Mediaboss Marketing

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 Key Provisions

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA or IIRAIRA), Division C of Pub.L.104208 (text) (PDF), 110Stat.3009-546, enacted September 30, 1996, made major changes to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). IIRIRA's changes became effective on April 1, 1997.[1]

Former United States President Bill Clinton asserted that the legislation strengthened "the rule of law by cracking down on illegal immigration at the border, in the workplace, and in the criminal justice system without punishing those living in the United States legally".[2] However, IIRIRA has been criticized as overly punitive "by eliminating due process from the overwhelming majority of removal cases and curtailing equitable relief from removal".[3] A range of critiques have emerged concerning the provisions enacted with IIRIRA, such as the expansion of aggravated felonies, creation of the 287(g) program, reduction in due process rights, and intensified funding of border militarization.[3][4][5][6] With IIRIRA, all noncitizens, regardless of legal status and including long-term legal permanent residents, became subject to removal and greatly expanded the offenses that could lead to formal deportation.[7]

Proponents of the IIRIRA present the case that the policy provided a much needed end to numerous loopholes present beforehand in US immigration policy, which ultimately undermined their efficacy.[8] The ultimate goal of the IIRIRA has been to deter further illegal immigration into the US, and despite a noticeable increase in annual deportations since the policy was enacted in 1996 from around 50,000 to over 200,000 by the beginning of the 2000's,[9] overall illegal immigration has increased since the policy's enactment according to data compiled by the Pew Research Center.[10]

Before IIRIRA, nonimmigrants who overstayed their visas or violated their status could pay a fine that would allow them to adjust their status to permanent residence status.[11] With IIRIRA, however, lawfully admitted nonimmigrants who overstay their visas by one day or longer became ineligible for a new nonimmigrant visa.[11] If the period of overstay ranged from 180-365 days, the noncitizen would face a 3-year bar to reentry, and an overstay of more than 365 days would require a 10-year bar. These provisions impact noncitizens who were admitted before and after the enactment of IIRIRA.[11] In these circumstances, a noncitizen who falls under these categories would be subject to summary removal if attempting to reenter the United States. In these removal proceedings, the noncitizen does not have a right to a hearing or a lawyer and is subject to a 5-year bar of entry.[11]

IIRIRA imposed new regulations concerning public charge determinations for noncitizens seeking admission. IIRIRA requires that the individual(s) petitioning a family-sponsored immigrant must provide an affidavit of support.[12] In the affidavit, the petitioner must "agree to provide support to maintain the sponsored alien at an annual income that is not less than 125 percent of the federal poverty guidelines" until the noncitizen naturalizes as a U.S. citizen[12] or the noncitizen, the noncitizen's parent, or the noncitizen's spouse has worked for 40 qualifying quarters.[13]

With IIRIRA, the US Congress expanded the definition of the term aggravated felony. Aggravated felonies were first initiated with the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, and aggravated felonies consisted of murder, drug trafficking, and illicit firearm trafficking. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 made any noncitizen convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after their entry into the United States deportable. The Immigration Act of 1990, Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 and Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 increased the types of offenses considered aggravated felonies. In addition, with these laws, crimes with a penalty of 5 years or longer would be considered an aggravated felony.[14][15] Under IIRIRA, however, the penalty was changed so that any crime with a penalty of one year or longer would be considered an aggravated felony.[16]

After IIRIRA, any conviction with a punishment of one year or longer is considered an aggravated felony.[16] Any noncitizen who is convicted of an aggravated felony can face collateral immigration consequences: "noncitizens who have been convicted of an 'aggravated felony' are prohibited from receiving most forms of relief that would spare them from deportation, including asylum, and from being readmitted to the United States at any time in the future".[17] There is a "presumption of deportability" for noncitizens convicted of aggravated felonies, in which noncitizens "convicted of an aggravated felony shall be conclusively presumed to be deportable from the United States".[18]

Importantly, aggravated felony charges can be applied retroactively, so if a change in the law deems a new category of offense an aggravated felony, any noncitizen previously convicted of that offense can then face removal.[17]

Under IIRIRA, any noncitizen convicted of an aggravated felony is categorically barred from cancellation of removal and placed in a form of expedited removal proceedings (but these are distinct from expedited removal). Under IIRIRA, expedited removal proceedings for noncitizens with aggravated felony charges are under the purview of the Attorney General who "shall provide for the initiation and, to the extent possible, the completion of removal proceedings, and any administrative appeals thereof, in the case of any alien convicted of an aggravated felony before the alien's release from incarceration for the underlying aggravated felony".[19] Under these expedited removal proceedings, noncitizens do attend immigration court, and they are afforded the right to counsel (at no expense to the government) for their immigration court proceedings and judicial review of their determination of removal.[20]

