Home Page

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network




Connect to us

Make us Homepage



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Immigration LLC.

  • Article: Immigration Actions: The Law of Unintended Consequences By Jan H. Brown

    Immigration Actions: The Law of Unintended Consequences


    The consensus among Americans is that "we are a nation of immigrants." However, when it comes to efforts to resolve our dysfunctional immigration system in the U.S. Congress, this consensus fails. What is wrong and how did we get in this mess?

    It is generally agreed that there are between 11-12 million persons in the U.S. without proper immigration documentation. A disproportionate number of these undocumented workers are blue collar workers who came to the U.S. seeking employment. In 1996, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA) was passed in an attempt to control the flow of undocumented people into the U.S. Ironically, IIRAIRA created a permanent underclass of undocumented workers trapped in U.S.

    IIRAIRA created a penalty for "unlawful presence? That requires persons unlawfully present for more than one year to leave the U.S. for 10 years. The rationale behind this provision was to intimidate unlawfully present people into leaving the U.S. in a timely fashion so as not to be barred from re-entry into the U.S. for a decade. However, the reverse result occurred!

    Since a 10 year exile is not an attractive option, many unlawfully present people chose to stay in the U.S. in order to continue to live and work. Such people were precluded from regularizing their status by being sponsored for permanent residence through their jobs because another requirement entailed leaving the U.S. to appear for a visa interview, triggering the dreaded 10 year exile penalty. This is a prime example of the law of unintended consequences at work!

    Today's Child Refugees

    Let's put into perspective the spectacular upsurge in the apprehensions of children fleeing from their violent Central American societies of late. How dangerous and hopeless must conditions be for a parent to spend a king's ransom to send his/her child on a long and perilous journey alone to seek safe haven in a foreign land, knowing s/he may never see his/her child again? The "lucky" children who are apprehended on U.S. soil by U.S. Customs and Border Protection have the right to a hearing to determine if they qualify to remain in the U.S. in lieu of expulsion back to their home countries. This is based upon a law granting "Special Immigrant Juvenile Status" to children who can establish, among other things, that it is not in the minor's best interests to be sent home. The process is complicated, involving both a state Family Court and the U.S. Immigration Court.

    The response of the Obama Administration to this "surge" of children arriving at the U.S. border has been to bypass this complicated process and expedite the removal of as many of these unfortunate children as possible back to their Central American homelands. Fortunately, the American Immigration Lawyers Association has been able to field a small army of volunteer lawyers to ameliorate some of the worst excesses of the push to remove these children as quickly as possible.

    The United States is now funding new programs in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras aimed at rooting out the causes of poverty and violence that have compelled parents to send their children on the perilous journey north. While this new initiative may show positive results in the future, the Obama Administration's current response to the child refugee flow into the United States has been less than honorable; it is designed more to placate political criticism of the Obama Administration's immigration policies than to uphold the letter and spirit of our immigration laws as they apply to children.

    Unintended consequences are harder to predict while an event is still occurring. It is safe to say though, that children who are either imprisoned in the U.S. or sent back quickly to their countries of origin without a fair hearing will suffer psychic, if not physical, scarring for the rest of their lives. In fact, in a report dated October 16, 2014, Human Rights Watch concluded, "In its frenzy to stem the tide of migrants from Central America, the U.S. is sending asylum seekers back to the threat of murder, rape, and other violence."

    This post originally appeared on The Huffington Post. Reprinted with permission

    About The Author

    Jan H. Brown Jan H. Brown is a principal in the Law Offices of Jan H. Brown, P.C., centered in New York City. He has been practicing immigration and nationality law since 1979 and frequently lectures and writes on the subject of U.S. immigration law. Mr. Brown is a long time senior editor of AILA's Immigration and Nationality Handbook and editorial reviewer for Kurtzban's Immigration Law Sourcebook. His editorial cartoons have appeared in various publications, including Liberal Opinion Week and AILA's Immigration Law Today. Jan Brown represents clients across the immigration spectrum, from removal defense to EB-1 extraordinary ability workers. He is past chair of the AILA New York Chapter and currently co-chairs the New York State Bar Association's Immigration and Nationality Law Committee; as such he is active in efforts to reform our immigration system.

    The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.

    Comments 1 Comment
    1. Retired INS's Avatar
      Retired INS -
      When IIRIRA was passed in 1996, Section 245(I) was half-way through it 3 year temporary authorization. Those who had crossed the border illegally could pay their $600 fine, later raised to $1,000, and apply for adjustment of status. The stupidity of IIRIRA is that it only applies to aliens who leave the country. Going to Ciudad Juarez to pick up an immigrant visa is considered leaving the country.

      I was the INS Officer in Charge in Fresno when Section 245i was implemented in October of 1994. Since most of our immigrants in Fresno had come in EWI, our backlog of adjustment of status cases was 250. A year after 245i was put in place, our backlog was over 25,000. I believe 245i was a good law that should have been kept. It might have been had not Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo lied about it and called it amnesty. I am a conservative republican, but I have to admit that Tom Tancredo and Lamar Smith (R. Texas) did a good imitation of being racists.
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: