| 词条 | Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 |
| 释义 |
| shorttitle = Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 | othershorttitles = IIRIRA | longtitle = An Act making omnibus consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes. | colloquialacronym = i-RAI-ruh | nickname = Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, "The Mexican Exclusionary Act of 1996": | enacted by = 104th | effective date = April 1, 1997[1] | public law url = http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-110/pdf/STATUTE-110-Pg3009.pdf | cite public law = 104-208 | cite statutes at large = {{usstat|110|3009}} aka 110 Stat. 3009-546 | acts amended = | acts repealed = | title amended = 8 U.S.C.: Aliens and Nationality | sections created = | sections amended = {{unbulleted list|{{Usc-title-chap|8|12|I}} § 1101 et seq.|{{Usc-title-chap|8|12|II}} § 1221 et seq.|{{Usc-title-chap|8|12|II}} § 1324|{{Usc-title-chap|8|12|II}} § 1363a}} | leghisturl = http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:HR03610:@@@R | introducedin = House | introducedbill = {{USBill|104|H.R.|3610}} | introducedby = C. W. Bill Young (R-FL) | introduceddate = June 11, 1996 | committees = House Appropriations, Senate Appropriations, House Judiciary | passedbody1 = House | passeddate1 = June 13, 1996 | passedvote1 = 278–126, {{US House Vote|1996|247}} | passedbody2 = Senate | passeddate2 = July 18, 1996 | passedvote2 = 72–27, {{US Senate Vote|104|2|200}}, in lieu of {{USBill|104|S.|1894}} | conferencedate = September 28, 1996 | passedbody3 = House | passeddate3 = September 28, 1996 | passedvote3 = 370–37, {{US House Vote|1996|455}} | passedbody4 = Senate | passeddate4 = September 30, 1996 | passedvote4 = Agreed voice vote | signedpresident = Bill Clinton | signeddate = September 30, 1996 | amendments = | SCOTUS cases = }} The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA or IIRAIRA), Division C of {{USStatute|104|208|110|3009-546|1996|09|30}}, made major changes to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of the United States, which was mainly due to the rapidly growing illegal immigration problem in the country.[1] "These IIRIRA changes became effective on April 1, 1997."[2] Among the obvious changes made by IIRIRA, the U.S. Congress expanded the definition of the term aggravated felony by entailing a great many more crimes, but at the same time it explicitly stated that the term "aggravated felony" must be applied only to convictions "for which the term of imprisonment was completed within the previous 15 years."[4][5] This appears to be perfectly consistent with "the Fifth, Eighth and 14th Amendments to the Constitution,"[3] including with the United Nations Convention against Torture (CAT).[4][8][9][10] IIRIRA combined the former "deportation proceedings" and "exclusion proceedings" into a single removal proceedings, which begin in immigration courts and may reach all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.[5] In the meantime, Congress reaffirmed its historical statutory and mandatory relief to everyone who was admitted to the United States as a refugee under 8 U.S.C. § 1157(c).[8][9] Every illegal alien convicted of any aggravated felony is to be placed in expedited removal proceedings.[6] In exceptional circumstances, the removal proceedings can be reopened at any time and even from outside the United States.[5][7][17][8] This was never clarified prior to IIRIRA. Among other changes, IIRIRA gave the U.S. Attorney General broad authority to construct barriers along the border between the United States and Mexico, and it authorized the construction of a secondary layer of border fencing to support the already completed 14-mile primary fence. Construction of the secondary fence stalled because of environmental concerns raised by the California Coastal Commission. Deportation and inadmissibility issues{{Further|Cancellation of removal|waiver of inadmissibility (United States)}}According to the INA, the terms "inadmissible aliens" and "deportable aliens" are synonymous.[9] A lawful permanent resident (LPR) can either be an "alien" or a "national of the United States," which requires a case-by-case analysis and depends mainly on the number of continuous years he or she has spent in the United States as a legal immigrant (green card holder).