IIRIRA merged exclusion and deportation proceedings into removal proceedings.[21] All noncitizens who are removable are subject to removal proceedings.[11] Prior to IIRIRA, noncitizens were subject to either deportation proceedings or exclusion proceedings.[21][11] Deportation was reserved for noncitizens who "made an 'entry' into the U.S.", whereas exclusion proceedings were reserved for noncitizens who had not made entry into the United States.[22] The consolidation of exclusion and deportation proceedings into removal proceedings was an attempt to streamline the process of deportation and exclusion. Under IIRIRA, noncitizens "admitted to the United States, [noncitizens] applying for admission, and [noncitizens] present in the United States without being inspected and admitted" were all subject to removal proceedings.[22] Removal proceedings are adjudicated by immigration judges, which fall under the purview of the Executive Office of Immigration Review, which is part of the Department of Justice.

Post-IIRIRA removal proceedings are initiated with a notice to appear (NTA) that is sent to the noncitizen. NTAs replaced Order to Show Cause and Notice of Time and Place documents.[23][11] NTAs specify, among other things, "the nature of the proceedings against the alien", "the legal authority under which the proceedings are conducted", "the acts or conduct alleged to be in violation of the law" and "the charges against the alien and the statutory provisions alleged to have been violated".[24] IIRIRA established the authority of immigration judges in removal proceedings.[25] Immigration judges "shall administer oaths, receive evidence, and interrogate, examine, and cross-examine the alien and any witnesses. The immigration judge may issue subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses and presentation of evidence".[26]

Noncitizens have the right to a "reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence against the alien, to present evidence on the alien's own behalf, and to cross-examine witnesses presented by the Government" but not the right "to an application by the alien for discretionary relief under this Act".[27] Further, under IIRIRA, noncitizens "have the privilege of being represented, at no expense to the Government, by counsel of the [noncitizen's] choosing".[20] Therefore, noncitizens can have legal representation in immigration court, but they not entitled to legal representation provided by the Government if they cannot afford an attorney.

IIRIRA established a removal period of 90 days for noncitizens determined to be removable by an immigration judge.[28] The removal period can begin when "the date the order of removal becomes administratively final", "the date of the court's final order" or if the date at which the noncitizen is released from detention (only in cases of non-immigration related detention).[29] Noncitizens can file one motion to reconsider the decision of an immigration judge, which must be filed within 30 days of the final order being issued.[30] Noncitizens can also file 1 motion for reopening their case, which must be filed within 90 days of the final order of removal.[31]

IIRIRA restricted noncitizens' access to cancellation of removal, which is a form of relief from deportation. Prior to IIRIRA, noncitizens could receive cancellation of removal through discretionary relief from the Attorney General (this relief is carried out by immigration judges within Executive Office of Immigration Review.[32] In general, before IIRIRA noncitizens could become eligible for cancellation of removal if they "established seven years continuous physical presence in the U.S., good moral character during that period, and that deportation would result in extreme hardship to the individual or to his or her spouse, parent, or child who was a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident".[32] Cancellation of removal resulted in individuals becoming lawful permanent residents.[32]

IIRIRA restricted the requirements for individuals to become eligible for cancellation of removal and capped the number of cancellations available to 4,000 annually.[33] With IIRIRA, cancellation required continuous physical presence in the U.S. for 10 years prior to the initiation of removal proceedings, which is called the stop-time rule.[34] In 1997, the Bureau of Immigration Appeals ruled that the stop-time rule can also be applied retroactively to individuals who began removal proceedings prior to IIRIRA's implementation.[35] An additional IIRIRA mandated requirement for cancellation of removal is that noncitizens must demonstrate that removal would lead to "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to the individual's spouse, parent, or child who is a U.S. citizen or noncitizen with legal permanent residence status. IIRIRA eliminated the possibility of cancellation due to the hardship an individual themselves could face.[36]

IIRIRA established expedited removal, in which immigration officials gained the authority to summarily remove certain noncitizens.[37] This is different from the expedited removal proceedings for noncitizens convicted of aggravated felonies. Noncitizens subject to expedited removal include noncitizens "who are inadmissible because they lack valid entry documents or have sought admission through fraud (may also include aliens inadmissible on same grounds if they are present in the United States without being admitted or paroled and have been in the country less than two years)".[38]

