Mediaboss Marketing

Overview

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRAIRA) strengthened U.S. immigration laws, adding penalties for undocumented immigrants who commit crimes while in the United States or who stay in the U.S. for statutorily defined periods of time.

The Act was designed to improve border control by imposing criminal penalties for racketeering, alien smuggling and the use or creation of fraudulent immigration-related documents and increasing interior enforcement by agencies charged with monitoring visa applications and visa abusers. The Act also allows for the deportation of undocumented immigrants who commit a misdemeanor or a felony.

The Actmandates that immigrants who are unlawfully present in the U.S. for 180 days but under 365 days must remain outside the United States for three years unless pardoned. If they remain in the United States for 365 days or more, they must stay outside the United States for ten years unless they obtain a waiver. However, if they return to the U.S. without the pardon, they must wait 10 years until they may apply for a waiver.

For more on IIRAIRA, see this Cornell Law Review article, this Journal on Migration and Human Security article, and this Center for Migration Studies article.

See the rest here:
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility ...

Illegal immigration to Australia is defined by the Migration Act 1958, which distinguishes between "lawful non-citizens" (those in Australia holding a valid visa) and "unlawful non-citizens" (those without a valid visa).[1]

Immigration to Australia is administered by the Department of Home Affairs, formerly the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP), and before that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC).

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), the majority of people in Australia illegally are visa overstayers, who enter the country legally but remain there after the expiry or revocation of their visa.[2] DIAC estimated that in the period from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010, approximately 15,800 people overstayed their visas out of 4.5 million temporary entrants during that period (about 0.35 per cent). As of 30 June 2010, DIAC estimated that the number of visa overstayers in Australia was around 53,900, or 0.2 per cent of the Australian population.[3]

Australia operates a number of immigration detention facilities within the country, as well as several offshore processing centres. All Australian immigration detention facilities are managed by the British services company Serco on behalf of the Australian government. Australia currently has three functioning offshore centres, and ten detention centres on the mainland. A List of Australian immigration detention facilities includes Nauru, Christmas Island, and Manus Island.

Prior to 1992, the Migration Act 1958 permitted discretionary detainment of unlawful non-citizens. In 1992, the Keating Government introduced a policy of mandatory detention, in response to a wave of boat arrivals from Indochina.[4]

As a signatory to the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, Australia operates a humanitarian intake of migrants of around 13,770 persons per year (by comparison, Australia's Migration Program was 168,600 places in 200910). Those who have not gained prior approval to enter Australia for the purpose of seeking asylum were referred to as irregular arrivals.[5]

There are two classifications for irregular arrivals: Illegal Maritime Arrivals (IMAs; prior to 2013 the term "Irregular Maritime Arrivals" was used) and Non-IMAs (those arriving in Australian territory without a visa by non-maritime means, such as by air). In the 201112 period, the number of IMAs was greater than the number of Non-IMAs for the first time.[6]

In 2013, the Minister for Immigration, Scott Morrison, directed his department to use the term "illegal maritime arrivals" instead of the previous term "irregular maritime arrivals". The application of the term "illegal" to asylum seekers is controversial. While it is not a criminal offence to seek asylum in Australia, or to enter Australian territory without immigration documents for the purpose of seeking asylum, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Fact Check unit determined that the term was valid when referring to an arrival's entry status. In addition, the United Nations Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, to which Australia is a signatory, defines "illegal entry" as "crossing borders without complying with the necessary requirements for legal entry into the receiving State".[7]

Here is the original post:
Illegal immigration to Australia - Wikipedia

By Pawel Styma | March 2020 | Click here for Full PDF Version

Americas immigration and naturalization system is abused in many ways with one of the most egregious examples being the exploitation of birthright citizenship, or the automatic American citizenship granted to nearly all individuals who are born in the U.S. The roots of the controversy are found in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Debate over the proper interpretation of the 14th amendment continues, but no one disputes that citizenship carries with it specific benefits, such as the right to vote and eligibility for certain government benefits.

Therefore, securing birthright citizenship holds great value that can be viewed as an incentive by parents-to-be to enter the U.S. illegally in order to give birth. It can also enhance an illegal aliens chances of gaining permanent status if their child is an American.

