Use of the Term
Immigration reform is a term used in political discussion regarding changes to current immigration policy. In its strict definition, reform means to change towards an improved form or condition by amending or removing faults or abuses. In the political sense, immigration reform may include promoted, expanded or open immigration. It may also include reduced or eliminated immigration. Immigration is also widely used to describe proposals to increase legal immigration while decreasing illegal immigration, such as the guest worker proposal supported by George W. Bush.
Legislative Trends
Illegal immigration is a controversial issue in the United States. Proponents of greater immigration enforcement argue that illegal immigrants cost taxpayers an estimated $338.3 billion dollars. They also argue that these immigrants jeopardize the safety of law enforcement officials and citizens, especially along the Mexican border.
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 made it illegal to hire or recruit illegal immigrants. The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Border Protection, Anti-terrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005, and, in 2006, the U.S. Senate passed the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. Neither bill became law because their differences could not be reconciled in conference committee.
In 2009, immigration reform became a hot topic as the Obama administration signaled interest in beginning a discussion on comprehensive immigration reform. The proposed comprehensive immigration reform plan had as its goal bipartisan support. As such, it includes six sections designed to have something for everyone. These six sections are: (1) fixing border enforcement, (2) increasing interior enforcement, such as preventing visa overstays, (3) preventing people from working without a work permit, (4) creating a committee to adapt the number of visas available to changing economic times, (5) a type of amnesty program to legalize undocumented immigrants and (6) programs to help immigrants adjust to life in the United States.
The Case of Arizona
Citing Congress' failure to enforce U.S. immigration laws, the state of Arizona confronted reform. In 2009, services provided to illegal immigrants, including incarceration, cost the state of Arizona an estimated $2.7 billion. On April, 23, 2010, Republican Governor Jan Brewer signed the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, the broadest and strictest immigration reform imposed in the United States. The Arizona immigration law directs law enforcement officials to ask for immigration papers on a reasonable suspicion that a person might be an illegal immigrant. Officials can then arrest those not carrying ID papers. On July 6, 2010, the US Department of Justice filed suit against Arizona with the intent of preventing the state from enforcing the law and asks the court to find certain sections of the legislation null and void. Congress has left this issue untouched as many feared such a vote could threaten their chances at reelection.
Jan Brewer
Jan Brewer, Governor of Arizona, who signed the controversial Suppor Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, which makes it a state misdemeanor crime for an immigrant to be in Arizona without carrying registration documents required by federal law.
Being the first state to pass such legislation, Arizona has set a precedent for other states. Nevertheless, this legislation has also caused Arizona to carry a large burden. Although the response has cost the state between 7 million and 52 million, some in the state still feel that this outcome will outweigh the initial cost. Due to conflict and protest, Governor Brewer signed House Bill 2162 (HB 2162) a week later, amending text in the original document. HB 2162 includes that race, color, and national origin would not play a role in prosecution; in order to investigate an individual's immigration status, he or she must be "lawfully stopped, arrested or detained. "
Reform and Advocacy
In the absence of comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level, many advocacy groups have focused on improving the fairness and efficiency of the immigration court system. They propose incremental steps the executive branch can take to stop an assembly line approach to deportation proceedings. These groups have identified several issues that threaten the due process rights of immigrants, including reliance on low quality videoconferencing to conduct hearings, inadequate language interpretation services for non-English speakers, and limited access to court records. They also focus on problems arising out of the recent increase in immigration law enforcement without a commensurate boost in resources for adjudication. Other calls for reform include increased transparency at the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and more diversity of experience among immigration judges, the majority of whom previously held positions adversarial to immigrants.