Expedited removals can be considered removals without hearings: these removals do not require judicial review by immigration judges within the Executive Office of Immigration Review unless the individual plans to apply for asylum or indicates fear of persecution.[39][40] Therefore, noncitizens subject to expedited removal do not have the right to administrative review or the right to administrative appeal and judicial review.[38] Because expedited removals do not require judicial or administrative review, noncitizens who are subject to expedited removals are not afforded the right to an attorney during their interviews with immigration officials.[38]

IIRIRA initiated stipulated removal, which is a type of plea agreement for noncitizens who are convicted of crimes in criminal court.[41] Stipulated removal orders under IIRIRA can be enacted for noncitizens facing felony and misdemeanor convictions that are considered aggravated felonies.[11][41] Stipulated removal allocated to United States federal district court judges "jurisdiction to enter a judicial order of removal pursuant to the terms of such stipulation".[41]

Orders of stipulated removal "constitute a conclusive determination of the [noncitizen's] removability from the U.S."[22] The plea agreements for stipulated removal orders make a "judicial order of removal form the United States [] a condition of the plea agreement" for the criminal conviction or a "condition of probation or supervised release, or both".[41] With stipulated removal, noncitizens "waive the right to notice and hearing" for a determination of their removability.[11]

IIRIRA initiated exceptions for stipulated removal for individuals in "exceptional circumstances": serious illness of the alien or serious illness or death of the spouse, child, or parent of the alien, but not including less compelling circumstances) beyond the control of the alien.[22]

IIRIRA implemented a process called reinstatement of removal. Reinstatement of removal concerns the reentry of undocumented immigrants who previously left through voluntary departure or who were previously issued orders of removal who entered without lawful admission.[42] With reinstatement of removal, "the prior order of removal is reinstated from its original date and is not subject to being reopened or reviewed" and the immigrant is ineligible for applying for or receiving any relief from removal.[42] Reinstatement of removal allows for the individual to "be removed under the prior order at any time after the reentry".[42]

IIRIRA expanded the authority of the Attorney General to detain noncitizens who are facing removal. Under IIRIRA, noncitizens "may be arrested and detained pending a decision on whether the [noncitizen] is to be removed from the United States".[43] IIRIRA did not impose any limitations on the length of detention, but IIRIRA did restrict these noncitizens' access to release from detention. Release could be granted with a "bond of at least $1,500" or on "conditional parole".[43] Noncitizens without legal permanent residence or prior work authorizations would be ineligible for receiving a work authorization during their release from detention.[43]

IIRIRA stipulated mandatory detention for noncitizens who furnished fraudulent documents or have convictions for aggravated felonies, including "crimes involving moral turpitude", as well as noncitizens found to have "membership in a terrorist organization".[44][45] Demore v. Kim (2003) upheld the constitutionality of the mandatory detention of noncitizens with qualifying convictions.

The provisions of IIRIRA concerning detention were initially conceptualized as allowing for indefinite detention of noncitizens.[22] However, court decisions have added clarity to the length of time a noncitizen can be detained. In Diouf v. Napolitano (2011), the Ninth Circuit held that an individual facing prolonged immigration detention under section 241(a)(6), inadmissible criminal aliens, of IIRIRA is entitled to be released on bond unless the government establishes the individual is a flight risk or a danger to the community.[46][22] In addition, these individuals entitled to the same procedural safeguards against prolonged detention as individuals detained under section 236(a) of the Act, including an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge.[22] The court in Diouf v. Napolitano (2011) acknowledged that it was extending its holding in Casas-Castrillon v. DHS (2008).[47]

Various bars for reentry of noncitizens were established by IIRIRA.

The 3-year bar to entry concerns noncitizens without lawful present status for more than 180 days but less than 365 days who returned to their home country voluntarily before the initiation of removal proceedings in immigration court.[48][49] The 3-year bar begins on the date of the individual's departure or removal from the U.S.[48]

The 10-year bar to entry applies to any noncitizen who was ordered removed in immigration court or to any noncitizen who returned to their home country prior to the final adjudication of their removal proceedings in immigration court who were in the United States without lawful immigration status for one or more years.[50] Individuals in either of these categories are summarily found ineligible for entry for 10 years.[50] If a noncitizen gains admission after the 10-year bar and is subsequently deported, IIRIRA imposed a 20-year bar to entry.[50]

Lifetime bars to reentry were established for any noncitizen who was deported due to criminal convictions of aggravated felonies.[48] These individuals face a lifetime bar to reentry.[48]

IIRIRA initiated the 287(g) program. The 287(g) program allows state and local law enforcement agencies to enter into agreements with Immigration and Naturalization Service (now Immigration and Customs Enforcement). These agreements allocate to certain agents the ability to "perform a function of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United States (including the transportation of such aliens across State lines to detention centers)".[51] Under 287(g), law enforcement officers are deputized to gain immigration enforcement authority, such as investigating, apprehending, and detaining noncitizens whom the officer believes to be removable. When agencies enter into 287(g) agreements, the individuals deputized are under the direction of ICE, but they are not considered federal officials.[51]

Local law enforcement is not allowed to enforce immigration lawthat authority is vested in the federal government as immigration enforcement is a civil matter.[52][53] State local law enforcment officials, such as sheriffs' agencies and municipal law enforcement, are only allowed to enforce criminal matters. The 287(g) program has received considerable pushback from immigration scholars and immigrant advocacy groups, who expressed that the program increases racial profiling and undermines immigrants' rights.[54][55][56][57][58] As of November 2021, there were 142 agencies with signed 287(g) agreements in the United States.[59]

Among other changes, IIRIRA gave the United States Attorney General broad authority to construct barriers along the MexicoUnited States border, and it authorized the construction of a secondary layer of border fencing to support the already-completed 14-mile primary fence. Construction of the secondary fence stalled because of environmental concerns raised by the California Coastal Commission.

IIRIRA substantially increased funding directed toward the Mexico-United States Border. IIRIRA appropriated $12 million of funding for multilayered fencing starting near San Diego, California and extending east for 14 miles.[60] This funding was used to supplement existing fencing and add second and third layered fencing along that portion of the border.[60]

In addition to the multilayered fencing near San Diego, California, IIRIRA allocated additional technology and funding for the Border Patrol. Included in this allocation were "fixed wing aircraft, helicopters, four-wheel drive vehicles, sedans, night vision goggles, night vision scopes, and sensor units".[61] (section 103). IIRIRA required that the number of full-time, active-duty border patrol agents would increase by at least 1,000 "in each of the fiscal years 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001".[62] IIRIRA also funded an increase of 300 supportive personnel in each of the fiscal years of 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.[62] These new border patrol agents were to be stationed at areas with high proportions of illegal crossing, as measured within the previous year.[62] Such areas were largely concentrated at the southern border (Mexico-United States Border).[63][64]

IIRIRA targeted funding for agents and militarized technology to "areas of the border identified as areas of high illegal entry into the United States in order to provide a uniform and visible deterrent to illegal entry on a continuing basis".[65] In doing so, IIRIRA appropriated consistent funding that supported a border enforcement strategy known as "prevention through deterrence". Prevention through deterrence was first initiated in the early 1990s, and it aimed to reduce the number of migrants entering without authorization at high-traffic urban areas.[63][64]According to reports by the Government Accountability Office, prevention through deterrence increased the number of migrants that died while crossing into the United States.[66][63] Such strategies have been criticized as unconstitutional and deemed in violation of human rights.[67]

IIRIRA expanded the restrictions on federally distributed post-secondary education funds that were initially enacted with the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA). PRWORA denied federal funding for post-secondary education to most groups of noncitizens. IIRIRA extended these restrictions, applying them to state-level funding decisions.[68]Under IIRIRA, states cannot make undocumented immigrants eligible for in-state tuition rates for post-secondary education unless all citizens and nationals are also eligible, regardless of their state of residence.[68]

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.[69] States have overcome these restrictions by basing eligibility on in-state tuition on factors besides residence, such as attendance at a high school in the state.[70] These provisions allow anyone, regardless of their immigration or citizenship status, to apply for in-state tuition if they meet the eligibility requirements.[70] In doing so, the states have complied with the mandates established by IIRIRA and PRWORA.[71]

IIRIRA made it a criminal offense for a noncitizen to vote in a federal election.[72] This, however, does not apply to those who have resided in the United States as non-citizen U.S. nationals or permanent residents while they were under the age of 16 years, and both of their parents are U.S. citizens.[73]

A 2018 paper found that the Act reduced the health and mental health outcomes of Latin-American undocumented immigrants in the United States by escalating their fear that they would be deported.[74]

