Between long security lines, picky customs agents, and all the other inconveniences that can come with air travel, seasoned travelers know that every minute can add up when flying. A relatively new program called “Global Entry,” which is run by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, is designed to help certain travelers receive expedited entry into the United States upon their arrival at certain airports. But what exactly is Global Entry, how does it work, and what changes can we expect to see moving forward? Read on to find out.

Who Qualifies for Global Entry?

Currently, U.S. citizens, U.S. permanent residents, Indian citizens, Colombian citizens, U.K. citizens, German citizens, Panamanian citizens, citizens of Singapore, South Korean citizens, Swiss citizens, and Mexican nationals can qualify for Global Entry. Canadian citizens can participate in the related NEXUS program, which gives them the same benefits as someone who obtains Global Entry.

But there are other requirements that need to be met in order to qualify someone for Global Entry, and there’s never any guarantee that a particular individual will receive it. For example, individuals who have been convicted of any criminal offense or currently have any pending criminal charges against them cannot qualify.

Children are eligible for Global Entry but must go through a process that is pretty much identical to the one for adults (more on that below). Everyone–regardless of age–needs their own Global Entry card. Children are not able to be included on their parents’ or guardians’ cards.

What Benefits Do You Get from Global Entry?

Essentially Global Entry is like a “fast pass” for customs when you’re flying internationally. Normally, when you arrive in the U.S. from an international destination, you have to go through the entire customs process, which includes disclosing certain information and (usually) waiting in line. But travelers who have Global Entry can just proceed straight to a kiosk and work through the process on their own. According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection:

At airports, program members proceed to Global Entry kiosks, present their machine-readable passport or U.S. permanent resident card, place their fingerprints on the scanner for fingerprint verification and complete a customs declaration. The kiosk issues the traveler a transaction receipt and directs the traveler to baggage claim and the exit.

That doesn’t necessarily guarantee that someone who has Global Entry will not need any further screening. But for the most part, it should seriously expedite a user’s customs process.

Domestically, having Global Entry qualifies you for TSA PreCheck. TSA PreCheck allows a holder to move quickly through the security process before boarding the plane. If you are a PreCheck holder you don’t have to remove your jacket, shoes, belt, or other accessories when going through a security checkpoint. You can leave items like laptops and appropriate-sized liquids in your carry on, and you have access to a PreCheck line that is usually shorter than the regular security line. TSA PreCheck can also be obtained separately, for those who want access to that program but don’t need Global Entry.

How Do You Get Global Entry?

So, you decide that you travel enough that applying for Global Entry is worth it for you. How do you actually obtain it? It’s a somewhat lengthy process. You start by completing an online form with identifying information. You have to list details about your residency and employment history for the past five years–which can prove complicated for some people, including recent college grads who may have moved around a lot during that time period. The application is incredibly important because an error–even a seemingly minor or innocent one–can lead to a rejection from the Global Entry program.

You have to pay a $100 fee to gain Global Entry–although many travel-focused credit cards now offer to reimburse that fee as part of some sort of perks program.

The next step, if your application isn’t rejected, is an in-person interview at an “enrollment center.” At various points in the Global Entry program’s history, applicants have seen pretty significant wait times, particularly for the interview portion. For example, an AP article from June 2016 detailed months-long wait times in some American cities. In cities like Los Angeles and San Fransisco, applicants may have to wait months for appointments, whereas in other cities with perhaps fewer international travelers, walk-in appointments may be available.

In fact, the overall time burden for Global Entry is a frequent topic of conversation on travel blogs. Many travel bloggers post entries like “How to Get a Quicker Global Entry Appointment!” and “How I Got Approved for Global Entry in 20 Days.”

The interview process involves going back over the information included in your application. It has been theorized that the interview is somewhat of a formality. According to Quartz writer Zachary M. Seward, “You may be asked a few basic questions about how you travel, your employment status, etc. But you wouldn’t have gotten this far in the process if you weren’t already destined for a rubber stamp.”

Once you have Global Entry, it lasts for five years.

Global Entry Controversies and Concerns

Is it Actually Worth It? 

The biggest question usually asked about Global Entry is whether or not the program is actually worth it. It takes time and money to apply, so infrequent travelers might not actually get that many benefits out of it. Seth Kugel of the New York Times points out that Global Entry won’t save you that much time if your travel companions don’t also have Global Entry. While you won’t physically be stuck in the customs line, you’ll still have to wait for your travel partners, like friends, family, or colleagues to make it through the line. Additionally, membership in the program won’t help you get out of the airport any faster if you’ve checked a bag. And as Kugel himself reports, there’s always the chance that your Global Entry gets rejected for whatever reason, and then you get punted to the regular process.

Trump’s Travel Ban and Global Entry 

When President Donald Trump issued the original iteration of his travel ban in January, there were significant concerns about what it could mean for travelers coming from the countries listed. While none of the countries named in either the first or second version of the travel ban are technically eligible for the program, there were questions for travelers who hold dual citizenship. For example, British-Iranian health care entrepreneur Ali Parsa, who runs a company called Babylon Health, spoke to Business Insider about his concerns. Parsa has a U.K. passport, as well as Global Entry, but was concerned about whether or not he could enter the U.S. under the travel ban, because he also has Iranian citizenship.

While that version of the travel ban didn’t end up going into effect, and a recent iteration is still working its way through the courts, the scare raised the question: is Global Entry worth it if the situation is so unstable?

Conclusion

If you’re a big time traveler, Global Entry might be something to consider. But the program, which is designed to speed up travel for its members, is not as perfect as it sounds. From long wait times to obtain the certification to questions about whether it’s actually worth it, applying for Global Entry requires some reflection. But for those who think it’s worth it, it could be a big boon next time they’re ready to head out of the airport as quickly as possible.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What is the Global Entry Program? appeared first on Law Street.

When Canadian journalist Ed Ou headed to North Dakota recently to cover the pipeline protests at Standing Rock, he didn’t expect the drama to start as soon as he reached the U.S. border. But border officials decided to detain him for over six hours and confiscate his cellphones, something that is uncomfortable for anyone, but critical for a journalist. He compared having the contents of his phones scrutinized with a doctor giving up confidential information about his patients. If Ou’s sources who have given information on the condition of anonymity are revealed, their lives could potentially be in danger.

The U.S. border agent officers asked Ou to tell them how and why he had traveled to every single country he has visited for the past five years, and if he had seen anyone die. Ou has spent 10 years covering the Middle East, Africa, and Central Asia, which could explain the unusual questions. The agents asked to see his phones to make sure he was “not posing next to any dead bodies.” When he refused, explaining that he is a journalist and needed to protect his sources, they simply took them anyway. When he got the phones back later, it looked as if the SIM cards had been tampered with. Agents also photocopied pages from his personal diary. In the end, Ou was denied entry into the U.S. and put on a plane back to Canada, with no other explanation than that his name matched that of “a person of interest.” One officer said that his refusal to cooperate with the phones “did not help.”

The United States Customs and Border Protection declined to comment on the event. But in a statement it said, “Keeping America safe and enforcing our nation’s laws in an increasingly digital world depends on our ability to lawfully examine all materials entering the U.S.” If the authorities think that that means looking into the contacts of a well-published journalist and then refusing him entry with no valid reason, that is a huge problem for freedom of the press in the U.S.

The incident has been criticized by advocates for press freedom as well as by other journalists.

Journalists don’t get much braver or more talented than Ed Ou. What happened to him at the US border is shameful. https://t.co/4jCjUUqMaw

— Trevor Timm (@trevortimm) December 2, 2016

The way journalists are being treated at the US borders is truly alarming. This happened to photographer Ed Ou https://t.co/ZZi1bNNmB8

— Liz Sly (@LizSly) November 30, 2016

Does the United States believe in freedom of speech? Apparently not @CustomsBorder, which bars entry to accomplished photographer @EdOuphoto

— Neil MacFarquhar (@NeilMacFarquhar) November 30, 2016

The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU, wrote a letter to Customs and Border Protection and the Department of Homeland Security, signed by attorney Hugh Handeyside, in which it called the detention and treatment “harassing and exceptionally intrusive.” It said that border agents should have realized that Ou was a renowned journalist, who had often traveled to the U.S. as he has well-established professional connections with major news outlets such as Reuters, the Associated Press and the New York Times. The letter stated:

We believe that C.B.P. took advantage of Mr. Ou’s application for admission to engage in an opportunistic fishing expedition for sensitive and confidential information that Mr. Ou had gathered through his news-gathering activities in Turkey, Iraq, Somalia and elsewhere.

Ou was on his way to cover the Standing Rock protests on behalf of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which the agents were apparently aware of. But individual border officials should not have the power to affect what ends up in the media. The director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, Trevor Timm, said that the practice of forcing journalists who have worked in the Middle East to give up their confidential sources just to get into a country puts the U.S. in a very bad light. “If this is requisite for journalists who are not U.S. citizens to enter the U.S., that is an enormous violation of press freedom,” he said.

An important reminder to #journalists that your #data is not safe at the US Border https://t.co/oqEbH8Xz6q @ACLU @edouphoto pic.twitter.com/jvQiO113tN

— MuckRock (@MuckRock) December 1, 2016

For all intents and purposes, the Fourth Amendment does not apply when you’re at the border. Walking on the street, a police officer likely can’t go up to you and randomly search you without a warrant or arrest order. But in an airport or at a border control stop, agents can search you and your electronic devices without reason or permission from a judge. This is because of a loophole in the law that mentions bags and personal property, but was written in a time before most people had their entire private lives stored in a cellphone. A policy from 2009 says that the owner of a digital device needs to be present when agents perform a search, but that rule can be interpreted very loosely. According to the policy, agents can make copies of data, but they need to be erased within a week unless a crime is suspected or there is a probable cause to keep the data.

This incident raises a deeper question, about press freedom and Freedom of Speech in the U.S., as well as what the role of the CBP should be. As Hugh Handeyside from the ACLU said, “conditioning foreign journalists’ admission to the United States on their willingness to agree to intrusive searches encourages similarly abusive treatment of American journalists in other countries.” To treat journalists like this at borders will discourage them from reporting on important events, and stem the flow of information.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Canadian Journalist Ed Ou Detained and Denied Entry to the U.S. appeared first on Law Street.

A history of inadequate immigration policies paired with the notion of the “American Dream” creates an interesting paradox for the role of immigrants in American society. Growing pressure from immigrants’ rights advocates and the overall changes in immigration policies initiated by the Obama Administration have prompted a debate on how to deal with growing numbers of undocumented immigrants. Are current deportation policies a part of the solution or are they the problem themselves? Read on to learn more about deportation practices in the United States.

What is deportation?

Deportation can be broadly defined as an order to leave a country. Deportation in the United States is carried out in two ways: removals and returns.

A removal is an official judicial or administrative order to leave the country, and is a formal legal process. If a person is removed from the country, he is barred from legally entering the country for a certain or indefinite period of time. Appearance in front of an immigration judge or an officer is often a part of the removal procedure. An order of removal becomes a part of the individual’s permanent record. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is the agency responsible for removal proceedings.

On the contrary, return is a more informal mechanism of deportation. It’s essentially a turn around at the border without any paperwork or formal procedure. In this way, being “returned” doesn’t result in any legal consequences and these individuals are not necessarily barred from re-entering the country in the future. U.S. Customs and Border Protection apprehends people at the border, and can carry out either removal or return proceedings.

While removals can be carried out anywhere in the country or at the border, returns are only applicable to individuals trying to cross the border or people who were caught in close proximity to it.

What laws govern deportation practices in the U.S.?

Even though the United States emerged as an immigrant country, regulating immigration has been a long-standing policy of the U.S. government. Race and ethnicity have long played a crucial role in policy decisions concerning immigration. Virtually all ethnic groups have suffered the consequences of racially motivated policies of exclusion. For example, Chinese immigrants were marginalized and constantly targeted for deportation throughout the early history of the United States.

More recent policies and practices pertaining to deportation focus on so-called “smart enforcement,” which emphasizes deportations of those with criminal convictions or ties to terrorist organizations. This strategy is rooted in close cooperation between immigration and border patrol forces, the FBI, and local law enforcement agencies.

In 1994, Congress passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. Not only did it expand penalties for unauthorized re-entry after deportation, but for myriads of other immigration-related crimes.

In 1996, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) was signed into law. It authorized mandatory deportations for undocumented immigrants who had criminal convictions, even non-violent ones. The definition of “aggravated felony” in immigration law was expanded to include tax evasion, failure to appear in court, and even receipt of stolen property. In addition, this law created special procedures for those accused of terrorist charges, including limiting their habeas corpus protections.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 further limited the rights of undocumented immigrants by expanding avenues for deportations without judicial review. According to both 1996 reforms, all undocumented immigrants with aggravated felony convictions were due for deportation, even if offense was committed years before the laws were enacted. In addition, the laws could be applied to all non-citizens, including legal permanent residents and undocumented immigrants alike.

Section 287 (g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act was also enacted back in 1996. It allowed law-enforcement agencies to perform the functions of federal immigration agents by deputizing local police officers. In recent years, the implementation of the 287 (g) initiative was widely criticized for its lack of federal oversight, racial profiling practices, and draining of valuable resources that could have been used instead to investigate crimes.

After 2001, criminal enforcement and national security practices were further tied to immigration policies. In 2002, the Department of Homeland Security was created to oversee both counterterrorism and immigration enforcement. All in all, the post-9/11 era can be somewhat characterized by the large number of initiatives and programs that pertain to immigration and deportation enforcement. Some major deportation-related programs include the following:

• The National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) was initiated in 2002 and required those who were from “suspect” nations, to register and interview with immigration authorities and to be fingerprinted. The program was criticized for its inherent religious and ethnic profiling as well as its broad overreach. More than 13,000 Muslims and Middle Eastern immigrants were deported, devastating families and communities. The program was suspended in 2011 due to extensive lobbying by Muslim Americans.
• The Consequence Delivery System took off in 2005, targeting those who were trying to enter the country unlawfully, especially through the U.S.-Mexico border. The focuses of the initiative were on formal removals and criminal charges. The Consequence Delivery System not only discourages voluntary returns, but encourages formal removals that are closely entangled with criminal proceedings.
• Operation Streamline was introduced during the same year in order to speed up immigration proceedings by providing courts with the freedom to initiate so-called “group trials,” which provide few legal rights to immigrants. From 2009 to 2012, 208,939 undocumented immigrants went through such court proceedings and were expelled from the country.
• The Criminal Alien Program (CAP) was created in 2006 and encompasses different components to identify and remove undocumented immigrants and sometimes permanent residents within local, state, and federal correction facilities. Identified individuals can be removed even if they were not convicted of a crime and still have pending charges. As of 2009, 57 percent of those deported through CAP were not convicted of any crime.
• Secure Communities Program (SCP) is an ongoing information-sharing program that was created in 2008. The main goal of the initiative is to identify undocumented immigrants with criminal convictions through the screening of biometrical data when people are booked into jails. As of now, Secure Communities has helped to remove 283,000 of such undocumented immigrants, 93 percent of whom were Latino. Critiques of this program include concerns about it is racial profiling in communities of color and that the program has collateral damages, as many undocumented immigrants identified and removed through the SCP are non-violent offenders or traffic violators.

During the past several administrations, deportation policies have shifted toward a focus on border security and apprehension of undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes. In this way, immigration policies have become more closely associated with criminal enforcement.

How many people are being deported?

Overall, the number of undocumented immigrants who are deported has grown over time. There were only 70,000 people deported in 1995-96, the next year this number rose to 114,000. By 2012 deportations reached 419,384 and climbed to 438,421 in 2013. However, in 2014 the numbers dropped to 315,943, with two-thirds of people who were deported being apprehended at the border or within 100 miles of it.