While there have been attempts by lawmakers in both parties to scale back or even end birthright citizenship, those efforts have not been realized. According to the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), it is estimated that every year approximately 300,000 children gain birthright citizenship because they are born to illegal alien mothers in the United States. That accounts for roughly 7.5 percent of all live births every year. While this number may not seem significant, the cost to American taxpayers $2.4 billion is quite significant. Because of our current overly-broad and abuse-incentivizing interpretation of birthright citizenship, all of these children receive automatic U.S. citizenship.

Since birthright citizenship continues to be an incentive for illegal immigration, it remains an issue at the heart of the immigration debate both inside and outside of Congress. For example, former Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) introduced legislation in 1993 that included a provision to end birthright citizenship, describing it as a reward for being an illegal immigrant, and emphasizing that no sane country would do that. The bill never made it to the Senate floor for a vote, and Reid would later reverse his position on the issue.

Since then, bills to end or amend birthright citizenship have been introduced at the state level, and almost every year since 1993, including in the current Congress, in the federal legislature as well.

The issue once again became front and center on October 29, 2018, when President Trump stated that he wanted to put restrictions on birthright citizenship most likely through an executive order. Although the President did not specify the groups that would no longer receive automatic birthright citizenship under his plan, it appears that he was referring to the children of illegal and temporarily-present aliens. Trump floated the idea again in late August 2019, but no further action has been taken by the Administration.

The current controversies surrounding birthright citizenship stem from differing interpretations of the 14th Amendment, which was adopted in 1868 in the wake of the Civil War. Its main objective was to ensure that recently-emancipated slaves were allowed to vote and granted all of the legal protections due to citizens under the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment states that: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. Most of the debates focus on the meaning of one key phrase: and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

Those in favor of maintaining birthright citizenship argue that the Amendments use of the term jurisdiction is purely geographic, meaning that foreign nationals are subject to U.S. jurisdiction while on its soil.

Critics of the current interpretation note that in 19th century parlance, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant not subject to any foreign power. And the latter formulation was, in fact, used in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, upon which the 14th Amendment was based. In other words, the amendment understood jurisdiction as political authority. Thus, illegally present aliens are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

Senator Jacob M. Howard (R-MI), who introduced the citizenship clause in 1866, emphasized that his understanding of birthright citizenship will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens [emphasis added], who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States ().

The U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on citizenship in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898. Wong Kim Ark was born in California in 1873 to parents who were Chinese subjects but also legal permanent residents. The court ruled that he was indeed a U.S. citizen based on the 14th Amendment. However, the Supreme Court never ruled on the controversial question of whether the Citizenship Clause requires a broad view of jurisdiction that extends birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens or temporarily present aliens.

Moreover, during the second half of the 19th century mass illegal immigration was not yet the major problem it would become during the past several decades. This is important to take into account when considering the original intent of the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment or the Supreme Courts Wong Kim Ark ruling.

Automatic citizenship for the children of illegal aliens is deeply problematic for several important reasons. First, it rewards people who have entered or remained in the country in violation of our laws. Second, once a citizen child reaches 21 years of age, they can sponsor their illegal alien parents for legalized immigrant status.

As David North of CIS points out, many illegal aliens believe that having a U.S.-born child can help them in some way. Moreover, as one illegal alien woman interviewed in 2008 revealed to CBS News, when asked if many women cross the border to give birth: Yes. I know people who have done that. Things are much better here in the U.S. because they help children so much more. She also admitted that her goal was to anchor her entire family in the U.S. According to FAIRs 2019 calculations, the United States already has a large illegal alien population of 14.3 million. Why not reduce the number of pull factors encouraging illegal migration and presence?

There are also costs associated with giving birth. In the above-mentioned CBS report, the CEO of the McAllen Texas Medical Center where about 40 percent of births were to illegal alien mothers stated that mothers about to give birth () walk up to the hospital still wet from swimming across the river in actual labor. Once they deliver, their child is a U.S. citizen. The costs of the labor, as well as any medical treatment along the border, are picked up by the American taxpayer. A study by CIS found births to illegal alien mothers constitute 11 percent of all publicly funded births in the U.S. and cost taxpayers $2.4 billion annually.

As FAIR has pointed out, illegal aliens can receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children. According to our report on the fiscal costs of illegal immigration, American taxpayers pay $6.7 billion annually in Medicaid spending on the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens. All of this is part of the total cost of illegal migration, which we estimate at $132 billion a year, and which may rise to $200 billion by 2025.

