Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
Page issuesThe Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Division C of Pub.L. 104–208, 110 Stat. 3009-546,
enacted September 30, 1996 (often referred to as "i-RAI-ruh," and
sometimes abbreviated as "IIRAIRA" or "IIRIRA") vastly changed the
immigration laws of the United States.
This act states that immigrants unlawfully present in the United
States for 180 days but less than 365 days must remain outside the
United States for three years unless they obtain a pardon. If they are
in the United States for 365 days or more, they must stay outside the
United States for ten years unless they obtain a waiver. If they return
to the United States without the pardon, they may not apply for a waiver
for a period of ten years.
Among other things, it explicitly gave the Attorney General broad
authority to construct barriers along the US-Mexico border and
authorized the construction of a secondary layer of border fencing to
buttress the already completed 14 mile primary fence. Construction of
the secondary fence stalled due to environmental concerns raised by the California Coastal Commission.
enacted September 30, 1996 (often referred to as "i-RAI-ruh," and
sometimes abbreviated as "IIRAIRA" or "IIRIRA") vastly changed the
immigration laws of the United States.
.svg) |
|
| Long title | An Act making omnibus consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes. |
|---|---|
| Acronyms (colloquial) | IIRIRA |
| Nicknames | Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, "The Mexican Exclusionary Act of 1996": |
| Enacted by | the 104th United States Congress |
| Effective | September 30, 1996 |
| Citations | |
| Public law | 104-208 |
| Statutes at Large | 110 Stat. 3009 aka 110 Stat. 3009-546 |
| Codification | |
| Titles amended | 8 U.S.C.: Aliens and Nationality |
| U.S.C. sections amended |
|
| Legislative history | |
|
|
States for 180 days but less than 365 days must remain outside the
United States for three years unless they obtain a pardon. If they are
in the United States for 365 days or more, they must stay outside the
United States for ten years unless they obtain a waiver. If they return
to the United States without the pardon, they may not apply for a waiver
for a period of ten years.
Among other things, it explicitly gave the Attorney General broad
authority to construct barriers along the US-Mexico border and
authorized the construction of a secondary layer of border fencing to
buttress the already completed 14 mile primary fence. Construction of
the secondary fence stalled due to environmental concerns raised by the California Coastal Commission.
Contents
Constitutional Issues
Previously, immediate deportation was triggered only for offenses
that could lead to five years or more in jail. Under the Act, minor
offenses such as shoplifting
may make individuals eligible for deportation. When IIRIRA was passed
in 1996, it was applied retroactively to all those convicted of
deportable offenses.
However, in 2001, the US Supreme Court
decided that Congress did not intend IIRIRA to be applied retroactively
to those who pleaded guilty to a crime prior to the enactment of IIRIRA
if they would not have been deportable at the time that they pleaded
guilty in (INS v. St. Cyr).
IIRIRA's mandatory detention provisions have also been repeatedly challenged, with less success.
The Reed Amendment, a portion of IIRIRA that makes people who renounced U.S. citizenship excludable from the U.S. if the Attorney General finds that they renounced for purposes of tax avoidance, has also been suggested to be unconstitutional.[1]
The IIRIRA authorized the Immigration and Naturalization Service to
use "secret evidence" , this is bad, against aliens in various
immigration proceedings if the evidence is deemed classified and the INS
considers it relevant to the case. Critics have challenged the
constitutionality of this provision and in 1999 and 2000 a "Secret
Evidence Repeal Act" was introduced in Congress, but never passed.[2]
that could lead to five years or more in jail. Under the Act, minor
offenses such as shoplifting
may make individuals eligible for deportation. When IIRIRA was passed
in 1996, it was applied retroactively to all those convicted of
deportable offenses.
However, in 2001, the US Supreme Court
decided that Congress did not intend IIRIRA to be applied retroactively
to those who pleaded guilty to a crime prior to the enactment of IIRIRA
if they would not have been deportable at the time that they pleaded
guilty in (INS v. St. Cyr).
IIRIRA's mandatory detention provisions have also been repeatedly challenged, with less success.
The Reed Amendment, a portion of IIRIRA that makes people who renounced U.S. citizenship excludable from the U.S. if the Attorney General finds that they renounced for purposes of tax avoidance, has also been suggested to be unconstitutional.[1]
The IIRIRA authorized the Immigration and Naturalization Service to
use "secret evidence" , this is bad, against aliens in various
immigration proceedings if the evidence is deemed classified and the INS
considers it relevant to the case. Critics have challenged the
constitutionality of this provision and in 1999 and 2000 a "Secret
Evidence Repeal Act" was introduced in Congress, but never passed.[2]
Deportation issues
Deportees may be held in jail for months, even as much as two years,
before being brought before an immigration board, at which defendants
need to pay for their own legal representation.[citation needed] In 2001, the Supreme Court curtailed the Immigration Service's ability to hold deportees indefinitely in Zadvydas v. Davis.
before being brought before an immigration board, at which defendants
need to pay for their own legal representation.[citation needed] In 2001, the Supreme Court curtailed the Immigration Service's ability to hold deportees indefinitely in Zadvydas v. Davis.
Section 287(g)
IIRIRA addressed the relationship between the federal government and local governments. Section 287(g) is part of the act that permits the U.S. Attorney General
to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies,
permitting designated officers to perform immigration law enforcement
functions, pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement. This section does not
simply deputize state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce
immigration matters.[3]
This provision was implemented by local and state authorities in five states: California, Arizona, Alabama, Florida and North Carolina by the end of 2006.[4]
to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies,
permitting designated officers to perform immigration law enforcement
functions, pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement. This section does not
simply deputize state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce
immigration matters.[3]
This provision was implemented by local and state authorities in five states: California, Arizona, Alabama, Florida and North Carolina by the end of 2006.[4]
Higher education restrictions
Upon passage of this law, states were restricted from offering
in-state tuition at public institutions to students who were not legally
in the country.[5]
Specifically, if a state allows illegal immigrant students to be
eligible for in-state tuition, then residents from other states must
also be eligible for in-state tuition. Several states have passed
tuition-equality laws by allowing anyone regardless of legal status to
apply for in-state tuition if they meet the state's eligibility
requirements.[6]
in-state tuition at public institutions to students who were not legally
in the country.[5]
Specifically, if a state allows illegal immigrant students to be
eligible for in-state tuition, then residents from other states must
also be eligible for in-state tuition. Several states have passed
tuition-equality laws by allowing anyone regardless of legal status to
apply for in-state tuition if they meet the state's eligibility
requirements.[6]
Impact
A 2018 paper found that the Act reduced the health and mental health
outcomes of Latino immigrants living in the United States by escalating
the fear and risk that illegal immigrants be deported.[7]
outcomes of Latino immigrants living in the United States by escalating
the fear and risk that illegal immigrants be deported.[7]
See also
- Cambodian American Repatriation
- DREAM Act
- Gallegly amendment, a rejected amendment to this bill
- Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act
References
Taxpatriates the Boot, Permanently: The Reed Amendment
Unconstitutionally Infringes on the Fundamental Right to Expatriate". Georgia Law Review. 36 (835). Retrieved 2012-05-18.
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Public Law
104-208, 104th Cong. 1st sess. (September 30, 1996).
- Wang, Julia Shu-Huah; Kaushal, Neeraj (April 2018). "Health and Mental Health Effects of Local Immigration Enforcement". NBER Working Paper No. 24487. doi:10.3386/w24487.
External linksEdit
- Text of IIRIRA (See p. 547 in this document).
- USCIS Factsheet, March 1997
- INS v. St. Cyr
- Zadvydas v. Davis
- USCIS Summary of the Act