By some estimations, since President Obama took office more than two million people were deported, prompting discontent from immigrant advocate groups. However, even though deportation numbers went up during Obama’s presidency, most of the increase in official figures stems from shifting policies.

How do we count deportations?

During the second term of George W. Bush’s administration, more people were formally removed than simply turned around at the border through the previously discussed Consequence Delivery System. When Obama became  president, he continued to follow the already-in-place practices of treating many returns as removals, resulting in the overall increased numbers of deportees. Before, immigrants who were caught at the border were simply sent back to where they came from, without legal consequences. Now, they are more likely to be apprehended, prosecuted, and issued a deportation order. As a result, deportations that would previously be classified as returns are now officially counted as removals.

Return recordkeeping tended to be more informal. In most instances, people who were simply turned around at the border would not be counted in the official statistics. As a result, the total number of those deported seems higher now, but in the reality it’s hard to say how many people were returned and not counted in the official statistics before Bush started this trend. Between 2009 and 2012, the number of returns and removals were roughly the same, 1.6 million each; however, in 2013, 64 percent of removals were carried out at the border, signifying a 28 percent increase from 2008. Simultaneously, the number of people apprehended in the interior of the country dropped to 36 percent in 2013.

It’s clear that arrests at the border constitute a significant proportion of the overall deportations, while undocumented immigrants who have already been living in the United States are given less priority.

How are deportations are carried out?

Formal deportations are usually carried out only after a person appears before an immigration judge. However, during the last couple of years judicial proceedings were outpaced by expedited removals and other similar practices. In 2013, 83 percent of deportations were executed without judicial review. Moreover, 44 percent were fast-track removals and 40 percent were reinstatements of orders that were not previously carried out. During the same year, only 17 percent of deportations were carried out through judicial order, compared with 36 percent in 2011.

The video below looks at the life of one undocumented immigrant who was deported through reinstatement of previous order of removal after living in the United States for more than 20 years. He left behind a wife and five American children.

Who is being deported?

Criminals

The Obama Administration reiterated that it would target immigrants who committed crimes for deportation. Consequently, from 2009 to 2013 the numbers of deported immigrants with criminal convictions went up 54.6 percent. In 2013, 85 percent of deportees had been previously convicted of felonies or at least three misdemeanors.

However, in 2013, 60 percent of those who had a criminal record and were removed from the country, had only minor non-violent convictions, punishable by less than a year in prison. Since President Obama took office, only 20 percent of all deportees were convicted of serious crimes, including drug-related offenses. In 2012, less then one percent of those deported were charged and convicted with homicide.

Parents of U.S.-Born Children

Many of those who are deported have American-born children. It is estimated that in 2013, 72,000 parents with U.S.-born children were deported. In total, there are around 3.5 million undocumented immigrants who have a U.S. citizen child.

As a consequence, many U.S.-born children whose parents are being detained or deported enter the foster care system. Watch the video below to learn more about the growing share of such children in foster care.

Ethnic Composition

In 2013, Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador were the top countries of origin for deportees. During the same year, 72 percent of all deportees were from Mexico, with many apprehended at the border.

Meanwhile, immigrants from the Middle East, Africa, and Asia are more often expelled from the country after being suspected of having ties with terrorist groups outside the United States. From 2003 to 2012, 60,000 from Muslim countries in the above regions were deported from the United States.

What are the issues with current deportation policies?

First and foremost, deportations of undocumented immigrants affect families and communities. There are many undocumented immigrants who have been living in the United States for years. One quarter of deported immigrants are separated from U.S.-born children, and even more are separated from other family members.

Undocumented immigrants also face a lack of legal assistance, and are not provided with the same rights as American citizens, including due process. Deportees are not provided with an attorney, and most of them don’t have a court hearing before they are expelled from the country.

The costs of immigration enforcement and deportation proceedings are enormous. In 2010, $600 million was allocated to add border patrol agents and new surveillance technology. In 1993 the annual budget of Customs and Border Protections (CBP) was only $363 million, while in 2013 it reached $11.9 billion. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) costs taxpayers $5.9 billion as of 2013, while Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) expenses amounted to $2.9 billion in 2012.

In addition, treating returns as removals is not only costly but results in serious legal consequences for undocumented immigrants. Those immigrants may never again have the chance to re-enter the country, even if it’s years later.

 What is being done about deportation?

The current administration passed Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) in 2012, which allowed undocumented immigrants who entered the country before they turned 16 years old and before June 2007 to apply for a renewable two-year work permit and avoid deportation. Since 2012, 580,946 undocumented immigrants have benefited from DACA.

In 2013, the  Obama Administration pushed for another law, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S. 744). Among other things, the bill would allow undocumented immigrants–if they meet eligibility requirements–to apply for registered provisional immigration programs (RPI). RPIs are six-year programs that allow all those eligible to avoid deportation and receive work permits. In ten years, immigrants with RPI status would be able to apply for permanent residency. Eventually they could become citizens of the United States. While this bill did not pass, it’s another example of the changes that some are hoping to see to America’s immigration policies.

But not everybody is happy with the “path to citizenship” approach to undocumented immigrants. Many GOP members believe that all undocumented immigrants should simply be deported. Watch the video below to learn more about pro-deportation point of view.

Conclusion

By the lowest estimations, there are around ten million undocumented immigrants in the United States. Deportations cannot be the only meaningful solution as the numbers are too high and the issue is too complex for such a simple approach as mass removals. The current administration has already taken the first steps to reduce deportations and provide permanent solutions for millions of undocumented immigrants. However, the criminal justice approach to immigration should be re-evaluated as it has been long proven that there is no relationship between immigration and crime. What will be done to fix the problem of the many undocumented immigrants in the U.S. is yet to be seen.

  Resources

Primary

U.S. Congress: The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

U.S. Congress: The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: Secure Communities

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: FY 2014 ICE Immigration Removals

Department of Justice: Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994

Additional

Immigration Policy Center: Immigration Enforcement in Prisons and Jails

Immigration Policy Center: The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act

Immigration Policy Center: The Growth of the U.S.Deportation Machine

LA Times: High Deportation Figures Are Misleading

LA Times: Number of Immigrants Deported From U.S. Dropped Sharply in Last Year

New Republic: Who’s the Real Deporter-In-Chief: Bush or Obama?

Pew Research Center: U.S. Deportations of Immigrants Reach Record High in 2013

Tampa Bay Times: Lou Dobbs: Obama Administration ‘Manipulated Deportation Data’

Nation: Why Has President Obama Deported More Immigrants Than Any President in U.S. History?

The New York Times: Deportation Up in 2013; Border Sites Were Focus

The New York Times: More Deportations Follow Minor Crimes, Records Show

Washington Post: Your Complete Guide to Obama’s Immigration Executive Action

Washington Post: Is President Obama’s Claim To Have Increased Criminal Deportations Accurate?

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post America’s Deportation Policy: Successes and Failures appeared first on Law Street.

Immigration reform is a consistent topic of discussion that plagues Congress and splits our country down the middle. Thousands of immigrants flock to the United States. The reasons range from escaping persecution to looking for a better life for one’s family or gaining access to higher education. In 2013, an immigration reform bill entitled The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigrant Modernization Act of 2013 was introduced. Authors of the bill intended to address illegal immigrants and border security but it never ended up going anywhere even though the bill will probably be remembered as one of the defining political topics of 2013. Read on to learn about the Immigration Reform Bill, what it entailed, and the arguments for and against it.

What was the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013?

The bill’s stated purpose was to address the issues of the approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants living within the United States’ borders “by finally committing the resources needed to secure the border, modernize and streamline our current legal immigration system, while creating a tough but fair legalization program for individuals who are currently here.”

