Now the house is considering several fragments of H.R.4437 for quick passage. One would think that "removing gang members and dangerous criminals" is a very good thing, that at last these provisions will enhance the security of the country, but there's little new to this bills, in fact, it's mostly a political move.
Take the "Removal of Gang Members" for instance. Gangs are defined as specific groups to be designated and published in the Federal Register, just like terrorist groups. So, aliens would be deported or inadmissible if they are "members" and the alien has committed or has conspired to commit "gang crimes" (also defined). Note how these gang crimes are serious crimes (all of them felonies) and most of them are also CIMT's.
INA already incorporates provisions for removal and inadmissibility of aliens who have committed CIMT's. Moreover, INA incorporates a provision for inadmissibility of those who intent to "commit serious criminal activity". So, what's the change here?
Confusion, that's the change. While a CONOF could easily deny on reason to believe grounds for serious criminal activity related to gangs (criminal association, 371 conspiracies, controlled substances violations) now there's doubt is a gang-related denial could be effected if the particular group is not yet designated but the offenses are clearly gang-related. In short, there's absolutely nothing new about this gan-related bill, only the confusion it will create on consular officers and the additional expenses associated with the study, designation and publishing of criminal groups. While INA has nothing to gain and lots to lose out of these new provisions, it's a certain group of politicians who stand to gain a boost in their campaigns out of these redundant legislation.
The House of Representatives is a very capable body, so it's hard to understand that instead of engaging in negotiations over the Senate bill, the House decides to go with a redundant, superficial approach hoping to benefit their own political interests.
Take the "Removal of Gang Members" for instance. Gangs are defined as specific groups to be designated and published in the Federal Register, just like terrorist groups. So, aliens would be deported or inadmissible if they are "members" and the alien has committed or has conspired to commit "gang crimes" (also defined). Note how these gang crimes are serious crimes (all of them felonies) and most of them are also CIMT's.
INA already incorporates provisions for removal and inadmissibility of aliens who have committed CIMT's. Moreover, INA incorporates a provision for inadmissibility of those who intent to "commit serious criminal activity". So, what's the change here?
Confusion, that's the change. While a CONOF could easily deny on reason to believe grounds for serious criminal activity related to gangs (criminal association, 371 conspiracies, controlled substances violations) now there's doubt is a gang-related denial could be effected if the particular group is not yet designated but the offenses are clearly gang-related. In short, there's absolutely nothing new about this gan-related bill, only the confusion it will create on consular officers and the additional expenses associated with the study, designation and publishing of criminal groups. While INA has nothing to gain and lots to lose out of these new provisions, it's a certain group of politicians who stand to gain a boost in their campaigns out of these redundant legislation.
The House of Representatives is a very capable body, so it's hard to understand that instead of engaging in negotiations over the Senate bill, the House decides to go with a redundant, superficial approach hoping to benefit their own political interests.
Comment