Anti-immigrant "REAL ID" Act Becomes Law
The "REAL ID Act," a package of anti-immigrant provisions, became law on May 11, 2005.
The bill, H.R. 418, had been attached to an emergency bill to fund military operations in Iraq (H.R. 1268). It had been opposed by a wide range of civil and human rights groups.
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 relating to the 9/11 Commission recommendations Congress was then considering.
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 sharply criticized the REAL ID provisions. In a letter to members of Congress, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR) and 67 cosigners urged the bill's 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."
Opponents of the bill said the bill, with its sweeping language relating to border security, asylum, drivers' licenses, and judicial review of immigration decisions, capitalized on anti-immigrant sentiment and fear.
LCCR's letter pointed out that the bill would give the Secretary of Homeland Security the unprecedented authority, free of any judicial oversight, to waive "all laws" that he determined were necessary to quickly construct barriers at United States borders. LCCR called this authority overbroad, in that it allowed the secretary to waive not only particular environmental protections, as current law provides, but also any civil rights laws, immigration laws, labor laws, or even criminal laws that he determined stood in the way of border security construction projects.
"Under this law," LCCR Executive Director Wade Henderson explained, "the DHS Secretary could decide that immigration laws stand in the way of the prompt construction of a barrier to keep undocumented immigrants out of the country, and could hire undocumented immigrants to build the wall. He could decide that labor or civil rights laws no longer apply. He could even decide that criminal laws are too much of a burden to follow. Under the REAL ID Act, nothing short of impeachment could stop him."
The bill also contained changes to asylum standards, which according to LCCR, would prevent many legitimate asylum seekers from obtaining safe haven in the United States. These changes gave immigration officials broad discretion to demand certain evidence to support an asylum claim, with little regard to whether the evidence can realistically be obtained; as well as the discretion to deny claims based on such subjective factors as "demeanor" Critics said the reason for putting such asylum restrictions into what was being sold as an antiterrorism bill was unclear, given that suspected terrorists are already barred from obtaining asylum or any other immigration benefit.
In addition, the bill repealed the drivers' license provisions that were enacted only a few months prior in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458), which implemented the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. In their place, the bill would create a separate temporary license for visitors on temporary visas, and would require motor vehicle agencies to verify each piece of identification used to support an application for a drivers' license with the agency, domestic or foreign, that issued it.
Opponents to the bill said that rather than reduce the number of terrorists or make it harder for determined ones to obtain drivers' licenses, these requirements would impose undue burdens on state motor vehicle agencies; undermine public safety; lead to increased discrimination against immigrants; and drive millions of undocumented immigrants even further underground.
"The REAL ID Act's language preventing states from issuing drivers' licenses to undocumented immigrants will not stop determined terrorists, or make America any safer," noted Cecelia Muñoz, vice president of the National Council of La Raza. "Instead, it would simply result in more unlicensed and uninsured drivers on the roads - and increased discrimination against immigrants who hold a different "temporary" license. Congress already passed drivers' license legislation only several months ago, and those provisions should be given time to work."
The bill also restricts the ability of federal courts to review many decisions made by immigration judges, who are administrative officials. LCCR and other civil rights groups were 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 would do little but insulate administrative officials from their own mistakes and increase the likelihood of tragic consequences," LCCR wrote.