In addition, this policy has been criticized by the Journal on Migration and Human Security for imposing overwhelming hurdles on refugees seeking asylum in the United States. These hurdles, such as mandatory detention and application deadlines, are argued to undermine the obligations the United States has under the Refugee Convention Protocols of 1967.[75] Furthermore, paper in the Journal on Migration and Human Security analyzed a 2011 test conducted by the Migration Policy Institute aimed at exploring any negative externalities the 287(g) program had on the communities of Frederick County, Maryland. The journal found that, after recording arrests by the Frederick County Sheriff's Office, there was evidence pointing towards racial profiling against Hispanics in the area.[76][77]

The scope of the law's authority was judged by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2022 Biden v. Texas ruling, which found in a 5-4 decision that the President had the direct authority to regulate the law's Migrant Protection Protocols without approval from Congress.[78][79]

This article in most part is based on law of the United States, including statutory and latest published case law.

Read the original:
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

Theres almost nothing we are seeing more coverage of in the news than immigration.

Particularly those who come here illegally.

Where theyre coming from, where theyre going and of course the controversy over whether to allow them into the country or not.

Theres no doubt that New Jersey has a huge population of immigrants, but how many of them are undocumented or here illegally?

An interesting study was done by the nonpartisan think tank Migrant Policy Institute and published on migrationpolicy.org.

Its no surprise to anybody that New Jersey is sixth in the country in terms of the population of illegal immigrants, as we as a sanctuary state have opened our arms to the undocumented population.

But if youre curious about which counties illegal immigrants settle in, there are the nine that have the highest percentage, according to the study.

Although other interesting statistics are mentioned in the study, including how long the immigrants have lived here, age demographics and so forth.

I was curious about what areas most tend to settle in.

For example, do immigrants from the same country congregate together as my grandparents did when they came here?

Not surprisingly, those from other countries will settle closest to the largest metropolitan areas to find work and public resources.

So, it makes sense that the counties most heavily populated with illegal immigrants are all a train or bus right away from New York City.

There is no official count of how many people there are illegally in this country. It is not a question asked by the U.S. Census. These numbers are only estimates that MPI extrapolated from various data sets, including the Census count of foreign-born residents and data from the Department of Homeland Security, which keeps track of legal status of immigrants.

Below are the top nine counties, the number of illegal immigrants who have settled there and the countries from which they have come, in descending order.

Unauthorized Population: 75,000Top Countries of Birth: India, Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Ecuador

Unauthorized Population: 52,000Top Countries of Birth: Ecuador, Brazil, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Honduras,

Unauthorized Population: 52,000Top Countries of Birth: India, Mexico, Dominican Republic, Honduras, China/Hong Kong

Unauthorized Population: 47,000Top Countries of Birth: El Salvador, Columbia, Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras

Unauthorized Population: 44,000Top Countries of Birth: Korean, India, Guatemala, Mexico, Ecuador

Unauthorized Population: 37,000Top Countries of Birth: Mexico, Dominican Republic, Peru

Unauthorized Population: 24,000Top Countries of Birth: Guatemala

Unauthorized Population: 17,000Top Countries of Birth: Mexico

Unauthorized Population: 17,000Top Countries of Birth: (Unspecified)

Opinions expressed in the post above are those of New Jersey 101.5 talk show host Judi Franco only.

You can now listen to Dennis & Judi On Demand! Hear New Jerseys favorite best friends anytime, anywhere and any day of the week. Download the Dennis & Judi show wherever you get podcasts, on our free app, or listen right now.

Click here to contact an editor about feedback or a correction for this story.

The models show what would happen in aerial detonation, meaning the bomb would be set off in the sky, causing considerable damage to structures and people below; or what would happen in a ground detonation, which would have the alarming result of nuclear fallout. The models do not take into account the number of casualties that would result from fallout.

Continue reading here:
These 9 counties have the most illegal immigrants in all of NJ - New Jersey 101.5 FM

British Home Secretary Suella Braverman on Tuesday vowed to do whatever it takes to stop illegal immigration across the English Channel.

In her first major speech as home secretary, Braverman toldthe Conservative Party conference in Birmingham that she wants to cut [the] overall numbers of immigration, adding the UK shouldnt be relying wholly on low skilled foreign workers.

Invoking her own heritage as a second-generation immigrant, Braverman said her parents embraced British values and integrated into the community, which didnt meanabandoning their heritage.

