Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
This article does not receive scheduled updates. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia. Contact our team to suggest an update.
 |
|
|---|
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act was passed by Congress in 1996 and signed into law by President Bill Clinton (D) on September 30, 1996. The law authorized greater resources for border enforcement, such as the construction of new fencing near the San Diego, California, area, and enacted civil penalties for attempting to cross the border illegally. It amended regulations regarding the removal of individuals residing in the country without legal permission by prohibiting legal reentry for a certain period of time and introducing a process for expedited removal. The law also applied new restrictions to the asylum application process.
Background
The organization Human Rights Watch described the background of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act in the following way:[1]
| “ |
Three events—the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the initial popularity of anti-immigrant legislation in California in 1994 (Proposition 187), and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing—prompted Congress to restructure United States immigration law in 1996. The legislative changes were adopted in a rushed atmosphere. During its consideration of the first of the two bills passed, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), Congress was pressed for time because it sought to adopt legislation prior to April 1996, which was the first anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing; and in the case of the second bill, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) ... Congress wanted to pass immigration legislation that emphasized enforcement prior to the run-up to the 1998 national elections.[2] |
” |
| —Human Rights Watch | ||
The law was passed with provisions on greater enforcement of the United States' southern border with Mexico, new procedures for removing individuals residing in the country without legal permission, and new restrictions on the asylum application process.
Legislative history
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act was included as Division C of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Representative C. W. Bill Young (R) on June 11, 1996. The House passed the bill by a vote of 278-126 on June 13. The Senate passed by bill by a vote of 72-27 on July 18. The bill was then moved to conference committee; the House agreed to the conference report 370-37, and the Senate agreed by a voice vote. President Bill Clinton (D) signed the bill on September 30, 1996.[3]
Provisions
Border and interior enforcement
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act authorized an increase in the number of Border Patrol agents and support personnel. The law directed new fencing be built along the border at areas where most illegal crossings occurred and specifically set aside $12 million for a triple-layer fence in the area near San Diego, California. It also directed improvements to be made to border equipment and technology and required border crossing documents to include biometric identifiers such as fingerprints. Under the law, individuals attempting to cross the border illegally were subject to a fine of $250, and those who flee enforcement checkpoints at high speed were subject to up to five years in prison.[3][4]
The law authorized an increase in the number of personnel at the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) for the purpose of investigating visa overstays, violations of immigration law by employers, and human smuggling. It required 10 INS agents to be assigned to each state. The law also allowed the United States attorney general to enter into agreements with state officials to allow them to carry out certain duties of immigration enforcement, including the investigation, apprehension, or detention of individuals residing in the country without legal permission.[3][4]
Human smuggling and document fraud
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act gave the INS wiretapping authority for investigations related to human smuggling or document fraud. These offenses, if done for financial gain, were also added to the list of offenses considered federal racketeering. The law also increased criminal penalties for human smuggling and established criminal and civil penalties for offenses such as false citizenship claims and unlawful voting.[3][4]
Removal procedures
Under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, individuals residing in the country without legal permission for between 180 days and 365 days were prohibited from reentering legally for three years. Those residing in the country without legal permission for more than one year were prohibited from reentering legally for 10 years. Battered women and children were exempted from this provision.[3][4]
The law also established a procedure for expedited removal, by which an INS officer, rather than an immigration judge, may order the removal of an individual. This expedited procedure applied to individuals at a port of entry and those unable to prove that they had been residing in the country continuously for two years. Individuals intending to apply for asylum were exempted from this provision.[3][4]
Prior to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, non-citizens eligible for removal were allowed to adjust their statuses to permanent residency if they had resided in the United States for at least seven years and had no criminal record, and if their removal would cause undue hardship for a U.S. citizen or permanent resident immediate relative. The act eliminated this provision of immigration law and replaced it with two new procedures:[3][4]
- Permanent residents who had been ordered removed could suspend their removal if they had held a Green Card for five years, had resided continuously in the country for seven years as a permanent resident, and had no felony convictions.
- Non-citizens residing in the United States on temporary visas could suspend their order of removal if they had resided in the country for 10 years, had demonstrated good moral character, had not been convicted of a serious crime, and could demonstrate that their removal would cause undue hardship for a U.S. citizen or permanent resident immediate relative.
Only 4,000 of these removal suspensions were allowed annually.
The law also amended the procedure for voluntary removal, by which a removable non-citizen voluntarily departs the country. Under the law, to be eligible for voluntary removal, an individual must have been residing in the country for at least one year, must have demonstrated good moral character for at least five years, was not removable for one of several specific reasons, and had the means and intent to depart the country voluntarily.[3][4]
Refugees, asylum, and parole
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act created a new claim for refugee or asylum status based on forced abortion or sterilization and allowed 1,000 such claims to be accepted annually.[3][4]
The law also amended the process for applying for asylum. It made ineligible for asylum individuals who could be removed to a third country without threat and with access to fair asylum procedures. Individuals applying for asylum were required to do so within one year of arriving in the United States. Denied applicants were not allowed to reapply unless they could demonstrate changed circumstances. The law required final decisions on asylum applications to be made within six months and authorized the addition of 600 asylum officers for the purpose. Asylum officers were required to make a determination credible fear of persecution when evaluating asylum applications.[3][4]
For humanitarian parole from removal, the standard by which such parole was granted was amended from "for emergent reasons or for reasons deemed strictly in the public interest" to "on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit."[3][4]
Other provisions
- The law established three pilot programs for employment eligibility verification and exempts from liability employers who made a good faith effort to verify the legal status of employees. It also required employees accusing employers of immigration-related discrimination to show that the employer intended to discriminate when asking for more documentation proving eligibility.
- The law increased the fee for individuals with expired legal status who want to switch to permanent residency from $650 to $1,000.
- The law allowed certain battered non-citizens eligible for public benefits, allowed states to deny driver's licenses to individuals residing in the country without legal permission, made such individuals ineligible for social security benefits, and made such individuals ineligible for in-state college tuition rates.
- Added requirements for affidavits of support from sponsors of legal immigration applicants, including making such affidavits legally enforceable against the sponsor, requiring sponsors to be adult U.S. citizens or permanent residents, and requiring sponsors to earn incomes of at least 125 percent of the federal poverty level.
Debate
Much of the debate surrounding the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act focused on the provisions related to the removal of individuals residing in the country without legal permission.
Supporters of the law argued that the removal provisions, particularly the expedited removal process, made the process of removal more efficient, which was beneficial for two reasons. First, supporters argued that the expedited process shorted the time that individuals were held in detention, a favorable outcome of the law since violations of immigration law are not criminal offenses. Since the expedited process applied primarily to individuals apprehended at the border, supporters contended that it made sense to subject such individuals to a more streamlined process than individuals who had been settled in the country for a long period of time. Second, supporters of the law argued that subjecting some individuals to a more expedited process would lower overall costs of enforcement for the federal government.[5]
Opponents of the law argued that, overall, its removal provisions increased immigration detentions and deportations and expanded the offenses for which an individual could be detained and deported. Opponents argued that this policy had the effect of disrupting families of long-term residents of the United States. Regarding the expedited removal process in particular, opponents of the law argued that the process denied meaningful consideration of asylum applications. They also allege that such asylum applications were sometimes ignored by the Border Patrol officers administering the expedited removal process.[6]
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Human Rights Watch, "Deportation Law Based on Criminal Convictions After 1996," accessed March 20, 2017
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 3.00 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05 3.06 3.07 3.08 3.09 3.10 Congress.gov, "H.R.3610 - Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997," March 19, 2017
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 Siskind Susser PC, "IIRIRA 96 – A SUMMARY OF THE NEW IMMIGRATION BILL," November 30, 1996
- ↑ Hoover Institution, "Shifts In The US Immigration Enforcement System," July 14, 2015
- ↑ Human Rights Watch, "US: 20 Years of Immigrant Abuses," April 25, 2016