[10][11][12] IIRIRA sufficiently protected every American against deportation from United States.[13] In IIRIRA, Congress expressly states that the aggravated felony definition must be applied retroactively to all persons,[14] and reaffirms its historical statutory and mandatory relief to those persons who were admitted to the United States as refugees under 8 U.S.C. § 1157(c), even if they have been convicted of a particularly serious crime.[15][16][10] The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and the U.S. courts of appeals have held that for purposes of cancellation of removal and waivers of inadmissibility, the "stop-time rule" does not apply to any alien who committed his or her crime prior to April 1, 1997.[17][18] In other words, an LPR who committed a crime before IIRIRA's effective date was still effectively an LPR. This does not come into conflict with the aggravated felony definition, which plainly requires a conviction (not commission). In INS v. St. Cyr (2001), the U.S. Supreme Court held that Congress had not intended IIRIRA to be applied retroactively against all past criminal convictions. The BIA extended relief against deportation to green card holders who had been convicted of an aggravated felony prior to April 1, 1997.[19][18] This BIA decision, however, plainly contradicts IIRIRA, which expressly states the following:{{Quote|The term [aggravated felony] applies to an offense described in this paragraph whether in violation of Federal or State law and applies to such an offense in violation of the law of a foreign country for which the term of imprisonment was completed within the previous 15 years. Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including any effective date), the term [aggravated felony] applies regardless of whether the conviction was entered before, on, or after September 30, 1996.[14][20]}} "The ordinary meaning of 'notwithstanding' is 'in spite of,' or 'without prevention or obstruction from or by.'"[21] IIRIRA's mandatory detention provisions have also been repeatedly challenged, with less success. The Reed Amendment (a provision of IIRIRA which excludes from the United States those people whom the Attorney General finds to have renounced American citizenship in order to avoid payment of taxes) also has been attacked as unconstitutional.[22] In Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), the Supreme Court curtailed the government's ability to hold aliens in removal proceedings indefinitely. A similar detention issue was addressed in Jennings v. Rodriguez (2018). Section 287(g){{Main|Immigration and Nationality Act Section 287(g)}}IIRIRA addressed the relationship between federal and local governments. Section 287(g) of the Act allows the U.S. Attorney General to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies, permitting designated officers to perform immigration law enforcement functions pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement. The Section does not simply deputize state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce immigration matters.[23] This provision had been implemented by local and state authorities in five states (California, Arizona, Alabama, Florida, and North Carolina) by the end of 2006.[24] Higher education restrictionsUpon passage of this law, states were restricted from offering in-state tuition at public institutions to students who were not legally in the country.[25] Specifically, if a state allows illegal immigrant students to be eligible for in-state tuition, then residents from other states must also be eligible for in-state tuition. Several states have passed tuition-equality laws by allowing anyone regardless of legal status to apply for in-state tuition if they meet the state's eligibility requirements.[26] ImpactA 2018 paper found that the Act reduced the health and mental health outcomes of Latin-American undocumented immigrants in the United States by escalating their fear that they would be deported.[27] See also
