Civil and Human Rights Groups Strongly Oppose Anti-Immigrant 'REAL ID Act'
Feature Story by civilrights.org staff - 3/17/2005
The House voted on March 16 to pass the "REAL ID Act" (H.R. 418), a package of anti-immigrant provisions, by attaching the measure to an emergency bill to fund military operations in Iraq. It is not clear whether the Senate will agree to the amendment, but a wide range of civil and human rights groups strongly oppose the bill.The bill emerged late last year when its key sponsor, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., tried to attach its provisions to an intelligence reform measure Congress was then considering to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The provisions of the REAL ID Act were not part of the Commission's recommendations, but anti-immigration advocates in the House tried, unsuccessfully, to include them anyway.
Civil and human rights advocates strongly spoke out against the measure. In a letter to members of Congress, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR) and 64 cosigners urged its defeat, arguing that it "would undermine the rule of law, have a profound negative impact on immigrants and asylum seekers, and do little to protect American lives."
Critics of the bill say it would include several harsh and even unprecedented changes. If passed into law, it would let the Secretary of Homeland Security waive any federal law that he thinks might slow down the construction of barriers at the U.S.-Mexico border; make it harder for asylum seekers to prove their claims; cause undocumented immigrants to drive without licenses or insurance; prevent federal courts from reviewing many immigration rulings; and privatize law enforcement by giving bail bondsmen vast powers - with few safeguards - to arrest immigrants.
The waiver provision, LCCR wrote, "would literally place the Secretary of Homeland Security above the law," allowing him to waive not just two specific environmental protections, as under current law, but also any civil rights laws, immigration laws, labor laws or even criminal laws. It would also prevent courts from second-guessing any such decisions.
If made into law, the REAL ID Act would also make several changes to asylum standards that would make it harder for people fleeing persecution to obtain safe haven in the United States. Critics say the reason for putting asylum restrictions into what is being sold as an antiterrorism bill is unclear, as suspected terrorists can already be turned away.
The ID provisions would prevent undocumented immigrants from obtaining drivers' licenses, and would place huge burdens on motor vehicle departments. But rather than reduce the number of terrorists or make it harder for determined ones to obtain ID, those opposed to the Act say, the bill would simply result in more unlicensed and uninsured drivers on the roads.
The bill would also restrict the ability of federal courts to review many decisions made by immigration judges, who are administrative officials. LCCR and other civil rights groups were highly alarmed by the "court stripping" provisions because of the role that the federal courts have played in protecting civil rights.
"Further eliminating the ability of the federal courts to review erroneous immigration rulings," LCCR wrote, "would do little but insulate administrative officials from their own mistakes and increase the likelihood of tragic consequences."
Finally, the REAL ID Act contained bail bond provisions that could easily be abused. For instance, bail bondsmen could arrest immigrants even before any bond conditions had been violated, and the bill has no safeguards to protect innocent people who are harmed in an attempted arrest, such as victims of mistaken identity.
The Senate is likely to consider the REAL ID Act when it returns from a two-week break in early April. Advocates are urging the Senate to strip the measure from the appropriations bill, and instead pass more comprehensive legislation that is not as anti-immigrant.
