Welcome Terrorists!: The Immigration Bill No Longer Prohibits Their Entry. [UPDATED]
By Erick Posted in Immigration — Comments (4) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Here's another example of why the immigration bill should not be rushed through.
In early drafts of the legislation, §204 of the bill barred entry into the country of individuals who were without "Good Moral Character." Among the definitions of what was "Good Moral Character" was "an alien described in section 212(a)(3) or 237(a)(4), as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security or Attorney General." If you followed those provisions, you'd see that these are defined as foreigners engaged in terrorist activity or belonging to terrorist organizations.
The legislation now being circulated has stripped this prohibition from the immigration bill and multiple individuals who have read the bill can't seem to find any substitute language to prohibit entry into this country of individuals who are engaged in terrorist acts or belong to terrorist organizations.
So, on behalf of the United States Senate, welcome terrorists!
[UPDATE] As Von notes, there is substitute language. However, Senate sources tell me the new language is seriously flawed. Under the old §204, the bill referred to §§ 212(a)(3)(B) and 237(4)(b), which specifically provide that an alien who has engaged in terrorist activity is not admissible to and removable from the United States, even if he or she has a valid non-immigrant or immigrant visa or a green card.
Of note, §212(a)(3)(B) gave specific definitions of terrorist activities, defining what was a terrorist organization, what it meant to be a representative of a terrorist organization, and what it meant to "engage in terrorist activities."
Under the new language of §01(d)(1)(e)(ii), the Secretary can exclude certain people when "there are reasonable grounds for regarding the alien as a danger to the security of the United States." The problem as any lawyer could tell you is that the statute does not define what those "reasonable grounds" are. So any future Secretary can modify them and any person excluded can litigate them. Don't think it could happen? Think again. Just look at the litigation that ensues over deportations.
« Federal Jobs Illegal Immigrants Can’t Do — Comments (12) | Why I mildly support the immigration bill — Comments (55) »
Welcome Terrorists!: The Immigration Bill No Longer Prohibits Their Entry. [UPDATED] 4 Comments (0 topical, 4 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Nope, try again.
Just checked in with Senate sources who say that without the specific definition of the previous §204, this won't work. The problem is that "reasonable grounds" means that each case can fairly well be litigated and the Secretary can waive any of these requirements, which the Secretary could not do under the old §204.
The problem is that "reasonable grounds" means that each case can fairly well be litigated and the Secretary can waive any of these requirements, which the Secretary could not do under the old §204.
Not too concerned about "reasonable grounds" being litigated -- anything can be, and it seems that any provision requires the Secretary -- but have no problem whatsoever adding in a setence to replace the missing sentence from old section 204. Something like the following, which could be inserted as 601(d)(1)(e)(iii):
"(iii) For whom there are reasonable grounds that the alien is or or has been engaged in terrorist activity, or has been a member of a group or organization identified by the State Department as constituting or having ties to a terrorist group or organization."
Of course, maybe you then run into problems with the definition of terrorist group .....
It'd be interesting to see what the original language was.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
Unless I've misread -- which is possible -- the section you're looking for is in 601(d)(1)(e)(ii):
Page 149 of the PDF (at section (h)(1) on the page) makes the foregoing applicable to temporary workers as well. Although I'm not certain as to the original language, it would seem that this provision is broader than the earlier provision you cite, in that it does not require "engag[ing] in terrorist activity or belonging to terrorist organizations."
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.