In addition, birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens has the potential to create a growing constituency of U.S. citizens, many of whom presumably have an emotional and vested interest in supporting policies that undermine our immigration laws. According to the Pew Research Center, in 2016 there were 5 million U.S.-born children under 18 living with at least one illegal alien parent, and almost another million individuals over 18 living with at least one unlawfully present parent.

Furthermore, it is unfair to legal immigrants who must endure a long and painstaking process to become naturalized U.S. citizens, including being a permanent resident for at least five years, submitting to a ten-step naturalization process and numerous requirements, and paying a steep fee ($640-$725).

Fewer than forty countries recognize birthright citizenship as law and most of those are located in the Western Hemisphere.

Of developed democracies, only the United States and Canada grant automatic birthright citizenship (with the exception of the children of diplomats). And, like in the United States, members of both political wings inCanada have called to reform and limit birthright citizenship to no avail.

France, New Zealand, Australia, and, most recently, Ireland, haverestrictedthe practice to varying degrees in recent years.

The abuse of birthright citizenship by illegal aliens has been a problem for decades. It is high time that we reform and clarify it by ensuring that those who are in the country illegally are not rewarded by giving their U.S.-born children automatic citizenship. In practice, the only way to truly settle the question of which interpretation of the 14th Amendment is correct is for the Supreme Court to weigh in on the matter. Any legislative or executive action likely would be challenged in court, and hopefully appealed up to the higher court, thereby granting it an opportunity to rule on the issue directly.

For more information, please see FAIRs issue brief,Birth Tourism.

See the rest here:
Birthright Citizenship and Illegal Immigration

Worried that illegal immigrants may feel undue stress, Homeland Securitys legal immigration agency has now deleted a standard warning to people that overstayed their visas that they ran the risk of being deported.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services operations center issued the directive Wednesday, saying the agency is rolling back a Trump policy that anyone who applied but was rejected for legal immigration status should be referred for deportation, through whats known in government-speak as an NTA, or Notice to Appear.

But in addition to canceling the policy, the operations center said it was also deleting the caution that being in the country illegally could mean deportation.

This guidance will ensure the Agency is not placing undue stress on the customer who believes he/she may or may not receive an NTA based on the information provided in their denial notification, read the directive, which was seen by The Washington Times.

The agency confirmed the move, saying it was carrying out an Inauguration Day change by the new administration revoking Trump-era moves, but suggested it was still in the early stages of working through the update.

USCIS will issue additional implementation guidance on this issue in the near future, the agency said.

Notices to appear are akin to a summons for immigration court, where a judge would rule on whether the migrant has the right to stay.

They are traditionally issued by agents and officers at Customs and Border Protection who encounter illegal immigrants at the border, and by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers who come across illegal immigrants in the interior.

But USCIS, as an immigration agency, has always had the same authority, and the Trump team in 2018 said it would begin to flex that power.

Those who applied for an upgrade in their immigration status but were deemed ineligible, and who were thus in the country without permission, were to be issued NTAs. People who overstayed visas were particular targets of the new policy.

Its not clear how often people were actually issued NTAs.

The Washington Times inquired over the past couple of years about the data but was never provided any numbers, though experts said its unlikely many people were snared.

But Jessica Vaughan, policy studies director at the Center for Immigration Studies, said the warning is still important as a statement of law, even if the Biden team wants to stop referring people for deportation.

Theres no reason not to warn the rejected applicants that they are potentially removable, even if they are not a priority, she said.

She also questioned USCISs use of the word customer to refer to people who, in this situation, end up being illegal immigrants because they filed bogus asylum cases, had criminal records that made them ineligible, or committed fraud.

They brazenly tried to exploit our immigration system, but are to be treated as customers who must be treated gently, and definitely not be frightened by the suggestion that they should leave before they are removed, she said.

Excerpt from:
DHS deletes deportation warning over fears of 'undue stress' to illegal immigrants - Washington Times

While theres little question that entering or remaining in a country without official authorization is unlawful, considerable controversy exists among governments and the general public about what should be the consequences for illegal immigration.

Possible government policies for dealing with those who illegally enter the country or unlawfully overstay a temporary visa cover a broad range of options.

At one extreme is amnesty or legalization, which often leads to citizenship for those meeting certain criteria, including residing in the country for a number of years, paying back taxes and not having committed a serious crime or felony.

At the other extreme is repatriation or deportation, which typically involves returning those who are unlawfully resident, particularly those who have also been convicted of crimes, back to their countries of origin.