The home secretary said British people are losing sight ofthe core values and the culture that made it so and have been led astray by a combination of unexamined drive towards multiculturalism as an end in itself and the corrosive aspects of identity politics.

Weve got to stop the boats crossing the Channel, Braver told the conference, referring to small boats carrying illegal immigrants who enter Britain by clandestinelycrossing the English Channel from France.

According to Home Office figures, the number of people smuggled into the UK in small boats has soared in recent years, with 28,526 people detected in 2021, compared to 8,466 in 2020, 1,843 in 2019, and 299 in 2018.

By the end of September, some 32,807 people had made the perilous journey this year.

Braverman said there are no quick fixes to the chronic problem, pledging her total and undeniable and unfettered and unconditional commitment to doing whatever it takes to tackle the issue.

The home secretary said she would work with the French to ramp up actions on the French coastline and against people-smuggling gangs; find a way to make the Rwanda scheme work; get asylum seekers out of hotels, which she said costs 5 million a day; and take back control of the UKs immigration policy from theEuropean Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

People who deliberately enter the United Kingdom illegally from a safe country should be swiftly returned to their home country or relocated to Rwanda, she said.

Bravermans predecessor Priti Patel signed a deal with Rwanda in April, allowing the UK to send illegal immigrants, including those who seek asylum, on a one-way flight to the African country.

But her first attempt to relocate people to Rwanda was frustrated by the ECHR in Strasbourg, which issued a last-minute injunction to ground the flighta decision Patel said was made in an opaque way and was politically motivated.

Braverman praised Patel and former Prime Minister Boris Johnson for making the groundbreaking deal, saying the UK needs to take back control fromthe Strasbourg court.

She also said the UKs modern slavery laws are being abused by people gaming the system, citing a 450 percent increase in modern slavery claims since 2014many of which she said are liesandanecdotes of foreign sex offenders blocking their removal by making modern slavery claims.

Braverman vowed to seek to introduce new legislation, saying, UK policy on illegal migration should not be derailed by abuse of our modern slavery laws, Labours Human Rights Act, or orders of the Strasbourg Court, and pledged todouble down on enforcement.

Braverman also said she wants Britain to cut overall numbers in immigration, in an apparent departure from the previous governments policy.

It comes after speculation that the government may loosen immigration rules for skilled immigrant workers to plug shortages in the labour market.

Braverman said theres absolutely no reason why we cant train up enough of our own HGV drivers, or butchers, or fruit pickers, adding, The way we build a high-skilled, high-wage economy is by encouraging business to invest in capital and domestic labour, not relying wholly on low skilled foreign workers.

Earlier on Tuesday, Braverman said at a fringe event of theConservative Party conference that it was her ultimate aspiration to fulfill the pledges of the Conservative governments under former Prime Ministers Margaret Thatcher and David Cameron and reduce the number of net immigration to tens of thousands.

Im not going to commit to a number. I think we have got to definitely substantially reduce the number of students, the number of work visas, and in particular the number of dependents on those sorts of visas, she said.

Ditching the previous Conservative governments pledge to reduce immigration from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands, Johnson campaigned on an Australian-style points-based immigration system in 2019.

Under the policy his government introduced, EU citizens could no longer move to the UK without visas from Jan. 1, 2021, but there was a liberalisation of immigration policies for skilled non-EU workers.

A record-high number of visas were granted in the year ending June 2022, but thesize of post-Brexit net immigration is unknown, owing to an interruption of survey data collection during the COVID-19 pandemic and the Office for National Statisticss (ONSs) ongoing process of changing its estimation methods.

Thelatest ONS estimatesaid net immigration in the year ending June 2021 was around239,000, slightly down from the year ending June 2020 (260,000), but these estimates were based on experimental methods and are subject to uncertainty.

In her main speech, which ended in a standing ovation, Braverman said its the highest duties of [the] state to keepBritish people safe and secure borders.

She pledged to tackle violent crime, voicing her support for the police while telling the forces to get back to common-sense policing instead of pandering to identity politics.

Follow

Lily Zhou is an Irish-based reporter focusing on UK news. Lily first joined the Chinese edition of The Epoch Times before turning her focus on the UK in 2020. Contact Lily at lily.zhou@epochtimes.com

Read more from the original source:
UK's Braverman Pledges 'Whatever It Takes' to Stop Illegal Immigration - The Epoch Times

Oct. 7Kevin McCarthy says if voters give Republicans control of the U.S. House of Representatives, his party will solve the immigration issue once and for all.

