Research question
How does Illegal Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996 violate the constitution?
Rationale for research question
Authors have expressed their deep concern over the implication of the adoption of the legislation of Illegal Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996. According to Welch, (2002), the migrants, more specifically the legal immigrants who are constitutionally protected from any form of discrimination and arbitrary treatment by the government are adversely affected by the decision of the congress to enact laws that strip the courts their legal mandate to monitor how the government treats the immigrants. Welch (2002) reiterates that the new law ignores the jurisdiction of the court to review the immigrations policies more so on deportation procedures. Without courts, INS assumes all powers and this exposes the immigrants to abusive practices and policies.
Another contagious element of the law is the use of secret evidence in inspection, detention, adjudication, and deportation. Use of secret evidence to deport even lawfully permanent residents as well as denying bond detained non-citizens undermines justice since the process cannot be subjected to cross-examination and the accused cannot refute the claims. This is incongruent with the administration of justice and principles of the legal system under the constitution. Furthermore, such an act is a replica of a totalitarian government that grossly violates constitution (American Civil Liberties Union, 2016).
The passing of the legislation was done hastily, locking out the opportunity for modifications of the provisions that were contagious before passing through to the Senate for final consideration. Parker (2007) argues that the narrowly focused conclusion calls for the government to review the legislation since it failed to respect the constitution by subjecting the bill to due process before making it law.
The 1996 legislation also lowered the threshold requirement for crimes listed as aggravated felonies that trigger permanent deportation. Considering the fact that previously there were provisions for re-entry after deportation, this legislation was ill intended as it targeted immigrants and subjected them to both social and economic challenges facing such families resulting from separation. The inadequacy of the legislation is compounded by the fact that the congress decided to eliminate sections of the law that gave a waiver of deportation that would in some discretionary circumstances grant relief to the deportee. The legislators ignored the possibility of immigration authorities abusing the law by deporting aliens who do not meet the UN convention requirements of serious crimes refugees. It is also an indication that United States failed to honor united nation treaty to protect the refugees (Parker, 2007).
Sriram (2014) observes the enactment imposed the restriction on the eligibility of the United States aliens and immigrants benefits, including, federal public benefits, including food stamps, aids to families with dependent children and free medical care services. Sriram (2014) points out that the congress passed a defective legislation that was only aimed at discriminating against immigrants that the natives viewed as a threat to their cultural and economic interests.
This research question is relevant to public policy in the sense that any agency charged with the responsibility of formulating and implementing policies should be mindful of the implication their decisions have on the rights and liberties of the people as provided by the constitution. The research question will guide the research on how the enactment of the Illegal Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996 violate the constitution.
References
American Civil Liberties Union. (2016). American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved 16 March
2016, from https://www.aclu.org
Parker, A. (2007). Forced apart. New York, NY: Human Rights Watch.
Sriram, C. (2014). War. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Welch, M. (2002). Detained. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