In between those two extremes are a myriad of policy options to address illegal immigration that are often acrimoniously debated among a variety of competing interests, factions and groups.

Regarding the immigration process, a widespread consensus exists among governments and the general public that people wishing to immigrate should do so legally and safely, not unlawfully and dangerously. However, the large numbers of men, women and children wishing to immigrate far exceed the visas that receiving countries are normally prepared to grant. Consequently, with little or no opportunities for legal migration, many women and men turn to illegal immigration or overstay short-term visas.

A global survey undertaken several years ago reported that more than 750 million adult men and women wish to emigrate to another country. In striking contrast, the annual number of immigrants worldwide in recent years has been no more than about 5 million.

In the case of the United States, which is the largest destination country, the number of immigrants in the recent past has been around 1 million per year. However, the number of those wishing to emigrate to the United States is estimated at more than 150 million.

As a result of those huge demographic differences in the supply and demand of migrants, a worldwide clash involving many millions of people is taking place between those wishing to get into another country and those wishing to keep them out of their country.

There are a variety of arguments and concerns put forward for policies to deal with unauthorized migrants. While the areas of concerns are similar their interpretations and reasoning differ greatly.

Advocates for amnesty and regularization, for example, rely on compassion, costs, fairness, family integrity, economics, exploitation, logistics and security to make their case. They maintain that after residing and working in a country for many years, unauthorized migrants should be permitted to remain in the country, apply for legal residency and be eligible for citizenship.

Moreover, they firmly believe that unauthorized migrants should not be returned to extremely difficult and often dangerous living conditions in their origin countries. That position is felt to be especially relevant for those who were unlawfully brought into the country as children, often referred to as Dreamers.

Some U.S. jurisdictions, including cities, counties and states, do not agree with current immigration laws and do not fully cooperate with federal authorities regarding the arrest, detention and repatriation of unauthorized migrants. Some of those jurisdictions have become places of sanctuary for unauthorized migrants.

Those places have taken steps to integrate and assist unauthorized migrants and their families. Those steps include granting drivers licenses, issuing identification cards, providing support and passing laws and provisions to prohibit asking about or disclosing an individuals immigration status.

In addition, some Democratic presidential candidates and others want to decriminalize illegal U.S. border crossings. They argue that the current statute, Title 8, Section 1325 of the U.S. federal code, is of grave importance because it could be used in punitive fashion in the future against families and children under a policy similar to zero tolerance.

In contrast, those opposed to granting amnesty or legalization stress the importance of the rule of law, border security, crime, fairness, rewards, incentives, wage effects, public trust, societal costs and communal cohesion. Those who have broken the immigration laws, they maintain, should not be rewarded with citizenship or regularization.

They maintain that amnesty and legalization not only establishes an incentive for future illegal immigration, but it also undermines the publics trust, creates social cleavages, redirects resources away from citizens and erodes support for legal immigration. Also, commitments to secure the borders in the future with meaningful enforcement, they maintain, invariably fail to materialize or are largely ineffective.

In addition, the promise of amnesty assists smugglers and human traffickers in their illegal immigration and exploitation activities. Government policies to stand down on deporting unauthorized migrants also helps smugglers in their efforts to recruit men, women as well as unaccompanied minors.

Despite the policies and programs of governments and the wishes of the general public in the destination countries, illegal immigration is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. The more developed regions, many with declining populations and aging rapidly, continue to attract foreign workers at virtually every employment level. The less developed regions, in contrast, have relatively young growing populations, with many in the working ages facing difficulties finding gainful employment and harsh living conditions.

As a result of those striking demographic and economic differences, increasing numbers of men and women in developing countries, especially those in the least developed, are deciding to migrate illegally to the comparatively wealthier nations.

What should be the consequences for those who migrate illegally or overstay a temporary visa continues to be a contentious, divisive political issue challenging governments and the public.

The outcome of the current White House and Congressional negotiations concerning immigration reform and the status of unauthorized migrants is uncertain. However, based on the experience of the recent past under both Republican and Democratic administrations, it appears likely that the outcome, with the possible exception of the Dreamers, will largely be a continuation of the status quo, including the hurried issuance of presidential executive actions.

Joseph Chamie is an independent consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, "Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters."

Read more from the original source:
What should be the consequences for illegal immigration? | TheHill - The Hill