ReferencesThis article in most part is based on law of the United States, including statutory and latest published case law.1. ^{{cite web |title=60 FR 7885: ANTI-DISCRIMINATION |url=https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1995-02-10/pdf/95-3554.pdf |pages=7888 |date=February 10, 1995 |accessdate=2018-12-05|publisher=U.S. Government Publishing Office}} 2. ^1 Othi v. Holder, [https://casetext.com/case/othi-v-holder#p265 734 F.3d 259], 264-65 (4th Cir. 2013). 3. ^{{cite web |title=Chapter 11 - Foreign Policy: Senate OKs Ratification of Torture Treaty |url=http://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal90-1118781&type=toc&num=15 |publisher=CQ Press|edition=46th |pages=806–7|year=1990|accessdate=August 8, 2018|quote=The three other reservations, also crafted with the help and approval of the Bush administration, did the following: Limited the definition of 'cruel, inhuman or degrading' treatment to cruel and unusual punishment as defined under the Fifth, Eighth and 14th Amendments to the Constitution....}} (emphasis added). 4. ^{{cite web |url=https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CAT.aspx |title=Article 16|publisher=Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights |accessdate=July 15, 2018|quote=[The United States] shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article I, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.}} (emphasis added). 5. ^1 {{uscsub|8|1101|a|47}}; see generally Reyes Mata v. Lynch, 576 U.S. ___, ___, [https://casetext.com/case/mata-v-lynch-1 135 S.Ct. 2150], 1253 (2015); Avalos-Suarez v. Whitaker, [https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2018/11/16/16-72773.pdf No. 16-72773] (9th Cir. Nov. 16, 2018) (unpublished) (case remanded to the BIA which involves a legal claim over a 1993 order of deportation); Nassiri v. Sessions, [https://casetext.com/case/nassiri-v-sessions No. 16-60718] (5th Cir. Dec. 14, 2017); Alimbaev v. Att'y, [https://casetext.com/case/alimbaev-v-attorney-gen-of-the-united-states-1#p194 872 F.3d 188, 194] (3d Cir. 2017); Agonafer v. Sessions, [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20170623158 859 F.3d 1198], 1202-03 (9th Cir. 2017) 6. ^{{uscsub|8|1365|b}} ("An illegal alien ... is any alien ... who is in the United States unlawfully...."). 7. ^{{uscfr|8|1003.2}} ("Reopening or reconsideration before the Board of Immigration Appeals"); see also {{uscsub|8|1229a|c|2}} ("Burden on alien"); {{uscsub|8|1252|b|4|C}} (explaining that "a decision that an alien is not eligible for admission to the United States is conclusive unless manifestly contrary to law...."). 8. ^See generally Toor v. Lynch, [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20150617177 789 F.3d 1055], 1064-65 (9th Cir. 2015) ("The regulatory departure bar [({{USCFR|8|1003.2}}(d))] is invalid irrespective of the manner in which the movant departed the United States, as it conflicts with clear and unambiguous statutory text.") (collecting cases); see also Blandino-Medina v. Holder, [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20130410129 712 F.3d 1338], 1342 (9th Cir. 2013) ("An individual who has already been removed can satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement by raising a direct challenge to the removal order."); United States v. Charleswell, [https://www.leagle.com/decision/2006803456f3d3471799 456 F.3d 347], 351 (3d Cir. 2006) (same); Kamagate v. Ashcroft, [https://www.leagle.com/decision/2004529385f3d1441512 385 F.3d 144], 150 (2d Cir. 2004) (same); Zegarra-Gomez v. INS, [https://www.leagle.com/decision/20031438314f3d112411303 314 F.3d 1124], 1127 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that because petitioner's inability to return to the United States for twenty years as a result of his removal was "a concrete disadvantage imposed as a matter of law, the fact of his deportation did not render the pending habeas petition moot"). 9. ^{{uscsub|8|1229a|e|2}} ("The term 'removable' means—(A) in the case of an alien not admitted to the United States, that the alien is inadmissible under section 1182 of this title, or (B) in the case of an alien admitted to the United States, that the alien is deportable under section 1227 of this title."); Galindo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 894, ___, [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/17-1253/17-1253-2018-07-31.html No. 17-1253], p.4-5 (7th Cir. July 31, 2018); Tima v. Attorney General of the U.S., ___ F.3d ___, ___, No. 16-4199, p.11 (3d Cir. Sept. 6, 2018) ("Section 1227 defines '[d]eportable aliens,' a synonym for removable aliens.... So § 1227(a)(1) piggybacks on § 1182(a) by treating grounds of inadmissibility as grounds for removal as well."). 