Truthdig
Bill Clinton Laid the Groundwork for Trump's Ugly Immigration Policies
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/bill_clinton_laid_groundwork_for_trumps_
ugly_immigration_policies_20170327/
Posted on Mar 27, 2017
By Bill Blum
Donald Trump and Bill Clinton meeting at Trump Tower in 2000. (Ralph
Alswang / Office of the President
(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Donald_Trump_and_Bill_Clinton.jpg)
)
"Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do
not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances
existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all
dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living."
-Karl Marx, "The 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon" (1851-52)
The most cruel, divisive and dangerous policies adopted thus far by the
administration of President Donald John Trump are those embodied in the
executive orders (https://www.dhs.gov/executive-orders-protecting-homeland)
(EOs) he has signed into law in the areas of immigration, terrorism and
border security. They're so cruel, indeed, that many influential
commentators
(http://americasvoice.org/press_releases/make-no-mistake-trumps-immigration-
executive-orders-create-deportation-force-blueprint-mass-deportation/) have
fostered the narrative that they are unprecedented.
Yet they are not. In both the larger historical context and the smaller
scope of the recent past, they fall well within the boundaries of America's
deep-seated nativist traditions.
Trump isn't the first chief executive to tap into those traditions. His
policies haven't sprung from thin air. From the Alien and Sedition Acts of
1798 to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the "red scares" of the 20th
century, the "Operation Wetback" mass deportations of the Eisenhower
administration, and the deportation records set by President Obama, our
immigration laws and policies in good measure have been driven by political
expediency, paranoia, scapegoating, racism and economic exploitation.
But while Trump's programs fit nicely into the broad sweep of our nativist
legacy, they also owe a specific debt to legislation enacted during the
tenure of none other than President William Jefferson Clinton.
Yes, you read that right. Much that is repugnant and regressive in Trump's
EOs-the ballyhooed southern wall, the expansion of the border patrol, the
mass detentions and "expedited" removals of the undocumented and "criminal
aliens," the deployment of local police to enforce immigration laws, even
the violation of international standards governing the treatment of
refugees-can be traced back to the statutory framework constructed during
the Clinton era.
The "great triangulator" didn't just fuel an already existing trend toward
mass incarceration with the enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act
(http://www.factcheck.org/2016/04/bill-clinton-and-the-1994-crime-bill/) of
1994, or add to the miseries of the poor by upending the welfare system with
the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_
Act) of 1996. He also left a stain in the field of immigration.
In his Jan. 23, 1996, State of the Union address
(https://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/other/sotu.html) , Clinton stressed the
need for tough federal action on illegal immigration. "After years of
neglect," he declared, "this administration has taken a strong stand to
stiffen the protection of our borders. We are increasing border controls by
50 percent. We are increasing inspections to prevent the hiring of illegal
immigrants. And tonight, I announce I will sign an executive order to deny
federal contracts to businesses that hire illegal immigrants."
In short order, he went far beyond the hiring ban, signing into law two
pieces of omnibus legislation that paved the way for Trump's current
nativist agenda: the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiterrorism_and_Effective_Death_Penalty_Act
_of_1996) (AEDPA), enacted in April 1996; and the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
(http://library.uwb.edu/Static/USimmigration/1996_illegal_immigration_reform
_and_immigrant_responsibility_act.html) (IIRIRA), which passed in September
of the same year.
Together, the two acts (along with a few smaller bills) combined to do the
following:
Expand the Definition of Criminal Immigrants Subject to Deportation
Prior to 1996, immigrants were subject to deportation following state or
federal convictions for murder, rape and other serious felonies. The AEDPA
added 17 "aggravated felonies"
(https://www.hrw.org/reports/2007/us0707/5.htm) to the list, including
theft, counterfeiting and receiving stolen property in cases involving terms
of imprisonment of five years or more. Under the IIRIRA, the term of
imprisonment needed to render theft and forgery offenses as grounds for
deportation was reduced to one year, including probationary sentences.
The net effect of the changes was to vastly expand the number of immigrants,
both documented and undocumented, subject to removal from the country.
Trump's EOs build on the AEDPA and IIRIRA by targeting for removal
undocumented immigrants either convicted of, or simply charged with, any
criminal offenses.
Mandatory Detention
Along with broadening the definition of deportable crimes, the 1996 acts
called for the mandatory detention of immigrants convicted of aggravated
felonies pending their removal. As a result, the average daily number of
immigrants held in detention centers skyrocketed from 6,785 in 1994 to
19,458 by the time Clinton left office
(http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/library/P2.pdf) . Many were held in
private, for-profit facilities.
Today, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) holds some 34,000
immigrants per day
(https://www.immigrantjustice.org/eliminate-detention-bed-quota) in
custody, many in privately run jails. That number, according to the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), will jump to 80,000 under Trump's
plans (https://www.dhs.gov/executive-orders-protecting-homeland) .
Ending Traditional Deportation Hearings and Instituting Expedited Removal
The IIRIRA did away with traditional deportation hearings, replacing them
with "removal" proceedings. The change was by no means semantic. Along with
the revised nomenclature, under the new law, immigrants were accorded fewer
procedural rights.
Among other changes, the IIRIRA eliminated an often-invoked defense known as
"suspension of deportation," which permitted immigrants to seek deportation
relief if they had been physically present in the U.S. for at least seven
years, were of "good moral character" and were conviction-free for such
period, and could demonstrate that they or their family members (if lawfully
present) would suffer extreme hardship if they were deported.