Overall the bill was expansive and covered a number of issues, including paths to legality for illegal immigrants, border enforcement, and aiding those illegal immigrants who did not have autonomy in breaking the law–mostly children. The bill would have instituted what were called “triggers” that essentially make sure that in order to provide resources for undocumented immigrants, enforcement also needs to be stepped up. That was to ensure that the compromise that this bill created was held up on both sides of the aisle.

The bill was widely regarded as a compromise. It was created by the “Gang of Eight“–eight leading Senators spread out over both parties: Charles Schumer (D-NY), John McCain (R-AZ), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Michael Bennet (D-CO), and Jeff Flake (R-AZ). President Barack Obama also admitted it was very much a compromise; after it passed in the Senate he stated:

The bipartisan bill that passed today was a compromise. By definition, nobody got everything they wanted. Not Democrats. Not Republicans. Not me. But the Senate bill is consistent with the key principles for commonsense reform that I – and many others – have repeatedly laid out.

While the bill passed the Senate in June 2013, it didn’t pass the House of Representatives. The Republicans in the House of Representatives announced that they had no intention of voting on it. The inaction on the House’s part may be part of the reason that President Obama announced his executive actions on immigration in November 2014.

What were the arguments in favor of the bill?

It’s no secret that there are many undocumented immigrants in the United States. But many of them make substantive contributions to our nation–they pay taxes and participate in the economy just as citizens do. However, because of their undocumented status, they live in a constant state of fear. This is especially true for the children of undocumented immigrants–morally it seems wrong to punish those who were brought to this nation as children.

The pathway to becoming a legal citizen would be made easier, and the bill aimed to streamline the process out of recognition of the huge blacklog that exists when it comes to processing applications and documentation. In addition the bill would have improved our security measures, helping to further prevent influxes undocumented immigrants in the future.

Another argument in favor of the bill was that it was pretty much as good as both sides were going to get. It was a real, legitimate move toward compromise, created by leading voices from both parties. Unless something changes drastically, there are going to continue to be two parties warring for control of our government. Even though no one got everything they wanted in this bill, it was truly a compromise.

What were the arguments against the bill?

The arguments against the bill included that it rewarded people for breaking the law and entering the country illegally. They argue that providing them help now, even it it only applies to immigrants currently in the country, will encourage others to try to illegally enter American borders. In addition, there’s worry that encouraging undocumented immigrants to stay will lead to overpopulation and take jobs away from American citizens. In addition, arguments against the bill included that it didn’t go far enough, and/or made certain steps harder for undocumented immigrants.

Conclusion

Many believe that undocumented workers take away jobs from American citizens and therefore should not be allowed to acquire citizenship themselves. Others believe that illegal immigrants are a source of increased drug trafficking in our nation. However, we have always been a nation of immigrants. If we begin refusing citizenship to those people who have lived and worked in our country for years we step away from the traditions that make this country what it is and always will be, a nation where people come to build a better life.

Resources

Primary

US Senate: S. 744 Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act

Additional

Mic: TRUST Act Gain Traction in California

Breitbart: Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va.) Gives Pro-Immigration Bill on Senate Floor in Spanish

Hill: Graham Predicts Breakthrough Passage of Immigration Reform Bill

Reuters: Senator Marco Rubio Still Backs Immigration Bill

ReimagineRPE: Black-Latino Coalitions Block Anti-Immigrant Laws in Mississippi

Mic: 5 Critical Amendments That Could Destroy the Immigration Reform Bill

NY Mag: The Gaffe That Could Threaten Immigration Reform

Huffington Post: Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) Attempts to Add Voter ID to Immigration Reform Bill

ABC News: Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) Wants to Kill the Immigration Reform Bill

The New York Times: In Round 3, Immigration Bill Faces Sessions, Who Won Rounds 1 and 2

Fox News: Senators Rubio and Graham on Immigration Reform Bill

Washington Post: Three Amendments to Watch

CNN: Senate Votes to Begin Debate on Immigration Reform Bill

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Immigration Reform Bill of 2013: Progress That Went Nowhere appeared first on Law Street.