under the program, no country was allowed more than 7% (3,850) of the total 55,000 visas. To meet the eligibility, aliens were required to have at least high school or equivalent education or at least 2 years of work experience. The individuals‘ immediate family were also allowed to enter the United States. In 1999, the number of visas was reduced o 50,000in order to allot 5,000 visas to participants in the 1997 Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACACA). The law repealed the ban against the admission of communists and other totalitarian regimes representativesthat had been in force since 1950. (Center for Immigration Studies)
IMMACT also authorized the U.S. attorney general to accord temporary protected status (TPS) to undocumented alien nationals occuring in the U.S. when an extraordinary occurence such as natural disaster or an armed conflict presented a danger to their personal safety. TPS usually lasted for six to eighteen months and it did not lead to permanent resident status. (Georgetown Immigration Law Journal)
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) was signed by President Clinton on September 30, 1996. It resulted in significant changes to existing U.S. immigration laws. Although IIRIRA was promoted as an illegal immigration law, its vast provisions had a serious impact on legal immigration as well.
1) Besides icreasing equipment and technology at air and land ports of entry, it also required
20
IIRIRA included the following among its many measures: increase in the number of U.S. Border Patrol agents. 5,000 new agents were added by the year 2001. $12 million dollars were allocated for a 14 mile triple fence along the US border from San Diego eastward. Increased penalties for immigrant smuggling and document fraud (up to fifteen years in prison). Raised the number of INS investigators (300 additional personnel) targeting visa overstayers, inverstigating alien smuggling and the unlawful employment. Reformed exclusion and deportation procedures to speed deportation of aliens with no documents or with fraudulent documents. Those instigating terrorist activities, falsely claiming U.S. citizenship, unlawfully voting and convicted of domestic violence became all considered excludable. Added a number of new felonies and crimes from the new Anti Terrorism law to the list of those which subjected an alien to deportation. The INS was authorized to design demonstartion projects to simplify the identification of inmates subject to deportation. (Tichenor 283)
2) Authorized three voluntary pilot programs each of which would last for four years. These programs were to confirm the employment eligibility of workers and reduce the number and types of documents needed for identity and eligibility to work. Section 110 of IIRIRA mandated that INS develop an automated entry and exit control system at the nation’s ports of entry that will document the entry and departure of “every alien” arriving in and leaving the U.S. by September 30, 1998. This ordered data collection system is to include all noncitizens nonimmigrants as well as immigrants residing in the United States who enter or depart at any port of entry. However, this provision became a source of concern for border communities whose members feared this section would cause gridlock at the border crossing. Consequently, in 1999 and 2000 Congress amended Section 110 by extending the deadline for the implementation of an entry/exit system. This automated entry and exit control system was finally put into effect only after 9/11. (FAIR)
3) The Visa Waiver Pilot Program, which permits citizens of countries with a low number of total nationals illegally in the U.S. to come to the US for up to 90 days without possessing a tourist visa, has been extended until September 30, 1997. Congress has also added several new rules explaining how countries will be placed on a probationary status to the VWP and how probationary countries will be added to the permanent list. The new law also provides for the automatic termination of countries if the number illegal aliens of a country in the US exceeds 3.5% (IIRIRA)
4) Required a legally binding Affidavit of Support from immigrant sponsors, who had to be adult U.S. citizens or permanent residents earning at least 125% of the poverty incom level.
21
IIRIRA did not, in fact, significantly affect the numbers of persons legally permitted to enter the United States. Despite the perpetual intoning about „controlling out borders“, Congress unable to make effective changes in the immigration laws became more strict about unnaturalized legal immigrants instead. One of the unintended aftermath of making border crossing more difficult was to persuade many illegal Mexican immigrantsto end their long established circular patterns of annual rotation between Mexico and the United States. Instead, they stayed in the United States, hoping they would grant another amnesty and had the opportunity to get their families north of the border. This act provided the framework for U.S. immigration policy that would follow in the post 9/11 era. (Becker 24)
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (also known as AEDPA) is a series of laws in the US signed into law on April 24, 1996 to prevent terrorism, provide justice for victims, provide for an effective death penalty, and for other purposes. Passed by a Republican controlled Congress and signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton, it was in part a response to the 1990’s two major terrorist outrages on American soil. The first, done by immigrant Muslim terrorists, blew up part of New York City’s World Trade Center in February 1993, killing six people. The second, executed by a native born Christian terrorist with U.S. Army training, destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 persons, including 19 children. Members of Congress immediately felt intense pressure to pass antiterrorism legislation. It did not matter that the proposals in the President’s initial bill were directed predominantly against international terrorism, while the Oklahoma bombing was the work of native discontents. Nor did it matter that, even after the bombing, polls still showed public unwillingness to sacrifice liberties in an effort to attain security. After the tragedy, the President condoled to the victims’ families, set a tone of reassurance for the nation and promised further antiterrorism legislation, suggesting that it might be appropriate to reform habeas corpus. Most critics of the terror war’s assault on civil liberties term its beginning with this very Clinton Administration’s counterterrorism bill. (Daniels 244)
According to its critics, including Georgetown University Law School Professor David Cole, the law never brought any significant protection against terrorism, everything a "terrorist" does was already illegal, although it did lead to considerable incursions on constitutional rights, such as: Allowing the government to deport immigrants based on undisclosed evidence. The Act made it a crime for citizens and noncitizens to support even the lawful activities of an organization labeled as a terrorist group by the State Department. So people could be punished , not for what they do but
22 for supporting completely lawful acts of disfavored groups. It autorized the FBI to investigate any group or individual that materially supported terrorism based solely on activities protected under the First Amendment, such as the anti CISPES investigations, and allowing such surveillance to go forward if the individuals were believed to be associated with any person or organization labeled as "terrorist". The act revived the practice of denying visas to foreigners based on mere membership in unwelcome organizations, without any showing that the individual furthered any illegal acts of the group as well as it allowing the Immigration and Naturalization Service to deport (mostly Muslim) citizens upon the instruction of INS officials.
(Cole and Dempsey 33)
In the past, legal immigrants had generally been eligible for gaining the same welfare benefits as citizens. After the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act Of 1996 (The Welfare Reform Law of 1996) came into effect, most forms of public assistance were denied to them. Its major provisions established restrictions on the eligibility of legal but not yet naturalized immigrants receiving federal welfare benefits. Most of the noncitizens were barred specifically from food stamps, Temporary Asssistance for Needy Families (TANF), the program of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Medicaid. The states were given the option of using federal founds for TANF and Medicaid for newcomers who arrived before the act took effect. Those who arrived legally after the law came into force were not eligible for any federal funds until five years had elapsed. (Becker 22)
America's legal immigration system at the end of 20th century was not one of "open borders." Rather, it was a highly regulated system that balances economic and humane needs. A foreign national could lawfully immigrate through an employment or close family connection or for human rights purposes as a refugee or asylee. A lawful permanent resident (green card holder) could sponsor only a spouse or child. Essentially the only other way to immigrate would be to apply and receive one of the "diversity" visas, which are granted annually by lottery to those from countries with low rates of immigration to the U.S. Overall, the history of U.S. immigration policy demonstrates that the country had ,with some qualitative restrictions later on, a nearly open border. Congress did not enact a permanent immigration restriction until 1875. Since then, this almost open border was changed dramatically a sharp turn against those of a particular ethnic or racial origin. This began most profoundly with the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act. Since 1965 the system possesses clear numerical ceilings in virtually every category, yet ethnicity is no longer the defining characteristic of immigration law. (McCuen 17)
23
4. Legislating Reactions following 9/11 and Changes of immigration Policy
4.1 9/11 A Turning Point
When terrorists hijacked four airplanes and deliberately turned them into devastating explosives directed at the World Trade Center in New York, The Pentagon in Washington, DC, and third location still unknown, they not only killed thousands of innocent civilians in the most brutal act of terroristm mankind has yet executed, but they also threatened to change the fabric of American life. But before turning to the next part of immigration laws coming after the tragedy, a few remarks about the post 9/11 problematization of illegal immigration should be made. On one level, the tragic events of September 11/2001 have not altered the basic landscape of immigration politics. Illegal immigration continues to be a phenomenon of vast and incereasing magnitude. Apprehension figures show that in FY 2000 arrests reached an all time high of 1,643,679 along the southwest border. Then for three successive years afterward there was a marked decline in arrests: In 2001, the number of arrested persons along the southern boundary line was 1,235,718; in 2002, it was 929,809; and in 2003, it was 905,065. However, this downward trend seems to be over. Since October 2003, apprehension figures have abruptly risen. Through August of FY 2004, the number was already back up to 1,059,265. It hence appears that, after a short period of dcline, illegal immigration is once again on the upturn, at least in terms of apprehensions. (Inda 113)
That day’s terrorist attacks harshly elucidated a defect that had not formerly been high on the list of flaws in American immigration policy, that America’s porous borders and governmental abandonment of practically all interior immigration controls allowed terrorists to move at will into, around, and out of the country, legally and illegally. A study of the immigration history of the fourty eight terrorists convicted of terrorist activity against the United States since 1993 found that they had readily exploited every practicable means of entry into the United States. „They came as students, tourists, and business visitors“, found Center for Immigration Studies research director Steven Camarota. Seventeen of the Saudi perpetrators had worked the system to enter and stay despite their terrorist occupations, becoming lawful permanet residents and even naturalized citizens of the country they despised. Some achieved this permanent status by making fraudulent marriages or applying for asylum. Twelve were illegal aliens when they stroke, and twenty one had
24 been already in illegal status once in the last ten years. Several gave officials counterfeit information on entry. Later expert analysis of fifteen of the September 11 terrorists‘ visa applications found so many elementary flaws that none of these applicants should have received visa. Forty one of the larger group of fourty eight terrorist studied by Center for Immigration Studies had gone to U.S. embassies abroad and obtained visas, despite their backgrounds. Reviewing from the experience of these forty eight murderers who were Middle Eastern young males with terrorist pasts, there are plenty of ways for terrorists to get into America, legally or illegally, and many ways to stay there, lawfully and unlawfully.