The IIRIRA replaced the suspension remedy with "cancellation of removal," a
form of discretionary relief that requires immigrants to meet the very
stringent bar of proving 10 years of continuous presence and establishing
that their expulsion would cause "exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship" to a qualifying U.S. spouse or child. Hardship to immigrant
applicants themselves was eliminated as no longer relevant
(http://www.vkblaw.com/news/fourhundredninetysix.htm) .
The number of cancellation grants, moreover, was capped at 3,000 per year
(http://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11515132/iirira-clinton-immigration) . Those
who didn't qualify were barred from seeking lawful admission to the U.S. for
either three or 10 years, depending on how long they had been illegally in
the country.
Even more importantly, the IIRIRA instituted the dreaded process of
"expedited removal." Under the program, immigration agents were empowered to
expel immigrants, without even bringing them before an immigration judge for
a hearing, if they could not show that they had been in the country for two
years (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43892.pdf) .
In practice, until Trump, expedited removals without hearings were largely
reserved for immigrants apprehended within 100 miles of the border within 14
days of entry. Others were "caught and released" into the community pending
their hearings. Trump's EOs vow to end catch and release and apply the tools
of expedited removal nationwide to the letter of the Clinton-era law to
anyone who crosses the border within the previous two years
(http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/02/24/president-trumps-exped
ited-removal-plan-may-be-illegal/98276078/) .
Fortifying the Border Patrol and Building a Deportation Force
To deliver on his promises of mass deportations, Trump has advocated the
hiring of 5,000 additional Border Patrol agents and 10,000 more immigration
officers in the nation's interior.
Far from being outliers, both demands are in keeping with historical trends.
Among its myriad provisions, the IIRIRA authorized a sharp increase in the
number of Border Patrol personnel, which doubled in size between 1996 and
the 9/11 attacks, and have doubled again since 9/11
(https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42138.pdf) .
Partnering with Local Governments and Punishing Sanctuary Cities
In addition to beefing up the Border Patrol and ICE, Trump's EOs call for a
rapid expansion of the "287(g) program" (named after a provision of federal
law) aimed at deputizing local and state police agencies to serve as
quasi-immigration agents in the apprehension of undocumented immigrants. The
EOs also threaten crackdowns on so-called "sanctuary cities" that refuse to
partner with immigration authorities by denying such jurisdictions federal
grants and funding.
The 287(g) program-you guessed it-was added to the books by a provision of
the IIRIRA
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_Section_287(g
)) .
Refugee Violations
While there is nothing in the legislation signed by Clinton that approaches
Trump's two "Muslim bans" (which to date have been derailed by the courts),
Clinton took executive actions to suspend entry into the U.S. of designated
classes of people from several nations, including Zaire, Nigeria, Bosnia and
Serbia, Sudan, Angola and Sierra Leone
(https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R44743.pdf) . Both George W. Bush and
Barack Obama did the same.
More generally, according to Human Rights Watch
(https://www.hrw.org/reports/2007/us0707/5.htm) , the IIRIRA ran afoul of
the U.N. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees by making it
impossible for any immigrant convicted of an aggravated felony to obtain
protection from a return to persecution. Even relatively minor drug and
theft offenders with sentences of one year or more can be sent to
persecution by U.S. immigration authorities. International standards, by
contrast, limit such returns to those convicted of serious crimes and who
would constitute a danger to the community.
The Southern Border Wall
Trump's EOs also could make good on his campaign promises to erect "a great
and beautiful wall" along the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border.
Here, too, the promises, while financially exorbitant and diplomatically
disastrous, find firm footing in past practices.
In 1990, a 14-mile, triple-deep fence was constructed in San Diego
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/09/history-suggests-
donald-trumps-big-beautiful-border-wall-may-not-be-so-outlandish/?utm_term=.
803d44aad0f9) . In 1996, the IIRIRA authorized the federal government to
build additional barriers. And in 2006, the Secure Fence Act was passed,
authorizing completion of still more. Today, there are 700 miles of fencing
along the southern border
(http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/tomdispatch-operation-streamlin
e-immigration-enforcement-donald-trump-wall) .
Among those voting in favor of the Secure Fence Act was Hillary Clinton,
then the junior Democratic Senator from New York
(https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/109-2006/s262) . Among those voting
against was Bernie Sanders, then a member of the House of Representatives
from Vermont.
Understanding the full political, social and legal underpinnings of Trump's
xenophobic immigration proposals is the key to defeating them. It isn't
sufficient-nor is it factually accurate, as this look back at the ugly
legacy of Bill Clinton shows-to brand them as unprecedented or an
aberration.
To combat and ultimately destroy Trumpism, we can't return to Clinton-style
neoliberalism. When it comes to immigration, we have to promote a
progressive approach that, as advocacy groups like America's Voice
(http://americasvoice.org/about-us/) suggest, emphasizes a direct, fair and
inclusive road to citizenship for immigrants, fair labor standards for all
working people on both sides of the border, stringent environmental
protections, equitable international trade agreements and law enforcement
practices that recognize and protect immigrants' rights.
It's time to come together for the battles ahead.
U.S.-Led Coalition Airstrikes in Iraq Among Deadliest in Region Since 2003
Live at Truthdig: What Can Skid Row Teach Us About the Future of Policing?
The Right to Internet Privacy Is Under Threat as Debate Reaches House Floor
Oil Placed in Dakota Access Pipeline Under Lake Oahe
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
C 2017 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
Signup for Truthdig's newsletter
gumgum-verify
Sponsored Content
Employee productivity suffering? Don't randomize.
Help Increase employee productivity & gain efficiencies with Brother
workflow solutions today. Learn more now. []
Learn More
