OK, folks, I have a feeling this is going to be a long one…so please bear with me. Anytime one tries to interpret the legalese of the federal government, it is a monumental task. I certainly don’t want to misconstrue the content here, and thereby mislead my readers.
Recently, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI) introduced to the House of Representatives a bill called the REAL ID Act (HR 418), which passed in the House on Feb.10 by a vote of 261-161. A summary of the act may be viewed here.
Title I: Amendments to Federal Laws to Protect Against Terrorist Entry
On some of the measures in this first amendment (Title 1) I can agree. For instance, I really don’t have a problem with allowing the Homeland Security Secretary to join the ranks of the Secretary of State in granting asylum. Nor do I mind that applicants be required “to prove that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be (if removed) the central reason for their persecution.”
I can also agree to the “factors relevant to credibility determinations in asylum cases” listed. I certainly think an applicants demeanor, candor and responsiveness are relevant. And , it is undoubtedly important that the applicant’s statements not be inconsistent. I also agree that, as concerns asylum seekers, there should be no “presumption of credibility.”
I agree totally with Rep. Sensenbrenner on the expansion of the definition of those who would be considered terrorists and therefore eligible for deportation. As it stands, a terrorist could claim that he/she would be persecuted if returned home, and should be granted asylum on that basis. And, theoretically, those terrorists could be granted such asylum. This is unimaginable! As I read it, HR 418 would ensure that this does not continue.
One major issue addressed in this bill is that it would expand “the grounds of deportability due to terrorist activity to include aliens who would be inadmissible on terrorism-related grounds.” It came as a shock to me to learn that illegals could not already be deported based on terrorism-related grounds. Of course, if they are here illegally, they should be automatically deported, and anything else shouldn’t really matter.
One of Tile 1’s most attractive features is that it would make all provisions applicable to proceedings occurring “before, on, or after the enactment of this Act.” It is important that any new standards that are enacted apply to ALL illegal aliens in this country.
However, I do not agree with all the provisions in Title I. For instance, there is a paragraph that calls for the removal of the “numerical limit on the number of aliens granted asylum who may become lawful permanent residents in any fiscal year (currently set at 10,000).” I do not understand the logic behind this statement, unless it is added as an appeasement to pro-immigration groups. Here we are in the midst of a debate on how to fix the ailing Social Security system in America, and yet we are going to make limitless the number of asylum seekers who may become permanent residents? Sorry, but like the robot in Lost in Space used to say, that does not compute.
There is also a section (Sec. 102), that would “authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security (the Secretary), in the Secretary’s sole discretion, to waive all laws as necessary to ensure expeditious construction of certain barriers and roads at the U.S. border. Prohibits courts, administrative agencies, and other entities from reviewing the Secretary’s decision or from ordering relief for damages alleged to have resulted from such decision.”
Pay attention here, this is a BIG ONE! The way that statement reads, and it is a direct quote from the “Bill Summary & Status for the 109th Congress,” it sounds to me like the government, and really, just one person (the Homeland Security Secretary), would be authorized to just take land away from property owners close to the border if he/she deemed it necessary for the construction of a border fence, wall, barrier or road.
Man, this would be a dangerous power to place in the hands of one person, or even one entity. I know that if I owned a ranch in Cochise County, AZ, I would want the option of allowing my land to be used for such construction. We have seen the government’s use of eminent domain in the past, and it has, at times, been an out-of-control procedure. There needs to be some kind of checks and balances on the power that this post will hold.
Let me play this part again, “Prohibits courts, administrative agencies, and other entities from reviewing the Secretary’s decision or from ordering relief for damages alleged to have resulted from such decision.” Now, I am not a lawyer, much less a constitutional lawyer, but to me this plainly gives the Homeland Security chief the ability to say, “I am taking your land, and there is nothing you can do about it. And, by the way, you cannot seek relief for any damages you incur as a result of my doing so!”
This portion of the amendment needs some serious tinkering with-and I don’t mean just some flowery words added to make it sound better but still stick you in the end. By tinkering, I mean TOTALLY ELIMINATED from the amendment! Anyway, moving on.
Title II: Improved Security for Driver’s Licenses and Personal Identification Cards
This I think is a good idea. IT starts off by saying that federal agencies will only recognize and make federal services available to persons who possess State-issued driver’s licenses, and that these State-issued cards be obtained by meeting minimum requirements, to include “the incorporation of specified data, a common machine-readable technology, and certain anti-fraud security features.”
Standards which would be required, under threat of loss of federal funds, include verifying information presented by the person applying for the license or I.D. card, proof that the applicant is in the U.S. legally, and that persons who are here temporarily be given temporary licenses valid only for their authorized length of stay. If they will legally be here for more than one year, then their license/I.D. must be updated annually.
The only exception that I take to Title II comes under Sec. 206. This section gives the Homeland Security head “all authority to issue regulations, set standards, and issue grants under this title. Gives the Secretary of Transportation all authority to certify compliance with such standards.”
Again, we need to be careful about granting absolute power to one person. According to Sec. 206, the Secretary could impose whatever regulations, standards and grants he/she takes a liking to. To repeat, there needs to be a system of checks and balances for all this power. Checks and balances are what has sustained this country for over 2 ¼ centuries.
Then there is Title III: Border Infrastructure and Technology Integration. This portion of the REAL act deals with technologies and information sharing to be used by federal agencies for the implementation of an effective method of border control. I have no problem at all with Title III.
I would like to point out that my feelings of limiting the powers granted to a Homeland Security Secretary are in no way meant to be a reflection on the man currently holding the post. I am suggesting, however, that the possibility of abuse of power exists in all persons in all posts. It may not be this administration or the next, but, inevitably, there will be people in which “absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
As I am sure my readers will attest, I feel very strongly that immigration reform is needed. We have a situation in our country where we have an estimated 15 million illegals roaming around, and there is no question that a radical reformation of immigration policies is long overdue. However, we must be careful not to infringe upon, or even make available the ability to infringe upon, our citizens’ constitutional rights.
To see how your Representative voted, go to:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll031.xml