From the morning of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the American people and their leaders seemed unified in their resolve to respond as effectively as possible, whatever the costs a national climate of opinion that combined fear, anger, pride, a thirst for revenge, and some unacknowledged global ambitions. As President George W. Bush expressed this resolve in his September 20 speech: „Tonigth, we are turned to anger, and anger to resolution. Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done. „ (Falk 87) In the wake of these attacks, calls for new security measures were undoubtedly justified, particularly in light of the enduring threats that the country faced as it fights a war against terrorism, and specifically against Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network. However, the immediate rusult of the events of September 11 was, of course, an angry public outcry demanding retaliation, but also protection for the future. It was said that everything in America was now changed U.S. foreign and national security policy, government, organization and priorities, travel procedures for routine identificationmof American citizens. And, needles to say, immigration policy. „Our vulnerability to these abominations is not merely a failure of intelligence but also of border control…Current immigration policy is an anachronism of many grounds, but after September 11 change is much more urgent“ said Center for Immigration Studies Director Mark Krikorian. (Graham 166) There started to occur signs that the media had suddenly shifted over to at least an openness to a critical view of immigration policy generally. U.S. News and World Report admitted that after September 11, „nativist sentiment has come to be viewed not so much as an old era paranoia as new era prudence. It seemed obvious from the history of the known terrorists who had already gave rise to wrack on American soil that immigration had a vital national security dimension that only a handful of critics had foreseen.“ Incredibly, the Bush administration’s chief spokesman for immigration policy and the Commisioner of the INS James W. Ziglar, publicly denied any connection: „We’re not talking about immigration, we’re talking abou evil.“(Daniels 249) However, it was more than clear that the government’s immigration bureaucracy was a partn of America’s vulnerability to
25 terrorism which managed to violate every principle of civilized society and human dignity. D. Cole and J. X. Dempsey in „Terrorism and the Constitution“ suggest fashioning a response as maintainig a commitment to principle „ Theree principles in particular should guide our response. First, we should not overreact ina time of fear, a mistake we have made all too often in the past. Second, we should not sacrifice the bedrock foundations of our constitutional democracy political freedom, due process, and equal treatment absent compelling showings of necessity. And third, in balancing liberty and security, we should not trade a vulnerable minority’s liberties, namely liberties of immigrants in general or Arab and Muslim immigrants in particular, in a misguided effort to obtain security for the rest of us.“ (Cole and Dempsey 148) Unfortunatelly, the immediate reaction to the Sptember 11 events has violated all three principles.
4.2 Immediate Reactions to the Attack
4.2.1 Patriot Act of 2001
One of the most controversial laws in America’s history was passed just 45 days after the attacks with virtually no debate. Althought some of the measures in the anti terrorism legislation were undoubtedly justified, notably those reducing barriers to coordination between law enforcement and intelligence in terrorism investigations, upgrading airport security, border control and visa review procedures, and improving controls over biochemical toxins, several critical areas in the act go far beyond the fight against terrorism and transgress fundamental liberties. (Cole and Dempsey 151)
Legislative proposals for the clumsily named Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act, or USAPA) were introduced less than a week after the attacks. Attorney General John Ashcroft, its principal proponent, exerted outstanding pressure, essentially threatening Congress that the blood of the casualties of future terrorist attacks would be on its hands if it did not promptly enact the Administration’s proposals. Though the Act made significant amendments to over 15 important statutes, the bill was never the subject of a Committee debate or mark up in the Senate. As a result, it is short on background legislative history that often retrospectively provides necessary statutory interpretation.
(History of the Patriot Act)
26
Jim Cornehis, a professor and director of the Law and Public Policy Graduate Certificate Program in the University of Texas, in hist article "The USA Patriot Act. The assault on civil liberties." in an independent monthly “Z Magazine” says:
“It is hard to believe the Act could have been drafted, debated, and passed in only 45 days. It is over 342 pages long and extremely complicated. Given its complexity, and the fact the legislation represented a wish list of new investigative and detention powers long sought by law enforcement officials, it is more likely the pro law enforcement Adminstration had been drafting suc provisions for many months. Post September 11 provided the perfect opportunity to introduce them, with very little Congressional or public opposition…” (zmag.org) A bill was introduced in the Senate on October 5 and passed the Senate on October 11. House Resolution 3162 was introduced in the House of Representatives on October 23, 2001. Assistant Attorney General Viet D. Dinh and John Ashcroft were the primary drafters of the Act. The bill passed in the House of Representatives on October 24, 2001, and in the Senate (Senator Russ Feingold cast the lone dissenting vote, and Senator Mary Landrieu was the only non voting member) on October 25, 2001. Only minor changes were made in the House, which passed the bill 357 to 66. The Senate and House versions were quickly reconciled, and the final bill was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. (EPIC Patriot Act)
The Act was a compromise version of the Anti Terrorism Act of 2001 (ATA), a far reaching legislative package proposed to strengthen the nation's defense against terrorism. The ATA contained several provisions immensely expanding the authority of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to monitor private communications and access personal information. The final legislation included a few beneficial additions from the Administration's initial project: most notably, a so called sunset provision, which enacts that several sections of the act automatically expire after a certain period of time, unless they are explicitly renewed by Congress, on some of the electronic surveillance provisions, and an amendment providing judicial oversight of law enforcement's use of the FBI's Carnivore 6 system.
(History of the Patriot Act)
6 an FBI Internet monitoring system
27
The Act has ten titles, each containing numerous sections. Whit reference to immigration policy, many significant amendments has been made. Changes regarding new immigration regulations, visa programs and protecting the U.S. borders are introduced in Title IV: “Protecting the Border Amendments to Immigration Laws“. The provisions of the title aim to prevent terrorism in the United States by immigration regulations and generall precluding of entering the country for those known to have, or suspected of having, terrorist intent. (Center for Immigration Studies)
Subtitle A „Protecting the Northern Border“ authorized The Attorney General to waive any cap on the number of full time employees (FTEs) assigned to the Immigration and Naturalization Service on the Northern border of the United States. Enough funds were also set aside for a tripling of the number of Border Patrol personnel, Customs Service personnel and immigration inspectors along the Northern Border and an additional $50 million each for Customs and INS to improve monitoring technology along the Northern Border. Access to the FBI’s NCIC III (National Crime Information Center's Interstate Identification Index) and the Wanted Persons File was granted to the Department of State and the INS for the purpose of checking the criminal history records of visa applicants and applicants for admission to the United States. However, INS and State would have access only to extracts from the actual databases, and would have to provide the visa applicants’ fingerprints to the Criminal Justice Information Services Division of the FBI in order to get the full criminal record.
(EPIC Patriot Act)
Section regarding immigration provisions of the U.S. Patriot Act amends the majority of the Immigration and Nationality Act’s restrictions, giving more law enforcement and investigative power to the United States Attorney General and to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. It broadens the grounds for excluding aliens with ties to terrorist organizations or aliens who intend to perpetrate terrorists act in while in the United States. It authorizes the exclusion of the spouses and children of aliens who have endorsed or committed acts of terrorism within the past five years, however this does not apply in cases where the spouse or child was not conscious of such activities were being undertaken. An exemption is also made in cases where a consulate official or the U.S. Attorney General is aware the alien has abandoned their terrorist activities. (The Patriot Act)
Section 411 of The Patriot Act vastly expands the class of immigrants who are subject to removal on terrorism grounds through its broad definitions of the terms "terrorist activity," "engage in
28 terrorist activity," and "terrorist organization." These definitions were redefined or amended in the INA. The term “Terrorist activity” is commonly understood to be „limited to pre meditated and politically motivated violence targeted against a civilian population.“ Section 411, however, stretches the term beyond recognition to incorporate any crime that involves the use of a "weapon or dangerous device (not just explosives and firearms)…to cause substantial damage to property" even if such damage created no danger of injury. Under this broad definition, an immigrant who grabs a knife or makeshift weapon in the midst of a red hot altercation or in committing a crime of passion may be subject to removal as a "terrorist." Likewise groups such as World Trade Organization protestors who engage in minor vandalism, abortion foes who engage in civil disobedience or purely humanitarian assistance to the Northern Alliance, foes of the Taliban and foes of Osama bin Laden, could be assistance to a terrorist organization. (Center for Constitutional Rights) To "engage in terrorist activity" is defined as committing, inciting to commit, planning and preparing to undertake an act of terrorism or provide knowing assistance to a person who is planning to perform such activities. The term has also been expanded to include soliciting funds for, soliciting membership for, and providing material support to, a "terrorist organization," even when that organization has legitimate political and humanitarian purpose and the non citizen seeks only to support these lawful ends. While existing INA terms “terrorist” only foreign groups with various procedural safeguards, Section 411 of the U.S. Patriot Act adds a new provision to INA that allows designation foreign and domestic groups, without those procedural safeguards. Under this new power, the Secretary of State could designate any group that has ever engaged in violent activity a "terrorist organization", whether it be Operation Rescue, Greenpeace, or People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The designation would make the group's non citizen members inadmissible to the United States, and would treat payment of membership dues as a deportable offense. Under the bill, a non citizen can be deported regardless of whether he knew of the designation and regardless of whether his assistance had anything to do with the group's putative terrorist activity. It then requires the immigrant to prove a negative: „…that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the act would further the organization's terrorist activity." (ACLU) Finally, section 411 of the Act punishes speech protected by the First Amendment, even of lawful permanent residents. Representatives of a political or social group "whose public endorsement of acts of terrorist activity the Secretary of State has determined undermines United States efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorist activities" can be banned from entering the United
29
States.“Inadmissible“ can also be found immigrants who have used their "position of prominence within any country to endorse or espouse terrorist activity". Under this section, a lawful permanent resident who makes a controversial speech could potentially be barred from returning to his family after taking a trip abroad. (CFCR)
The visas issuance or refusal and permits to enter the United States are confidential except when such records are needed by a court in the interest of justice. The act amended this to allow the Secretary of State to share a foreign government information on individual aliens in the Department of State’s computerized visa lookout database and other relevant records in order to prevent, investigate, or punish acts that would constitute a crime in the United States.
(The Patriot Act)
Implementation of certain provisions enacted in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA) of 1996 which have not been from different reasons carried out was expedited after passing the Patriot bill. It requests that the Attorney General fully implement the integrated entry and exit data system at airports, seaports, and land border ports with special focus on biometric information gathered during the visa application process and required the use and the development of tamper resistant, machine readable documents. The resulting system is to be interfaced with law enforcement databases used by federal agencies to identify and detain individuals who signified a threat to U.S. security. Finally, it required the Office of Homeland Security to to present a report to Congress within 12 months on the information that is needed from any U.S. agency to effectively screen visa applicants and applicants for admission to the U.S. (FAIR)
Another tracking system mandated by Congress as part of the IIRAIRA – the Student and Exchange Visitor System (SEVIS) was put it into effect only with the passage of the USA Patriot Act with a full implementation by January 1, 2003. The new internet based student monitoring system requires educational institutions to verify if students actually show up at the assigned school. It expanded the program to include other institutions such as flight schools, language training schools, and vacational schools. The act appropriated $36,8 milion for the Department of Justice to implement this system. It has been up and running since August 1, 2003, and has largerly been debugged. (Etzioni 32)
30
Section 417 requires the Secretary of State annually to audit the implementation of the requirement that visa waiver countries issue machine readable passports to their nationals. It advances the deadline by which countries must issue machine readable, tamper resistant passports in order to partake in the visa waiver program from October 1, 2003 till September 30, 2007, and it authorizes the Secretary of State to waive this requirement for countries that are making progress toward ensuring that machine readable passports are generally available to its citizens, or is taking reasonable steps to protect against the misuse of non machine readable passports. (H.R. 3162)
Section 418 of the Patriot Act required the Secretary of State to determine whether consulate shopping was a problem and to address it if it was. Consulate shopping is the practice of traveling to a third country to apply for a visa to the United States in order to apply for visas at different consulate posts in the belief of finding one that will be more sympathetic to the applicant and thus approve the visa. (Center for Immigration Studies)
Subtitle C of title IV deals with preservation of immigration benefits for victims of terrorism. It allowed to grant a special immigrant status to any alien for whom a petition for family or employment based legal permanent residence was filed and revoked because the petitioner, applicant, or alien beneficiary was killed or lost his or her job as a direct result of the attacks. It also authorizes special immigrant status for any alien who is the grandparent of a child, both of whose parents died as a result of terrorist activity, if either parent was a citizen, national, or lawful permanent resident of the United States on September 10, 2001. Those who had entered the U.S. as a spouse or child of a nonimmigrant who was killed or disabled as a direct result of the terrorist attacks were given an extension of their nonimmigrant status for 12 months after the attacks took place. There were also given the right to be provided with an employment permition no later than 30 days after they made the application for it.
(H.R. 3162)
It also extends the authorized period of stay for nonimmigrants who were prevented from entering the United States because of the terrorist attacks and permits FY 2001 Green Card lottery winners who were prevented from using it due to the terrorist actions to use it in the period from October 1, 2001 through April 1, 2002. If the principal alien who received a Diversity Immigrant Visa died as a result of the attacks, then his or her spouse and children were qualified for the same status until June 30, 2002. (Center for Immigration Studies)
31
The INA normally required a U.S. citizen to have been married to a non U.S. person for two years before they can be granted U.S. citizenship. However, section 423 of the Patriot Act permits aliens who entered the country as the spouses or underage children of a citizen who was killed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks to retain immediate relative status. The spouse or children must have filed a petition to the U.S. Attorney General within 2 years of the attacks. It permints those immediate relatives of American citizens for whom no petition was filed to file it on their own behalf for lawful prmanent residence. It waives the public charge grounds for inadmissibility for all aliens granted benefits under this section. It also prohibits any benefits under this subtitle from being granted to those deemed to be terrorists or family members of terrorists. (Becker 26)
4.2.2 Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002
Approximately eight months after the attacks, on May 14, 2002, President George W. Bush signed the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002. This law, enacted by an overwhelming, bipartisan majority in both Houses of Congress represents the most comprehensive immigration related response to the continuing terrorist threat America faces. (Center for Immigration Studies)
Rosemary Jenks, the Director of Government Relations at NumbersUSA.com made an observation on the act: „H.R. 3525 is a tough, common sense law that sends the right message: The United States must regain control over its borders and its ports of entry, and expect its border control agencies to carry out their duty to protect the nation and our citizens from those who seek to exploit our generosity.” Ironically, the President himself tried unsuccessfully to dilute this message by forcing Congress to attach a de facto amnesty to the measure.
(Center for Immigration Studies)
On signing the bill in the Presidential Hall, George W. Bush made remarks and briefed the new act: „The bill I sign today enhances our ongoing efforts to strengthen our borders. The purpose of this bill is to help our country do a better job of border security. It authorizes 400 additional inspectors, investigators, and other staff on the INS over the next five years. “ (G. Bush, whitehouse.gov)
The act authorizes funding for additional INS staff and training to increase security on both the northern and southern borders and ports of entry between 2003 and 2006. These new provisions
32 have been made over and above the threefold increase in staffing authorized for in the USA Patriot Act. It approves additional funding to fully train immigration officers to use the monitor passenger traffic patterns 7 appropriately and for the expansion of the Carrier Consultant Program, which assigns additional INS personnel at foreign airports to assist air carriers in the detection of fraudulent travel or immigration documents. It sets the machine readable visa (MRV) issuance fee at the higher of $65 or the actual cost of the service and also authorizes State to charge a $10 surcharge when a MRV is placed in a nonmachine readable passport. (H.R. 3525)
The President continued: „Right now, the FBI and the CIA do a good job of sharing information…But we've got to do a better job of sharing information and expanding information to the INS and the State Department and Customs agents, and throughout the intelligence community. We've just got to do a better job. This bill enables us to modernize our communication…The legislation requires law enforcement and intelligence communities to continue to develop a list of suspected terrorists, and to maintain that list, and to make it readily available, so that nobody is granted entry into the United States that's on the list.“
(G. Bush, whitehouse.gov)
Section 201 repeals a section of the USA Patriot Act by creation an interim data sharing system under which federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies are to share with the INS and State any information that is relevant to the admissibility and deportability of aliens or visa applicants. It requires President Bush to submit a report to Congress, and subsequently in consultation with Congress, to develop and implement a system, by October 26, 2002, to provide INS and State with access to such information. This provision also restricts the misuse of the information in the system and creates criminal penalties for it. Finally, it accelerates the deadlines contained in a section of the USA Patriot Act for the development of a „technology standard“to verify the identity of visa applicants. (harvard.edu)
The act further requires that the new interoperable electronic data system the Chimera system include sophisticated, linguistically sensitive name matching algorithms that could account for variations in name formats, spelling and other name elements within a particular language. INS is to fully integrate all internal databases that contain information on aliens into this system that will provide the INS and State with real time access to law enforcement and intelligence information concerning aliens. State Department is to provide the INS with an electronic version of the visa 7 the path that is prescribed for an airplane that is preparing to land at an airport
33 file of each alien issued a visa, so that the file would be available to immigration inspectors at U.S. ports of entry prior to an alien’s arrival.
(H.R. 3525)
The bill directs the Attorney General and the Secretary of the State to implement integrated entry and exit system, first mandated in IIRIRA of 1996. It requires the Attorney General to establish a database with the arrival and departure data from machine readable travel and entry documents issued to aliens and to make interoperable all security databases relevant to making admissibility decisions. (Center for Immigration Studies)
The president stated: „It [the act] requires every foreign visitor desiring entrance into the United States to carry a travel document containing biometric identification that would be fingerprints or facial recognition that will enable us to use technology to better deny fraudulent entry into America.“ (G. Bush, whitehouse.gov)
Attorney General and the Secretary of the State are directed to implement integrated entry and exit system and to issue machine readable, tamper resistant visas and all travel and entry documents include biometric identifiers by October 26, 2004. The bill requires the installation of biometric identifier readers and scanners at all ports of entry by the same date. In 180 days of the bill‘s enactment must be implemented a process in which all refugees and asylees requesting admission or grant of asylum to the U.S. must be provided with documents bearing their fingerprint and photograph.
(Center for Immigration Studies)
All consular officers responsible for adjudicating visa applications were given special training in the effective screening of visa applicants who pose a potential threat to the safety or security of the U.S and in cultural sensitivity toward visa applicants. It prohibited the issuance of any nonimmigrant visa to any citizen from a country that is a state sponsor of terrorism (as designated by the State Department) unless the Secretary of State determines that such alien poses no threat to the safety or security of the United States. Seven countries were designated as state sponsors of terrorism: North Korea, Cuba, Syria, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, and Libya. (harvard.edu)
34
It provides that before a country may participate in the visa waiver program the government of the country must certify that it would report to the U.S. government the theft of blank passports issued by that country. It shortens the period of time from five to two years between the required periodic reviews of a VWP participant country’s compliance with the requirements for continued participation in the program. In addition, it requires that the INS must check the appropriate lookout databases to make sure that an alien from a Visa Waiver country desiring admission into the U.S. does not appear in any of the relevant lookout databases. (H.R. 3525)
Identification numbers of all lost or stolen U.S. or foreign passports must be entered into the Chimera system by Attorney General within 72 hours of notification of the loss or theft. To the extent practicable, the AG also is required to enter into the Chimera system the identification numbers of passports previously reported lost or stolen. (harvard.edu)
Title IV of the act requires the President to examine, within one year a) the feasibility of establishing a North American National Security Program to enhance the mutual security and safety of the U.S, Canada and Mexico. Under this program, foreign nationals traveling to the United States, Mexico, or Canada could participate in a voluntary pre clearance procedure to determine their admissibility before they arrive in North America and b) the feasibility of expanding the current preclearance program established by the INS to determine admissibility of foreign nationals on air flights to Mexico and Canada.