Don't count on it. The House minority leader is offering the same political pandering many in his party have been offering for years.

"We've watched what's happened to our border," McCarthy said in rolling out his plan, "the millions of people who are just walking across, people on the terrorist watch list. But now we're watching it create every community to be a border community."

Though McCarthy's "Commitment to America" calls for securing the southern border, it offers only vague policy solutions and nothing in the way of actual reform.

The plan resurrects a promise from former President Donald J. Trump, insisting that building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border will dramatically reduce illegal immigration. The plan does not mention that illegal immigration actually rose by 14% during the Trump administration or that Republicans have been blocking comprehensive immigration reform legislation for decades.

In other words, we'll be in for more of the same. Lots of fiery rhetoric. No real action.

Voters should demand more.

Angela Kelley, a former senior counselor at the Department of Homeland Security, summed up the challenge facing Democrats in a recent interview with NBC News.

"I think the administration is sometimes unsure how to articulate an answer to a complex problem when it is juxtaposed against a bumper sticker or a callous trick," she said.

There is hope for compromise.

Republican Sen. John Cornyn has been promoting a bill he introduced with Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona to help improve the efficiency of border screening and processing, and NBC News reports that lawmakers in both the House and Senate have had discussions about expanding visas for immigrants working in agriculture, construction and certain other crucial industries.

Story continues

Sinema discussed the issue in a recent speech.

"We've been stymied by political edges on both ends of the spectrum," she said. "One party that demands only border walls and security and another party that wants amnesty for millions of people. The reality is that we have to address both our security needs and our workforce needs."

President Joe Biden should take the lead on this issue.

He sent Congress a comprehensive bill to overhaul the immigration system on his first day in office, but he hasn't done a whole lot since to coax Congress into taking action.

Biden and his party should hand Republicans an ultimatum: Either join in finding a bipartisan solution to this crisis or be cast as nativists determined to block migration to the United States.

The time for partisan rhetoric is behind us. Our representatives in Washington need to stop posturing and actually roll up their sleeves to get something done.

Continued here:
EDITORIAL: Time to tackle immigration reform - Yahoo News

KRGV the ABC affiliate in Texas Rio Grande Valley (RGV) reported recently that the morgues in Maverick County, Texas, are running out of space due to the number of migrants found dead on the Rio Grande at a rate of one body per day. Two weeks later, Fox News reported that the Biden administration has awarded $41 million in taxpayer-backed government contracts to a new liberal nonprofit working to help illegal immigrants fight deportation amid the escalating border crisis. Theres a lot tying those grants and the administrations border policies generally to the morgues of Maverick County.

Refrigerated Trailers to Handle the Dead. Eagle Pass is the county seat of Maverick County, and KRGV quoted the towns fire chief, Manuel Melo III, who explained his jurisdiction is recovering one migrant found dead daily, approximately 30 a month, although he admitted: There were some days where we did recover six bodies.

There is a lot in that one statement. First, if you have never been there, Maverick County at 1,287 square miles is big (about 20 percent larger than Rhode Island), but with a population of just over 58,000, is also sparsely populated. Nearly half of the countys residents live in Eagle Pass, itself largely just a dusty outpost on the ride from Laredo to Del Rio.

Its no wonder that, at a rate of one body per day, the local morgues (capacity: fewer than eight) are overwhelmed. As KRGV reports:

In a scene eerily similar to the height of the pandemic, the dead are being stored in refrigerated trucks. The county is also currently borrowing a refrigerated trailer from Eagle Pass with the capacity to store up to 30 bodies.

Jeannie Smith, a Maverick County justice of the peace for Precinct 3-2, explains that the recovery and disposition of the corpses is causing a strain on the county (likely an understatement), while according to KRGV, the local medical examiner is not surprisingly facing a backlog in cases.

Open Borders and the Untold Dangers of Illegal Migration. Second, and most importantly, each of the dead was a human being with a family, hopes, plans, a life. They showed up at the Southwest border to enter illegally because their hopes and plans were to continue that life in this country.

And why wouldnt they? Ever since Joe Biden was sworn in as president, and administration assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, the U.S. border hasnt just been open, its been nonexistent for all intents and purposes.

In fact, Bidens DHS Secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, has admitted that the administrations objective is not to sharply reduce the total number of illegal immigrants coming across the southern border, but rather to make sure that we have safe, orderly, and legal pathways for individuals to be able to access our legal system once they have entered. I will get back to that point below.

