Иммиграционная реформа IIRIRA: ужесточение и последствия

US federal immigration legislation
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". 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". 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. 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. 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. 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 2000s, overall illegal immigration has increased since the policy's enactment according to data compiled by the Pew Research Center. 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. With IIRIRA, however, lawfully admitted nonimmigrants who overstay their visas by one day or longer became ineligible for a new nonimmigrant visa. 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

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. After IIRIRA, however, the penalty was changed so that any crime with a penalty of one year or longer would be considered an aggravated felony. 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". 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". 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. 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. All noncitizens who are removable are subject to removal proceedings. 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. IIRIRA established the authority of immigration judges in removal proceedings. 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". 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". Further, under IIRIRA, noncitizens "have the privilege of being represented, at no expense to the Government, by counsel of the [noncitizen's] choosing". 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. 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). 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. Noncitizens can also file 1 motion for reopening their case, which must be filed within 90 days of the final order of removal.

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. 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". 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. 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. 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.

IIRIRA established expedited removal, in which immigration officials gained the authority to summarily remove certain noncitizens. 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)". 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. Therefore, noncitizens subject to expedited removal do not have the right to administrative review or the right to administrative appeal and judicial review. Stipulated removal orders under IIRIRA can be enacted for noncitizens facing felony and misdemeanor convictions that are considered aggravated felonies. 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. 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". 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.

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. The 3 year bar begins on the date of the individual's departure or removal from the U. S. Individuals in either of these categories are summarily found ineligible for entry for 10 years. 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. 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. As of November 2021, there were 142 agencies with signed 287(g) agreements in the United States.

Among other changes, IIRIRA gave the United States Attorney General broad authority to construct barriers along the Mexico–United 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. This funding was used to supplement existing fencing and add second and third layered fencing along that portion of the border. (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". IIRIRA also funded an increase of 300 supportive personnel in each of the fiscal years of 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. 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". 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.

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. Under IIRIRA, states cannot make undocumented immigrants eligible for post secondary education benefits unless all citizens and nationals are also eligible, regardless of their state of residence. However, IIRIRA does not define post secondary education benefits as tuition rates which are matriculation costs. 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. Nevertheless, tuition rates which include student fees and matriculation costs are not defined as post secondary education benefits. These provisions allow anyone, regardless of their immigration or citizenship status, to apply for in state tuition if they meet the eligibility requirements.

IIRIRA made it a criminal offense for a noncitizen to vote in a federal election. 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.

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. 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. Furthermore, a 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. The scope of the law's authority was judged by the U. S. Supreme Court in the 2022 Biden v. Texas (Removal of the 'Remain in Mexico' policy) 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.