(Center for Immigration studies)
Later on, Bush commented: „It [the act] strengthens the requirements that all commercial passenger ships and airplanes entering the United States provide a list of passengers and crew before arrival, so that border authorities can act immediately to prevent someone from entering the country if he or she poses a threat to our citizens. It makes a lot of sense to do that. We should have probably been doing it a long time ago. “(G. Bush, whitehouse.gov)
All arrival and departure manifests must be transmitted electronically to border officers by no later than January 1, 2003. The information that must be provided for each individual listed on the manifest has to include complete name, date of birth, citizenship, sex, passport number and country of issuance, country of residence, U.S. visa number, date and place of issuance, when applicable. The act requires the President to study the feasibility of expanding the passenger manifest requirements to commercial carriers that transport people by land to or from the United
35
States and to report his findings to Congress by May 14, 2004. These provisions take effect upon enactment. It repeals the provision of law that requires inspections of arriving passengers at airports to be completed within 45 minutes from the time the passenger presents himself for inspection. However, this section also requires the INS to staff ports of entry at such levels as would be adequate to meet the goal of completing inspections within 45 minutes of a passenger’s presentation without compromising the safety and security of the U.S. (H.R. 3525)
Another section of the act permits U.S. border inspections agencies to enter into an agreement of cooperation with the government of Canada to conduct joint U.S. Canada inspections projects. On December 12, 2002 the U.S. and Canadian governments signed a declaration establishing a „smart border“. It includes a 30 point plan to secure the border and make its safety procedures more effective. (Congressional Research Service)
Title V of the act deals with provisions on admissions of students and exchange visitors. It amends the sections of IIRIA and The Patriot Act to heighten and strengthen the requirements on the student tracking system and also mandates the collection of additional data. Under this interim system, no F, M or certain J 8 nonimmigrant visas may be issued unless the State Department has received from an educational or other institution electronic evidence of the alien’s acceptance at the institution and a consular officer has reviewed the applicant’s visa record. It specifically requires the Attorney General to establish an electronic means to monitor and verify the various steps involved in the access to the U.S. of foreign students such as the issuance of documents of acceptance of a foreign student by an educational institution or exchange visitor program; the transmittal of the acceptance documents to appropriate consular officers at State; the issuance of a visa to a foreign student (either an F or M nonimmigrant visa) or exchange visitor (a J nonimmigrant visa); the registration and enrollment of the foreign student or exchange visitor in his or her institution or program; the apprisal to the approved educational institution or exchange visitor program upon the foreign student‘s or exchange visitor’s entering the U.S.; and any other relevant act including changes of schools and termination of studies. (harvard.edu)
The State Department is required to inform the INS each time it issues an F or M nonimmigrant visa. The INS then is directed to notify the educational institution when an F or M nonimmigrant is admitted to the United States and the educational institutions are required to inform the INS
8 F student, J Exchange visitor, M vocational student
36 within 30 days of the deadline for class registration if an alien fails to enroll or begin classes. This title also requires the Attorney General, by mid June 2002, to provide State with a list of all educational institutions that are approved to receive F or M nonimmigrants. Additional data that must be collected about F, J and M nonimmigrants under the act includes: the student‘s date and port of entry, the date of school/program enrollment and the degree program and/or field of study, and the date of termination of enrollment. All applicants for F, M and certain J nonimmigrant visas are required to provide U.S. consular officers with additional information such as their address in their home country, the names and contacts of their immediate relatives, the names of people in the country of residence who could verify information about the visa applicant, and any previous work history. The INS is directed to conduct periodic reviews every two years of all the institutions approved to receive F, J or M nonimmigrants to determine whether they are in compliance with all record keeping and reporting requirements. The Secretary of State is directed to conduct a similar review every two years of all entities designated to sponsor J nonimmigrant exchange visitors. If an institution or program fails to comply materially with the reporting requirements, its authorization to accept foreign students and visitors is suspended for at least one year or terminated. (H.R. 3525)
The bill extends by one year, the deadline for the INS to be able to verify that the biometric identifier on each border crossing card presented matches the biometric characteristic of the holder of the card before admitting the holder into the United States. (H.R. 3525)
The General Accounting Office (GAO) is directed to report to Congress by mid May 2003 to determine the feasibility of requiring every nonimmigrant alien in the United States to register his or her current address and the name and address of an employer, if any, with the INS each year. (harvard.edu)
On international help, G. Bush commented: „… [W]e're beginning to gather information overseas in a much better way. We've got a vast coalition of nations that are still with us. They heard the message, either you're with us, or you're not with us. They're still with us. And we're sharing information. And we can use that better use that information with our own agencies here at home, to make sure that we really button this up, that we do our job, the job the American people expect.“ (G. Bush, whitehouse.gov)
The act directs the INS, Secretary of State, and the Office of Homeland Security to conduct and report to Congress by mid May 2003 a study on the procedures necessary for encouraging or
37 requiring Canada, Mexico and visa waiver countries to develop an intergovernmental network of interoperable electronic data systems that would facilitate real time access by the INS and State to information needed to screen visa applicants and determine admissibility and would be interoperable with the Chimera system. (H.R. 3525)
One of the last sections of the bill states that nothing in it is intended to impose requirements that are inconsistent with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or to require additional documentation for aliens granted documentary waivers by the Attorney General and the Secretary of State. The practical effect of this provision is to relieve many Canadian visitors and certain other aliens from participation in the automated entry and exit system, since they will not be required to apply for machine readable, biometric visas or other travel documents. Finally, it requires State to retain every application for a nonimmigrant visa, regardless of whether the application was approved or denied, for a period of seven years from the date of application. (Center for Immigration Studies)
The President concluded by saying: „The bill didn't have everything I wanted. I wanted a temporary extension of 245 I in the bill, which basically allowed certain immigrants, sponsored by their families or employers, to become legal residents without having to leave the country, so that families can stay together. I thought that made sense. It's not a part of the bill; I intend to work with Congress to see if we can't get that done here pretty quick…at the same time, it will help us keep the country secure. Basically what we're saying is, this is part of a legislative part of a national strategy. Tom's [Ridge] worked on the national strategy. He's worked with our respective agency heads. And Congress has been a great partner in this strategy. This is good work. “ (G. Bush, whitehouse.gov)
4.2.3 Homeland Security Act of 2002 and the Establishment of Department of
Homeland Security
On November 25, 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law the Homeland Security Act of 2002, a document comprising almost five hundred pages that represented the largest reorganization
38 of government since 1947. By consolidating twenty to federal agencies The HSA created a new cabinet level Department of Homeland Security (DHS) employing over 170,000 people. “The new department will analyze threats, will guard our borders and airports, protect our critical infrastructure, and coordinate the response of our nation for future emergencies… [DHS] will focus the full resources of the American government on the safety of the American people.” Explained the President upon signing the act. (G. Bush, whitehouse.gov) One of the affected agencies was the Immigration and Naturalization Service. (Becker 26)
Section 471 of the HSA terminated INS with the goal of establishing two bureaus for enforcement and services separately and transferred its responsibilities. Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration studies on abolishment and shifting responsibilities of INS remarked:
„Whether the INS stays unified…or is broken into two separate bureaus within a single department — the approach endorsed by this House — all its functions can and should move together to the new department. But why is this important? The central reason is that the provision of what the INS calls ‚immigration benefits‘— employment authorization documents, permanent residency, asylum, or citizenship — is inherently two sided. It consists both of a welcome for legitimate applicants and the enforcement of the law against those who do not qualify. Only by placing immigration services within the new Department of Homeland Security will those charged with providing those services be likely to fully appreciate their importance in ensuring homeland security.“
(Center for Immigration studies)
To the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (now known as USCIS) were generally given charges of visa petitions, applications for adjustment of status and change of status, naturalization applications, asylum and refugee applications, and determinations relating the custody and parole of asylum seekers. (H.R. 5005) The immigration enforcement became the duty of an agency titled the Bureau of Border and Transportation Security (BTS). Its responsibilities enacted in section 402 of the act included: „Securing the borders, territorial waters, ports, terminals, waterways, and air, land, and sea transportation systems of the United States, including managing and coordinating those functions transferred to the Department at ports of entry.“ (H.R. 5005) Administering the immigration and naturalization statutes of the U.S., including the enactment of rules governing the granting of visas and other permission forms like parole, to enter the United States to individuals who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents in the United States and preventing the entry of terrorists and their instruments on the territory of the U.S. (senate.gov)
39
The Secretary of State was authorized to instruct a consular officer to refuse a visa to an alien if he finds such refusal necessary in the foreign policy or security interests of the United States. Whenever is an applicant denied a visa, his or her name, the fact of and the basis for such denial must be entered into the interoperable electronic data system implemented under the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 and no subsequent visa may be issued for the person, unless the person’s entered information has been reviewed and the waiver of visa ineligibility recommended. Furthermore, it required the Secretary to establish an Internet based system that will allow persons access to online immigration services information. It established a position of Ombudsman, which is an independent office within the DHS who shall assist individuals and employers to identify service problem areas with the USCIS, report these problems and propose changes to lessen identified problems. Completing the 14 mile border fence project enacted in IIRIRA should become a priority after passing the act. (H.R. 5005)
The act was brought into force by The Bush Administration on March 1, 2003, officially abolishing the INS as of that date. The statute permitted a transition date as late as January 2004. First, HSA had placed all immigration enforcement activities in one bureau (BTS). The President’s reorganization introduced a more functional approach. It established: (1) a Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, which embraced the Border Patrol, immigration inspectors, agricultural inspectors, and Customs border inspectors, and (2) a Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (BICE/ICE) which combined immigration and customs investigators focused on interior enforcement and the Federal Protective Service. (Aleinikoff, MPI) After 9/11 immigrants faced a harshly different situation: lawmakers found it had become practically necessary for their political survival, to adopt restrictive legislation thus make it more difficult for immigrants to enter the country. Major changes in the law included a multiple revision of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The Attorney General has compelled immigrants who give any appearance of suspicion to register and be subject to investigation. Most members of the immigrant community seemed confused, anxious, and doubting about the changes. (Donovan 33) The creation of the Department of Homeland Security was the federal government’s most important non military response to the 9/11 tragedy. The DHS mandate was primarily to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize the damage from potential attacks and natural disasters. One of the organizations that transferred into DHS was the
40
Immigration and Naturalization Service, which had been part of the U.S. Department of Justice and 15,000 of its personnel. For years the organization had been flodded with applications for admission to the country. At the time INS ceased to exist, 5,250,958 applicants for immigration benefits, the size of the population of Arizona, were still waiting for their applications to be processed. However, after 9/11, INS resources were more than ever being diverted from helping people enter the country to scrutinizing applicants who might be terrorist threats. (Immigration law.com) „The immigrants themselves were uncertain what to make of the INS, which, as they saw it, had a dual and contradictory function. They believed it existed both to help people become Americans and to prevent people from becoming Americans. It was hard for applicants to build a sense of trust in an organization that was claiming to serve them, on the one hand, while on the other hand trying to catch them and export them for possible wrongdoing.“ (Donovan 37) Government decided that the logical thing to do was separate these divers functions. The authorization of one new organization, The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is designed to facilitate the application process that all immigrants experience in seeking temporary or permanent admission to the United States. The United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (USICE) has been given the duty of enforcing immigration laws, investigating, detaining, and deporting illegal aliens. A third organization, the United States Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (USBCBP), includes the Border Patrol and customs inspections and guarantee that only authorized persons and goods gain entry across national boundaries. This organization also manages the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) with some control role by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. The DHS did not acquire all former functions of the INS. The Executive Office for Immigration Review, which includes the Board of Immigration Appeals and the nation’s immigration judges, remains with the U.S. Department of Justice. While the Department of Homeland Security now issues and enforces the regulations about who may or may not obtain a visa, the actual work of issuing those visas in overseas consular offices continues to be realized by the Bureau of Consular Affairs, a part of the U.S. Department of State. (DHS) After its creation, USCIS was ready to provide complete, accurate, and relevant information to the immigrant community (this group includes people who are in the process of applying for immigration status in the United States, permanent residency, naturalization, citizenship, adoption of dependent children from other nations, and changes in their statuses while in the United States. It
41 also includes the uncounted millions of people who have entered the country illegally, usually for economic reasons, and who now live in daily fear of apprehension and deportation.) The clients did no longer need to be concerned that the government agency from which they sought services would also be in charge of investigations and deportation. The USCIS could hereafter focus only on the task of processing all applications for U.S. citizenship and other immigration benefits, administering the visa program asylum and refugee services, adjudicating work authorizations and other permits, administering, and providing services for new residents and citizens. Specifically the USCIS would facilitate family based and employment based petitions, asylum and refugee processing, naturalization, and issuing and renewing immigration documents. USCIS also maintained the same network of local offices around the country, as well as application support centers, service centers, local area immigration service field offices, forms centers, and the National Customer Service Call (NCSC) centers. Applicants are still able to make free calls for automated information anytime at 1 800 375 5283 or to track the progress of their applications on the internet at the USCIS address www.uscis.gov. USCIS made a significant upgrading of the computer monitoring and information providing systems so that immigrants and officials have better access to relevant information. An ombudsman office now exists nationally and in every state to assure that the program worked smoothly for immigrants. He is empowered to investigate complaints from applicants and their advocates to assure that clients were being treated fairly and within the law. A great progress has been made in downsizing immigration pending cases left from INS. The huge backlog of pending applications for immigration benefits and naturalization was reduced. Since March 2003, the backlog has decreased at an average rate exceeding 120,000 applications per month. (usics.gov) To accomplish all these improvements in a timely manner, the Bush Administration authorized an additional expense of $100 million for the comprehensive entry exit system and another $500 million to reduce the backlog of applications. These aims were reached by adding personnel, freeing others from their former enforcement duties, and by upgrading the use of computer technology to obtain and provide information. (Donovan 39) Today, every applicant for Naturalization is tested on knowledge relating to US culture, history and language. These tests used to be administered informally, with interviewers asking whatever questions they wanted from a list (e.g. name the colors of the U.S. flag, why do Americans celebrate
42
July 4th as a holiday) and using their discretion about whether the applicant passed, which led, of course, to widespread confusion, charges of favoritism, and inefficiencies. Now there is a pilot program to standardize these tests. The pilot will allow USCIS to work out any problems and perfect the test before it is fully implemented nationwide in the spring of 2008. (lawcom.com)
A major focus of DHS has been registration programs enacted in preceding bills designated for various groups of non citizens possibly linked with terrorism. The Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) mandated already in IIRIRA of 1996 was brought online in early 2003. For years, it had been well known that some students never showed up at schools they were granted visas to attend, and other students dropped out or transferred educational institutions without the required permission from the INS. More controversial has been the National Security Entry Exit Registration System (NSEERS), which consisted of both a registration program at ports of entry and a call in process for males from predominantly Muslim and Arab countries who entered the U.S. on nonimmigrant visas. The program was commenced by the Department of Justice in the fall of 2002 and taken over by DHS after March 2003. Over 93,000 individuals were registered at ports of entry, and another 83,500 reported under the call in program. (Migration Policy Institute)
DHS also announced the most elaborate system of identification in the U.S. in January 2004. The United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology US VISIT intended to improve the capability of the U.S. to gather information about foreign nationals traveling to the country as well as control their pre entry, entry, status, and exit in order to advance the security of the United States through information sharing and biometrics solutions for identity management. The system’s policy required certain non citizens entering the U.S. to have two of their index finger scanned and a digital photograph taken at the ports of entry. However, only visitors who require a visa have to provide the Immigration Officials with their biometric identifiers. The nationals of Canada and VWP countries are not subject of US VISIT program. (US VISIT)
The DHS gives an explanation of the program on its website: „US VISIT is part of a continuum of biometrically enhanced security measures that begins outside U.S. borders and continues through a visitor’s arrival in and departure from the United States. It incorporates eligibility determinations made by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of State. [It] currently applies to all visitors (with limited exemptions) entering the United States, regardless of country of origin or whether they are traveling on a visa or by air, sea or land.“ (DHS)
43
At its beginning, the system was deployed at 115 airports and 15 major seaports. According to DHS, US VISIT has caught 372 individuals wanted for crimes or immigration violations. However, there is no evidence that US VISIT has ever caught a wanted terrorist.