While the administration can spend tens of millions in taxpayer dollars to provide transportation, food, and shelter for illegal entrants once they are on this side of the border, there is little to nothing it can do to make the trip to our Southwest border any safer.

That is the nature of the illicit trek north, particularly given the fact that the journey is largely stage-managed by rapacious (in the truest sense of the word) smugglers and criminal cartels on the other side.

Many would argue that migrants understand and accept the risks before setting out from their home countries, but I seriously doubt that is true. What kind of parents would knowingly expose themselves and their children to rape, robbery, kidnap, and extortion, let alone dangerous and terrifying crossings in remote desert areas, across rivers, over fences, and through razor wire, if they understood those dangers ahead of time?

As I explained back in 2018, there was a time (under the Obama administration) that outlets as diverse as NPR and National Geographic reported on those dangers, likely because they were taking their lead from the White House. When was the last time that you heard President Biden, Vice President Harris, or any other administration official talk about the hellish journey to illegally enter the United States?

Why the silence since? I can offer a couple of opinions, one of which is that migrant deaths to say nothing of rapes, robberies, and assaults paint the administrations border policies in a bad light. That said, it is undeniably true as my colleague Mark Krikorian explained a year ago that such policies create an attractive nuisance to the illegal migrants coming to take advantage of them.

Attractive Nuisance Doctrine. Attractive nuisance is a tort doctrine, generally defined as a dangerous condition on a landowner's property that may particularly attract children onto the land and pose a risk to their safety. Think unfenced pools and ladders left propped against houses.

Most of those illegal entrants are not children (though more than a hundred thousand under Biden have been), but as Krikorian explained, consistent with that doctrine, if you dont put a fence around your country, and migrants suffer harm trying to get in, your government is liable.

Not only has the Biden administration drawn illegal migrants to enter at their peril by increasingly facilitating their indefinite presence in this country once they make it to this side of the line, but also by providing them with food, shelter, and transportation here. Which brings me to the $41 million in grants to provide them with lawyers in the United States.

Immigration violations can be both criminal and civil offenses. Illegal entry is a misdemeanor as a first offense carrying a maximum sentence of six months, and consequently a charge for that crime does not trigger a constitutional right to counsel. Not that the administration is prosecuting many illegal entrants anyway.

Illegal entry is also a civil violation, which renders the offender removable from the United States. Although section 292 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides that aliens in removal proceedings shall have the privilege of being represented, that provision is clear that any such representation shall be at no expense to the Government.

How, then, is the Biden administration providing grants to provide lawyers to aliens facing removal? Good question.

As I explained in July, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA) directs the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to ensure, to the greatest extent practicable that all unaccompanied alien children [UACs] apprehended by DHS have counsel to represent them in legal proceedings or matters and protect them from mistreatment, exploitation, and trafficking.

Similar language appeared in the Homeland Security Act (HSA), as well. That said, both the HSA and TVPRA make clear that the provision of such counsel for UACs must be consistent with section 292 of the INA which, as noted, provides for representation, but not at government expense.

Despite this fact, the HHS FY 2022 funding bill provided $300 million for legal services, post-release services, and child advocates for UACs. Whether the $41 million in grants for lawyers to which Fox News refers is part of that funding is unclear from its reporting.

That said, it should not be the policy of the United States government to encourage aliens to enter the United States illegally at their peril, and that is particularly true when it comes to children. But that is exactly what funding schemes of the sort to which Fox News refers do they provide incentives, in the form of paid counsel, drawing aliens to risk life, safety, and dignity to enter illegally.

Not only does such funding provide incentives to would-be migrants, but it also sends out a message to the world that the United States is not serious about enforcing its laws or its borders. Thats even though, as former President Obama explained last September, [W]e're a nation state. We have borders. The idea that we can just have open borders is something that ... as a practical matter, is unsustainable.

Through the end of August, Border Patrol agents have engaged in nearly 20,500 searches and rescues at the Southwest border in FY 2022, more than four times the total during the border emergency in FY 2019. Why are so many aliens risking their lives and the lives of those agents? The Biden administration isnt trying to stop them from coming and, worse, is providing them incentives once they get here. Thats what ties the presidents border policies to the overwhelmed morgues of Maverick County, Texas.

Read more:
Paid Counsel for Illegal Aliens Fills the Morgues of Maverick County - Immigration Blog