(EPIC US VISIT)
The creation of the US VISIT program sure was one of the biggest changes for immigrants introduced in 2004. The program uses inkless fingerprints to biometrically verify the identity of foreign visitors and match them against watch lists of suspected or known terrorists.
Elaine Dezenski, assistant secretary for policy development in DHS, who helped to implement the program for the Department of Homeland Securiy says: "The Visit program is the largest daily use biometric program in the world with 100,000 people processed every day and it is working. Since January of 2004, the U.S. has denied admission at ports of entry to more than 450 individuals based on biometric information alone." (voanews.com)
On the contrary, the call in registration program (part of the National Security Entry Exit Registration System NSEERS has been poorly planned and has not achieved its goals. Its objectives have been contradictory: gathering information about non immigrants present in the United States, and deporting those with immigration violations. Many non immigrants have justly feared they will be detained or deported if they registered, so they have not done so. Moreover, any potential security benefits of registering people within the United States would fade over time as new non immigrants are required to register at the border. (Chishti 13)
On December 17, 2004, President Bush signed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (the “Intelligence Bill”) with the aim of improving national security, particularly transportation security, and reforming the intelligence community based on recommendations of the September 11 Commission Report. Besides creating a national counterterrorism center (NCTC) which will help develop anti terrorism plans involving two or more agencies, it also establishes a national intelligence director, who will oversee the work of the 15 U.S. security agencies, including the CIA and FBI and will serve as the president's chief intelligence adviser. (fas.org )
Title IV of the act “Transportation Security” implements 9/11 Commission suggestions to improve both domestic and international airline passenger prescreening in which passenger’s information is
44 compared to “no fly” and “automatic selectee” lists. It also implements a recommendation to install and start using of in line baggage screening equipment to check passengers’ bags for explosives. Pilot programs to improve the border security and surveillance should be implemented. A plan for the systematic surveillance of the southwest border by remotely piloted aircraft and by accomplishing a mission of interdiction the illegal movement of people, weapons, and other contraband across the border, and assisting in the disassembling of smuggling and criminal networks should be implemented. Between ports of entry along the northern border of the U.S. should this be achieved by operation in remote stretches along the border with long distances between 24 hour ports of entry and a relatively small presence of border patrol agents. Their numbers are to be increased in each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010. The visa revocation process, the process of canceling a visa that has already been issued was made a deportable offense through The IRTPA of 2004. The Act not only makes it possible to put individuals in removal proceedings simply by revoking their visa, but also precludes judicial review to cases in which the visa revocation is the only ground for removal.
Since May 2003, the consular officers have been required to perform face to face interviews for all visa applicants, with only a few exceptions, particularly diplomats, workers from certain international organizations, and persons below the age of fourteen or above the age of seventy nine. This interview policy was expanded by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act of 2004. Another sections of it provide enhanced criminal penalties for unlawfully bringing in and harboring aliens, make deportable any alien who has received military training from an organization that, was a designated a terrorist one, require the General Accounting Office to conduct a study evaluating the extent to which weaknesses in U.S. asylum system could be abused by terrorists. However, these last two provisions were repealed by the REAL I.D. Act of 2005 wchich, however, have not come into effect. Besides other provisions suggested by 9/11 commission, title VII of the act requires the Director of the NCTC to submit to Congress a strategy to detect and combat terrorist travel domestically and internationally, requires improvements in technology and training that will assist border, consular and immigration officers in achieving this goal, provides authorization for an increase in the number of consular officers by 150 per year from fiscal year 2006 through 2009. Other provisions in this title include a section encouraging international agreements to track and reduce terrorist
45 travel through the use of fraudulent documents and a section encouraging international agreements to establish international standards for transliteration of names into the Roman alphabet for international travel documents and name based watchlist systems. Furthermore, the title also includes provisions that strengthen control over access. The subtitle calls for the accelerated deployment a biometric entry and exit system at U.S. ports of entry that would help verify the individuals entering and leaving the U.S. based, besides on the identity documents they carry, also on their physical features. Individuals entering the U.S., including U.S. citizens and visitors from Canada and other Western Hemisphere countries have to bear a passport or other document sufficient to prove citizenship and identity. The title includes measures expanding program that places U.S. immigration experts at foreign airports to provide expert advice to airlines and foreign immigration officials dealing with visitors heading for the U.S., and increasing the number of foreign airports where individuals will be “pre inspected” before reaching the U.S. Finally, the title requires the establishment of new national standards for driver’s licenses, Social Security cards and birth certificates, documents that Americans use to prove their identity. The law required the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations making any driver’s license or identity cards accepted for any official purpose by a federal agency. The same regulations were to be established by the Secretary of Health and Human Services for issuing of birth certificates. Driver’s licenses and IDs were to include full legal name, date of birth, gender, license or ID card number, digital photograph, signature and address of the holder. To prevent tampering, counterfeiting or duplicating, the cards were required to contain physical security features and had meet specified requirements for a common machine readable technology. States retained the right to determine what categories of aliens (legal or illegal immigrants) were eligible to obtain a license and were also required to confiscate any such documents if any of the security features were compromised. States would receive grants to assist them in implementing new birth certificate and driver’s license requirements. (Becker 27) The Commissioner of Social Security was directed to restrict within one year issuance of multiple replacement Social Security cards for any alien to 3 per year and 10 in a lifetime, to create minimum standards for verification of documents presented to obtain original or replacement cards, and add death and fraud indicators to the verification systems used by employers, state agencies and other verification methods considered appropriate by the Commissioner. The controls for issuing
46
Social Security numbers (SSNs) to newborns were to be improved to prevent multiple numbers being issued to one child and to avoid falsification. The SSNs became prohibited to be displayed on driver’s licenses, motor vehicle registrations or any other identification documents. (CRS)
Although the passage of IRTPA will certainly improve the FBI, Justice Department, and intelligence community's ability to face the international terrorist threat, it is only the first step in a long process. How the FBI and Justice Department apply their new powers, and the way in which the bureau implements its reform efforts, are perhaps even more important than the presence of these provisions in IRTPA. (washingtonistitute.org)
5. Contemporary Passed Legislations
5.1 The REAL I.D. Act
The REAL I.D. Act was first introduced in January 2005 and signed into law in May of the same year as Division B of an act of the United States Congress titled Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief of 2005. Some of the immigration reform and document security related provisions of the act were already deliberated in Congress on Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. The REAL I.D. Act effectively banned driver's licenses for illegal aliens, set federal minimum standards that state issued driver’s licenses and personal ID cards must meet by May 2008 to be accepted for federal purposes, changed the eligibility criteria for individuals applying for asylum and tightened the laws on deportation of aliens related to terrorism, allocated funds for reports and pilot projects related to border security, changed visa limits for temporary workers, nurses and Australian citizens and provided additional waiver authority over laws that might delay the construction of barriers along the U.S. Mexican border near San Diego. (house.gov) Provision introduced in the First section of the act titled “Preventing Terrorists from Obtaining Relief from Removal” will make it harder for people fleeing persecution to be granted asylum. To be bestowed relief from removal, they will have to prove that their race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group is “at least one central reason” for present or future persecution in their country of origin. The act will also allow immigration judges to find an applicant not credible because of discrepancies between statements made at any time to anyone, even when those statements are not relevant to the claim for asylum. It allows immigration judges to require asylum and relief
47 applicants to obtain „corroborating evidence“ and bars the federal courts from reviewing discrepancy decisions whether made within or outside of removal proceedings. This section repeals the requirement in IRTPA of 2004 for a Government Accountability Office study on vulnerability of the U.S. asylum system and lifts the annual cap first, on the number of persons who can be granted asylum as a result of having been subjected to coercive population control measures and second, on the number of asylees who are eligible to adjust their status to permanent residence. (eiic.org) One of the act’s provisions amends the IIRIRA of 1996 to provide the Secretary of Homeland Security with authority to waive all legal requirements the Secretary considers necessary (instead of waiving all laws as enacted in IIRIRA) that would prevent expedite construction of security fences and barriers along the nation’s borders. However, certain grounds of inadmissibility or deportability related to terrorism can be waived by the Secretary of State and the Secretary of DHS. The act expands the terrorism related grounds of inadmissibility and removal. „Terrorist activity“ is here broadly defined as virtually any use of a weapon or threat to use a weapon against person or property so any two or more people who have ever engaged in such activity would be deemed as „terrorist organization“and the act would allow deportation of non–U.S. citizens who have provided humanitarian, nonviolent support to such „organizations“, even if that support was legal when it was provided. It also provides that the spouse or minor children of a person who has engaged in prohibited activities may be also removed from the U.S. along with the guilty party. These provisions impose “guilt by association,” making people deportable for wholly lawful and peaceful activity if such activity supports any group that has engaged in the use of weapons or has only threatened to use weapons. Anyone who has given money to facilities such as a hospitals or schools that have an association in any way with a group that uses guns (or threatens to use them) would be deportable. The proposed measures apply retroactively and would make deportable aliens who provided support to a group or a member thereof, whether or not the group was a designated terrorist organization. Under the PATRIOT Act, a foreign national who endorses a designated terrorist group already is automatically deportable. A foreign national who endorses a non designated group that has involved in ‘terrorism’ (including any use or threat to use a weapon) also is deportable but only if he supported the group’s “terrorist activity.” Under REAL I.D. Act, the foreign national is deportable unless he can prove by clear and convincing evidence that he neither knew nor should have known that the organization is a “terrorist organization.” (NILC)
48
Title II of the Real I.D. Act repealed the Intelligence Bill of 2004 provisions and set Federal standards for the issuance of driver’s licenses and obligates aliens to prove their "legal presence" in the United States. Among its critical reforms, REAL ID requires the expiration date of a temporary foreign visitor’s driver’s license to match with the visa expiration date. It will prevent the federal government from accepting state issued driver’s licenses or ID cards as means of identification proof unless they meet the Act’s requirements (including verification of immigration status) within three years. (DHS may grant an extension of that deadline). The applicants must prove that they are U.S. citizens, nationals or have lawful immigration status in the U.S. However, those with a valid, unexpired non immigrant visa or nonimmigrant visa status, a pending application for asylum, a pending or approved application for temporary protected status, approved deferred action status, or a pending application for adjustment of status to lawful permanent residence or conditional resident status may only receive a temporary driver’s license. The validity period of such license or identification card may not exceed the expiration date of authorized stay. For others eligible for a temporary license but whose stay does not have an expiration date, the valid time of driver’s licenses and identification cards shall not exceed one year. (immigrationforum.org) „At least two of the 9/11 hijackers had overstayed their visas, and thus their state issued IDs should have expired. As legal means of entry become increasingly difficult for terrorists, they will seek to enter illegally (as suggested by persistent intelligence reports), making access to government issued IDs all the more important. In fact, the 9/11 Commission's counsel told the Senate Judiciary Committee of al Qaeda operative Nabil Al Marabh, who sneaked illegally over the Canadian border in mid 2001 and was found to have received five Michigan licenses in 13 months, plus licenses from Massachusetts, Illinois, and Florida.“ (Krikorian, cis.org) Among other things, this provision directs states to verify with the issuing agency the issuance, validity, and completeness of each document needed to be presented. States may not accept foreign documentation other than passports to meet the minimum issuance standards. In addition, states must enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with DHS under the SAVE Program by September 11, 2005 to verify the legal presence of all noncitizen driver’s license applicants. The measure provides that if States issue alternative identification documents that do not meet the requirements, these cards must use a unique design or color indicator and distinctly state that the cards may not be accepted by any federal agency. States will be required to provide all
49 other States with electronic access to information contained in their respective motor vehicle databases. (NILC)
The provisions of title III “Border Infrastructure and Technology Integration” require the Department Homeland Security to study the technology, equipment and personnel needed to address security within the US and to submit a report to Congress which includes recommendations for improvement. Second, they require DHS to develop a pilot program on ground surveillance and to identify surveillance technologies that will improve border security. Third, they require DHS to develop a plan for improved communication and information sharing across government levels and to report findings with a plan for implementation. (immigrationforum.org) Under title IV of the act “Temporary Workers”, senate approved an immigration amendment to exempt seasonal workers who have worked in the U.S. in previous years from the national cap of 66,000 H 2B visas. This sort of visa program allows U.S. employers to hire foreign workers for temporary nonagricultural work, including one time, seasonal or peak load. (H.R.1268) Title V deals with profession visas increase. H 1B visas are available for workers coming temporarily to the United States to perform services in a specialty occupation, usually requiring a bachelor’s degree and higher in a particular specialty allowed under prior law. The annual quota on H 1B visas is 65,000. The REAL I.D. Act would create a new "E 3" temporary work visa only for Australian nationals that would meet the requirements of the H 1B program but would have a separate annual quota of 10,500 (plus the spouses and children of such aliens). Australian professionals would obtain E 3 visa for an initial period of two years. Finally, the Act would make up to 50,000 of unused immigrant visas (from fiscal years 2001 2004) available for aliens who have been approved for employment based preference visas as nurses or physical therapists. These visas would remain available until exhausted, however 50,000 cap would not be valid for accompanying or following family members of qualifying immigrants. (house.gov)
Since enactment, REAL ID has been under assault from some quarters. States complain that its implementation would be too expensive. Congress has provided funding for implementation, but states claim the amounts to date have not been sufficient. Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Missouri, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Carolina, and Washington have started passing legislation opposing the Real ID Act. There is
50 a website ran by ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) “realnigtmare.org” warning about implementing the act and informing about its flaws like tax rising, privacy invasion („an internal passport that will increasingly be used to track and control individuals’ movements and activities“), zero effectivity against terrorism (“ID documents do not reveal anything about evil intent – and even if they did, determined terrorists will always be able to obtain fraudulent documents either counterfeit or real documents bought from corrupt officials“), titling the act a bureaucratic nightmare causing higher fees and longer lines. Visitors of the website can check status of Anti Real ID Legislation in individual states on an interactive map. (realnightmare.org)
To the contrary 9/11 Families for Secure America affirm all these ACLU’s proclamations as false. They maintain REAL ID does not create a national ID card. They believe REAL ID may be the only realistic way to avoid a national ID card in the post 9/11 world. That is because REAL ID removes a key tool terrorists used to attack the U.S., and does so within the context of current state licensure standards. The act, which prevents creation of a national ID card, does not create a national database of driver’s licenses. REAL ID also provides an alternative to a national ID card that could be used to combat illegal immigration – an employer can use a secure REAL ID license to verify a person’s qualification to work in the United States. REAL ID licenses have a further benefit for U.S. citizens desiring to travel to Canada or Mexico starting on January 1, 2008 when passports are required for such travel: the license can be used as an alternative to a passport. Implementation of the REAL I.D. can, in fact, prevent terrorists and illegal aliens from obtaining US drivers licenses, prevent individuals whose licenses are revoked, for instance, drunk driving, in one state from getting license under an assumed name in another state, make it virtually impossible to steal another person’s identity, make it far more difficult for people to obtain welfare fraudulently or escape parental support obligation and thus it can rather save the taxpayers‘money. (numbersusa.com)
The editors of National Review agree. „The act simply does not create a national ID card. Any modern society must have a means of identifying people—for national security, business transactions, and more. Most countries have opted for unitary national identification documents. The U.S., on the other hand, has over the years stumbled into a decentralized approach, with state motor vehicle administrators taking the lead. Regardless of whether this system is ideal, it is the system we already have, and it needs to be more secure. “
(National Review online)
51
The future of the REAL I.D. Act’s coming into effect seems a little obscure in these days. On March 2, 2007, it the implementation of the Act was postponed for two years. The provisions of the bill will be delayed from coming into effect until December 31, 2009.
(DHS)
5.2 Secure Fence Act and the Issue of Illegal Immigration from the Southwest border
In the post 9/11 context , there continues to be a strong connection between immigrant illegality and Mexicans and the US Mexico border. Like it was already mentioned above, the 9/11 tragedy did not have any notable effect on numbers of illegal immigrants coming to the United states each year. The issue of growing influx of illegal immigrants from the southern border of the country has been a subject of contention both in Congress and in the American public in the post 9/11 context. In 2004, Barlett and Steele, a widely acclaimed team of investigative reporters, ran a cover story in Time titled „Who Left the Door Open?“ emphasizing the porous nature of the U.S. Mexico border. It begins like this: “The next time you pass through an airport and have to produce a photo ID to establish who you are and then must remove your shoes, take off your belt, empty your pockets, prove your laptop is not an explosive device and send your briefcase or purse through a machine to determine whether it holds weapons, think about this: In a single day, more than 4,000 illegal aliens will walk across the busiest unlawful gateway into the U.S., the 375 mile border between Arizona and Mexico. No searches for weapons. No shoe removal. No photo ID checks. Before long, many will obtain phony identification papers, including bogus Social Security numbers, to conceal their true identities and mask their unlawful presence… Who's to blame for all the intruders? While the growing millions of illegal aliens cross the border on their own two feet, the problem is one of the U.S.'s own making. The government doesn't want to fix it, and politicians, as usual, are dodging the issue, even though public opinion polls show that Americans overwhelmingly favor a crackdown on illegal immigration. To be sure, many citizens quietly benefit from the flood of illegals because the supply of cheap labor helps keep down the cost of many goods and services, from chicken parts to lawn care. Many big companies, which have an even clearer stake in cheap labor, aggressively fend off the enforcement of laws that would shut down their supply of illegal workers. The argument is getting stronger, however, that this is a short sighted bargain for the U.S. The system holds down the pay of American workers and rewards the illegals and the businesses that hire them. It breeds anger and resentment among citizens who can't understand why illegal aliens often receive government funded health care, education benefits and subsidized housing. In border communities, the masses of incoming illegals lay waste to the landscape and create costly burdens for agencies trying to keep public order. Moreover, the system makes a mockery of the U.S. tradition of encouraging legal immigration. Increasingly, there is little incentive to play by the rules.” (Barlett and Steele at Inda 116)
Already in January 2004, in his speech on immigration policy, George W. Bush proposed to Congress a temporary worker program that would give three years work visas to millions of undocumented workers in the United States, and persons in other countries with a job offer in the United States, with the chance of an extension of time if no U.S. citizens are found to fill the jobs.
52
„As a nation that values immigration, and depends on immigration, we should have immigration laws that work and make us proud. Yet today we do not. Instead, we see many employers turning to the illegal labor market. We see millions of hard working men and women condemned to fear and insecurity in a massive, undocumented economy. Illegal entry across our borders makes more difficult the urgent task of securing the homeland. The system is not working. Our nation needs an immigration system that serves the American economy, and reflects the American Dream. “(G.W. Bush, whitehouse.gov)
The President said his program would give three year, renewable work visas. In Mexico that statement was widely interpreted to mean that once Mexican citizens cross illegally into the U.S., they would be able to stay and eventually gain permanent residence.
However, in December 2005 the House of Representatives chose to ignore the necessity for comprehensive immigration reform, selecting instead for legislation that makes a show of “getting tough” on undocumented immigrants while completely ignoring the causes of undocumented immigration and the vital contributions that immigrant workers make to the U.S. economy. Despite the public’s demand for a sensible and straightforward response to the enduring problem of undocumented immigration, the House passed H.R. 4437, The Border Protection, Anti terrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 or often titled after its sponsor the Sendenbrener bill. Among the act’s harshest provision would count establishment of mandatory minimum prison sentences for a number of offenses relating to illegal entry into the United States. It would increase punishments for marriage fraud; set minimum sentence for fraudulent documents at 10 year. Unauthorized presence in the United States and assistance an undocumented person would become crimes. The act would direct the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Social Security Administration (SSA) to extend and expand a system to verify workers’ eligibility for employment in the United States and it also would require DHS to compensate counties along the southern U.S. border for costs relating to the detention of illegal aliens, increase the number of border inspection personnel, deploy radiation portal monitors at ports of entry, and establish an Office of Air and Marine Operations within DHS. H.R. 4437 would make many other changes to existing DHS procedures that would have increased the security of U.S. borders like 700 miles fencing along the southwest border at points with the highest number of illegal border crossings and increase use of military surveillance equipment. It eliminates the green card lottery and increases penalties for employing undocumented individuals. (govtarck.us)
This tough bill, became the main catalyst of the 2006 immigrant rights protest, a nationwide peaceful event taking place in 102 cities all over the country (CNN). The bill never passed the senate and soon appeared its altered version The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (CIRA, S. 2611). It has been designed to fill the gap between the enforcement only Sendenbrener
53 bill and a broad legalization provisions found in McCain Kennedy immigration bill introduced in 2005. Although it differs from H.R. 4437 in many provisions, most of them, including making it a felony to fall out of immigration status, remained. There is a citizenship passage in CIRA that would have allowed illegal immigrants who have been in the country for more than five years to pay fines and back taxes and apply for a citizenship. They would have also been forgiven their Social Security fraud. The bill allows employers to bring foreign workers into the country with a "blue card", a new program permitting a stay of six years after which the employee return to their country of origin for one year. Border fencing would have covered 370 miles rather than 700 miles, as specified in H.R.4437, and the number of H 1B visas issued for skilled foreign workers would have increased. Employers of undocumented workers would have been fined. The act never passed the House of Representatives. (ILW.com)
As a result of the deadlock, the only immigration reform bill Congress managed to pass after the troublous debate over illegal immigration was The Secure Fence Act, signed by the President on October 26, 2006. After President Bush approved the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which was supposed to represent a part of U.S. strategy for immigration reform, Mexico and 27 other Latin American countries filed a protest against the 700 mile fence at the Organization of American States. Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid mocked Bush for laying out an expansive vision of immigration reform, only to cave "to the radical anti immigrant right wing of his party."
"It is a shame that after he went on national television to call for comprehensive reform, even after he went to Mexico this summer and said he was against fences, he is now willing to settle for this ineffective half measure," Reid said. (washingtonpost)
Both outgoing Mexican President Vicente Fox and incoming President Felipe Calderon criticized the fence and its impacts on US Mexico relations. Calderon depicted the fence as a measure aimed at internal US electoral matters rather than a real solution to immigration issues. Other fence critics have showed a wide range of concerns, from the proposed fence's impact on frail ecosystems and endangered species in border areas to its possible effects on cross border tourism and on ties between Mexican and US members of the Tohono O'odham American Indian nation. The foes of the barrier predict that it will not stop border crossings, but rather will divert them to new, unfenced locations, to boat and tunnel crossings, or will greaten numbers of those who enter on legal visas but overstay or violate the terms of those visas. (Migration Information Source)
Before signing the bill, President George Bush commented on immigration reinforcements:
54
“I laid out our strategy for immigration reform. Part of that strategy begins with securing the border. Since I took office we have more than doubled funding for border security from $4.6 billion in 2001 to $10.4 billion this year. We've increased the number of Border Patrol agents from about 9,000 to more than 12,000, and by the end of 2008, we will have doubled the number of Border Patrol agents during my presidency… During the course of my administration we have apprehended and sent home more 6 million people entering our country illegally… We're modernizing the southern border of the United States so we can assure the American people we're doing our job of securing the border. By making wise use of physical barriers and deploying 21st century technology we're helping our Border Patrol agents do their job. The Secure Fence Act is part of our efforts to reform our immigration system.” (G. Bush, whitehouse.gov)
The bill authorizes the construction of at least two layers of additional fencing along the southern border virtually the entire length of Arizona's border with Mexico. The Department of Homeland Security is required to install a complex network of surveillance cameras on the Arizona border by May 30, 2007, with the entire fence set for completion by the end of 2008. The secretary of homeland security would have 18 months to realize "operational control" of the U.S. frontiers, using unmanned aerial vehicles, ground based sensors, satellites, radar and cameras to prevent all illegal U.S. entries. Reinforcing those requirements, Congress approved $1.2 billion in a separate homeland security spending bill to finance the fence. However, the real cost of the fence is estimated at $6 billion. Lawmakers from both parties acknowledged that even at 700 miles in length, the barrier would leave almost 1,300 miles of border uncovered. (Washington post)
The estimated figures of the unauthorized immigrant population residing in the U.S. today significantly differ, depending on who is doing the counting. However the figures range from 7 to as many as 20 million illegal aliens in addition to naturalized, legal immigrants. Upon signing the Secure Fence Act, the President dedicated a part of his speech to the rest of immigration reform:
“We have more to do. Meaningful immigration reform means that we must enforce our immigration laws in the United States. It is against the law to hire someone who is here illegally. We fully understand that most businesses want to obey that law, but they cannot verify the legal status of their employees because of widespread document fraud. So we're creating a better system for verifying documents and work eligibility, and in the meantime, holding people to account for breaking the law. We must reduce pressure on our border by creating a temporary worker plan. Willing workers ought to be matched with willing employers to do jobs Americans are not doing for a temporary on a temporary basis. We must face the reality that millions of illegal immigrants are already here. They should not be given an automatic path to citizenship; that is amnesty. I oppose amnesty. There is a rational middle ground between granting an automatic pass to citizenship for every illegal immigrant and a program of mass deportation. And I look forward to working with Congress to find that middle ground.” (G.W. Bush, whitehouse.gov)
On May 17, a bipartisan team of senators and Bush Administration officials met in the Capitol on May 17 to announce an 11th hour meeting of plans on immigration reform. The proposed legislation, formed after months of closed door negotiations, was revealed with much fanfare. “This
55 proposal delivers an immigration system that is secure, productive, orderly, and fair,” the President said. “I applaud the Senators who worked in the spirit of bipartisanship over the past months to address this issue, which is critically important to the American people.” Bush called the U.S. Immigration system „badly in need of reform.“ (businessweek.com)
After the debate, Bush exhorted politicians on both sides of the aisle to move quickly: “Convictions run deep on the matter of immigration, but with this bipartisan agreement I am confident leaders in Washington can have a serious, civil and conclusive debate so I can sign comprehensive reform into law this year. I urge all members to support this bipartisan immigration reform proposal.” (G.W. Bush, whitehouse.gov)
In late May, the bipartisan group of senators reached an agreement on a comprehensive immigration bill (S.1348), the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, also known as the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007. The bill was first introduced in the United States Senate on May 9, 2007, but was never voted on, though a series of votes on amendments and cloture took place. The last vote on cloture, on June 28, failed 46 53, effectively ending the bill's chances. (govtrack.us)
After this bill would have come into effect, the temporary worker program that would have served the need to fill jobs Americans are not doing would finally have become reality. To ensure the program is really temporary, workers would have been limited to three two year terms, after which they would have had to return for a year to their home country. The temporary workers would have obtained “Y” visa and would have been allowed to bring their immediate families. Illegal immigrants living illegally in the United States on January 1, 2007 might have registered as lawful permanent U.S. resident and obtain “Z” visa, which would have given its holder the legal right to remain in the United States for the rest of their life, and access to a Social Security number. However, the applicants would have had to pay fines and back taxes and after four years, they would have had to pass an English proficiency test. After eight years, the holder of a Z visa would have been eligible for a U.S. Permanent Resident Card (a "green card"). (S. 1348)
The act would have also ended so called “chain migration”, in which an immigrant who becomes a U.S. citizen can ease the process by which his relatives from outside the country can get green cards. Under the bill, only the immediate relatives spouses and minor children of a new citizen would be made eligible for green cards. The act would have terminated the Diversity Lottery Program, which grants 50,000 green cards per year through random chance. (sourcewatch.org)
56
The proposal established a new merit based system to select future immigrants based on the skills and qualities they would bring to the United States. Under this system, potential immigrants applying for permanent residency in the U.S. would have been assigned points for skills, education, and other attributes that contribute national interest including: ability to speak English; level of education, training in science, math or technology; job offer in a specialty or high demand field; employer support; and family ties to the U.S. (govtrack.us)
U.S. employers would have been required to verify all employees’ Social Security, green card or other ID number using the “Employment Eligibility Verification System”, that would have been a central database meant to keep immigrant status information on all workers living in the United States. All workers would have needed to present stronger and more verifiable identification documents. The bill would have increased penalties for illegal employment and for insufficient employee record keeping. (S. 1348)
As almost any other immigration legislation, the bill would have increased enforcement of the United States Mexico border. It would have increased the sum of border patrol agents to 20,000 and adding another 370 miles of fencing. (sourcewatch.org)
The bill contained within it the entirety of the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act (DREAM Act), a bill that has been introduced unsuccessfully several times since November 2005 in the House and Senate. It would have provided a fast track to citizenship for illegal immigrant minor children who either go to college or serve in the U.S. military.
(dreamact.info)
6. Conclusion
The 9/11 events shook the U.S. to their founation and for the immigration policy arose another, for some time the most imporatnt task to protect the coutry from those who wanted to see its fall. Imperfections in immigration laws were some of the factors to blame for the 9/11 tragedy. Although immigration policy flaws had definitely their share on the tragedy, it would be far too shallow to lay the blame only on its failure and along with new immigration provisions certainly brand new, often exessive security measures had to come. However, extreme situation called for extreme measures and it is hard to say if the very first reaction could have been any unemotional. The U.S. Patriot Act, probably the most questionable and harsh measure enacted after 9/11 in many respect violates the
57 civil liberties in order to preclude simmilar apocalypse. The monitoring of U.S. borders and ports of entry improved by rise of border personnel and implementations of information shared database systems of visitors and international students as potential terrorists. The term “terrorist” in different modifications gained a brand new dimension. Visa obtainig became much more complicated, for nationals of terrorism sponsoring countries even impossible. The process of issuance started to be security conscious later biometrically enforced. With passage of almost each immigration legalization ater the attacks, the security measures, border enforcement and numbers of immigration/border personnel were enhanced. Establishment of the Department of Homeland Security and transfer of immigration and border security matters from Immigration and Naturalization Service was another significant step towards protecting the nation. The Department’s U.S. VISIT identification and information sharing system based on biometrically enhanced security measures was one of the advantageous changes. Not before the Intelligence Bill of 2004 were implemented the suggestions of the 9/11 commission. A national counterterrorism center was found to develop plans to conquer terrorism, people entering the country including the U.S. citizens had to begin to carry passports when entering the country. The REAL I.D. Act, another unpopular legislation which led to massive nationwide resistance absorbed most of the Intelligence Bill’s measures. It would create federal standards for issuing basic documents but many opponents claim the implementation would be too expensive and terrorist could always wangle a fraudulent ID. The implementation of the latter has been postponed. This bill, however, adresses the problem of visa overstayers as it requires the temporary foreign visitor’s documents to match vith their visa expiration date. The U.S. government has been unsucessfuly trying to pass a comprehensive immigration reform since 2004. Yet soon after that first the House and then the Senate came up with quite the opposite illegal immigrants hostile bills, that made illegal residence in the country a federal crime. The only bill that became a law in 2006 was a border reinforcing, supposed part of immigration reform strategy. The Secure Fence Act changed nothing but authorizing phisical barrier along the southwestern border. The rest of the immigration reform which would have actually dealt with immigration failed to pass at the end of June 2007. The early post 9/11 changes of immigartion legalization were all adopted in fear of another terrosist attack and thus in the name of national security. Today it seemes like the U.S. government are able to do anything to secure their borders and justify all of their deems by prevention of the terrorism. It is clear that the America buried its reputation of the most liberal country in the world in the post 9/11 inevitable measures. But even in the hard times like the post 9/11 context, whether
58 dealing with terrorist threats or illegal aliens, the U.S. government should keep in mind that accepting immigrants has always been an element of their culture defining their nation.
7. Suggestions on Methodology
As immigration being an important part of the U.S history, the nation formation and a present day highly discussed issue, the subject of immigration can be incorporated in English classes dedicated to American culture. The prerequisite for discussing this topic with pupils of 8 th and 9 th grade on secondary level would be a basic knowledge of American history of the 9/11 attacks. Both these subject would be deepen by enlightenment about U.S. immigration and illegal immigration problems. To achieve the best goals the three lesson plan is suggested to be handled as combination of facts providing, reading and constructive classroom discussions on contemporary U.S. immigration issues. As the immigration itself being a very complex subject requiring quite mature students, the topic should be simplified as much as possible. Pattern 1: Materials: A gap filling exercise, a political map of the world. In the beginning of the lesson the teacher would first encourage the students to think what word „immigration“means. Then the teacher would define the term, pair up the students and have they come up with ideas why people would desire to leave their home country and want to move and start living in a different one. (Students are supposed to come up with at least reasons like war, family, work; the rest of them should be provide by the teacher and a discussion would follow why? What would you do? What country would you chose and why? The student would then receive a gap filling exercise on U.S. history (Basic information) The teacher asks students if they know anyone from a different country living in the Czech Republic and the reason that made them come over here.
59
Pattern 2: A lesson on 9/11 attacks. Teaching materials: Handout with basic information about 9/11 events, a political map of the world. When it happened What exactly happened Who the perpetrators were and similar basic information As most of the students may be aware of some facts or have some ideas about the events, at the beginning of the activity, the teacher should gather information from the class and with the students they should try to put individual ideas and pieces of information together. Some children might come up with words they have heard in this context but their classmates and perhaps even themselves, do not know their exact meaning. The teacher should make sure the pupils understand terms like „terrorist“, „terrorism“, „hijack“, „World Trade Center“, „visa“. In the next part of the lesson, students receive a handout with information about 9/11. As homework students should search some information about the topic in the internet and retell it briefly. Pattern 3: A lesson devoted to legal and illegal immigration. Materials: A political map of the world, texts with stories and information about immigration from Mexico. At the beginning, the teacher explains what words „legal“and „illegal“mean. Students would be again asked whether they have heard any about legal and illegal immigration problems and the terms would be soon accurately explained. Pupils receive a short text about the problem of illegal immigration from Mexico, the situation in Mexico, and reasons people of the country desire to get into the U.S. then the teacher read a two stories about Mexican illegal immigrants crossing the U.S. border. The problem could be demonstrated on Ukraine workers in the Czech Republic, working for lower wages or doing jobs Czech people are reluctant to provide. The class would next be divided into small groups of three or four. By working in small groups, students learn to communicate, to cooperate, to persuade and to
60 compromise their views. The students would receive handouts with questions they would discuss in groups. Would you risk your life for a better future or you would rather live in poverty all your life? Do you think building border fencing can prevent illegal immigrants from entering the country? Imagine you are an employer, someone running their own business. Would you employ an illegal immigrant if he worked for much less than a native citizen? Why? Why not? Another alternative of this discussion is assigning the groups points of view they are supposed to defend. The pupils would learn and practice persuading, bargaining and considering different ideas. Feminizing students with immigration issues should be supported with interesting materials as real stories of the immigrants, examples providing (A.Schwarcenegger) as well as informing them about difficulties and problems immigrants often have to face. The pupils should be encouraged to search for information themselves. These patterns are only suggestions and can be understood as single activities and thus shortened or simplified, whole lessons or as a 3 lesson plan, which I would suggest for grammar school students or students highly interested in history/politics/American culture.
61
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS BEDFORD, Henry. F, COLBOURN, Trevor . The Americans; a brief history . New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. 1972. ISBN 0 1550 2600 3 PRATT, Fletcher. The Compact History of The United States. New York: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1962. ASIN BOOOH7G9H4 HANDLIN, Oscar. A Pictorial History of Immigration . New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1972 DANIELS, Roger. Guarding the Golden Door . New York: Hill and Wang, 2004. ISBN 0 8090 5343 8 GRAHAM, Otis. L.Jr. Unguarded Gates. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2004. ISBN 0 7425 2228 8 INDA, Johnatan Xavier. Targeting Immigrants, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2006. ISBN 1 4051 1234 3 The National Archives. Our Documents: 100 milestone documents from National Archives. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. ISBN 0 1951 7206 X HAERENS, Margaret. Illegal Immigration, USA: Greenhaven.Press, 2006. ISBN 0 7377 3357 8 COLE, David, DEMPSEY, James. Terrorism and the Constitution, New York: The New Press, 2002. ISBN 1 56584 782 2 BECKER, Cynhia, Immigration and Illegal Aliens . Farmington Hills: Thomson Gale, 2006. ISBN 0 7876 5103 6 FALK, Richard. The Great Terror War . Northampton: Olive Branch Press, 2003. ISBN 1 56656 460 3 WILLIAMS, Mary E. Immigration: Opposing Viewpoints . Farmington Hills: Thomson Gale, 2004. ISBN 0 7377 1692 4 MALDWYN, A. Jones. Destination America . London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1976. ISBN 0 297 77076 4
62
BARBOUR, Scott (Editor). Immigration Policy . San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1995. ISBN 1 56510 267 3 Homeland Security Statutes. Rockville: ABS Consulting, Government Institutes, 2003. ISBN 0 86587 844 7 LANDSBERG, Brian K.(Editor in Chief). Major Acts of Congress . New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2004. ISBN 0 02 865749 7 MCCUEN, Gary E. (Editor). The Issues of Immigration . Hudson: Gary McCuen Publications, Inc. 1997. ISBN 0 86596 141 7 FLYNN, Stephen. America the Vulnerable . New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2004. ISBN 0 06 0571 28 4 WILLIAMS, Mary E. The Terrorist Attack on America . Farmington Hills: Thomson Gale, 2003. ISBN 0 7377 1325 9 ETZIONI, Amitai. How patriotic is the Patriot Act? New York: Routledge, 2004. ISBN 0 415 95047 3 BEASLEY, Vanessa B (Editor). Who Belongs to America? College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2006. ISBN 13: 978 1 58544 505 9 COMMAGER, Henry Steele. Documents of American History . Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1973. ISBN 0 13 217018 3 TICHENOR, Daniel J. Dividing Lines, The Politics of Immigration Control in America . Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002. ISBN 0 691 08804 7 BORJAS, George J. Heaven’s Door- Immigration Policy and the American Economy . Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999. ISBN 0 691 05966 7 ONLINE RESOURCES
Jefferson, Thomas, “Notes on the State of Virginia “ 1781 1782 , University of Virginia Library Electronic Text Center, 21 March 2005
„The Naturalization Act of 1975“, 21 March 2005
63
„Immigration Statistics“, 8 April
„The Page Act of 1875“, 10 April 2007
„Immigration The Chinese“, 10 April 2007
„Handerson vs. mayor“, FindLaw.com , 13 April 2007
„Legislation from 1790 – 1900“, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services , 13 April 2007
„The Scott Act“. The Chinese American Experience , 14 April 2007
„The Geary act“
„Naturalization Act“ 14 April 2007.
„Harry S. Truman“
The American Presidency Project, 16 April 2007
„Legislation from 1960 1980“, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services , 16 April 2007
64
Meyers, Deborah. “From Horseback to High Tech: US Border Enforcement“. Migration Policy Institute, 17 April 2007
„Alien registration Act“. Spartacus Educational, 15 April 2007
„ Chinese Exclusion Repeal Act“. Ancestors in the Americas, 16 April 2007
„Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendment of 1986 “. Family Violence Prevention Fund ,
17 April 2007,
„Immigration Related Statistics 1995“. Center for Immigration Studies . 19 Apr. 2007
65
Jenks, Rosemary. “The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 A Summary of the Anti Terrorism Law's
Immigration Related Provisions“ Center for Immigration Studies. (December 2001), 5 May 2007
„Fact Sheet: US VISIT“. Department of Homeland Security . ( 5 Jun. 2006). 15 Jun. 2007 66 VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=64039c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1R CRD> “Breaking News Archieve”. The OH Law Firm . 25 Jun. 2007 Krikorian, Mark. „A REAL Solution The Safe Side of the ID Debate“. Center for Immigration studies . Mar. 2005. 26 Jun 2007 „Real ID program postponed“. Inforwars.com . 28 Jun. 2007 2 The Editors. „Get REAL“. National Review Online . Mar. 2007. 2 Aug 2007 „President's Statement on Bipartisan Immigration System Proposal“. The White House . May 2007. 7 Aug. 2007 3 „Summary of Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004“. Globalsecurity.org . Dec 2004. 4 Aug. 2007 4 „Fact Sheet: US VISIT“. Department of Homeland Security . ( 5 Jun. 2006). 15 Jun. 2007 5 Krikorian, Mark. „A REAL Solution The Safe Side of the ID Debate“. Center for Immigration studies . Mar. 2005. 26 Jun 2007 „Real ID program postponed“. Inforwars.com . 28 Jun. 2007 6 „President's Statement on Bipartisan Immigration System Proposal“. The White House . May 2007. 7 Aug. 2007 7 8 In the post 9/11 context , there continues to be a strong connection between immigrant illegality and Mexicans and the US Mexico border. We can see this concern, for instance, in the stock enumerations of „illegal“ immigrants (Targeting immigrants, 115) 9 10