10. ^{{cite web |title=Lawful Permanent Residents (LPR) |url=https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/lawful-permanent-residents |date=April 24, 2018 |accessdate=2018-12-05 |publisher=U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS)}} 11. ^{{USC|8|1408}} ("Nationals but not citizens of the United States at birth"); see also {{USC|8|1436}} ("Nationals but not citizens...."); {{uscfr|12|268.205}}(a)(7) ("National refers to any individual who meets the requirements described in 8 U.S.C. 1408."); Alabama v. Bozeman, [https://casetext.com/case/alabama-v-bozeman#p153 533 U.S. 146, 153] (2001) ("The word 'shall' is ordinarily the language of command.") (internal quotation marks omitted). 12. ^1 Ahmadi v. Ashcroft, et al., No. 03-249 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 19, 2003) ("Petitioner in this habeas corpus proceeding, entered the United States on September 30, 1982 as a refugee from his native Afghanistan. Two years later, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (the 'INS') adjusted Petitioner's status to that of a lawful permanent resident.... The INS timely appealed the Immigration Judge's decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (the 'BIA').") (Baylson, District Judge); Ahmadi v. Att'y Gen., 659 F. App'x 72 (3d Cir. 2016) ([https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2035&context=thirdcircuit_2016 Slip Opinion, pp.2, 4 n.1]) (invoking statutorily nullified case law, the court dismissed an obvious illegal deportation case by asserting that it lacks jurisdiction to review an unopposed United States nationality claim under {{uscsub|8|1252|b|5}} and {{uscsub|8|1252|f|2}} solely due to {{uscsub|8|1252|b|1}}) (non-precedential); Ahmadi v. Sessions, No. 16-73974 (9th Cir. Apr. 25, 2017) (same; unpublished single-paragraph order); Ahmadi v. Sessions, No. 17-2672 (2d Cir. Feb. 22, 2018) (same; unpublished single-paragraph order); cf. United States v. Wong, 575 U.S. ___, ___, [https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-wong-27#p1632 135 S.Ct. 1625], 1632 (2015) ("In recent years, we have repeatedly held that procedural rules, including time bars, cabin a court's power only if Congress has clearly stated as much. Absent such a clear statement, ... courts should treat the restriction as nonjurisdictional.... And in applying that clear statement rule, we have made plain that most time bars are nonjurisdictional.") (citations, internal quotation marks, and brackets omitted) (emphasis added); see also Bibiano v. Lynch, [https://casetext.com/case/bibiano-v-lynch#p971 834 F.3d 966], 971 (9th Cir. 2016) ("[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1252#b_2 Section 1252(b)(2)] is a non-jurisdictional venue statute") (collecting cases) (emphasis added); Andreiu v. Ashcroft, [https://casetext.com/case/andreiu-v-ashcroft#p482 253 F.3d 477], 482 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (the court clarified "that § 1252(f)(2)'s standard for granting injunctive relief in removal proceedings trumps any contrary provision elsewhere in the law."). 13. ^See generally Khalid v. Sessions, ___ F.3d ___, ___, No. 16‐3480, p.6 (2d Cir. Sept. 13, 2018); Ricketts v. Att'y Gen., [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20180730056 897 F.3d 491] (3d Cir. 2018); {{uscsub|8|1252|b|5}} ("Treatment of nationality claims"); see also {{uscsub|8|1101|a|13|C|v}} (eff. April 1, 1997) (stating that an LPR, especially a wrongfully-deported LPR, is permitted to reenter the United States by any means whatsoever, including with a grant of "relief under section [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182#h 1182(h)] or [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1229b#a 1229b(a)] of this title....") (emphasis added); accord United States v. Aguilera-Rios, [https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-aguilera-rios-2#p629 769 F.3d 626], 628-29 (9th Cir. 2014) ("[Petitioner] was convicted of a California firearms offense, removed from the United States on the basis of that conviction, and, when he returned to the country, tried and convicted of illegal reentry under {{USC|8|1326}}. He contends that his prior removal order was invalid because his conviction ... was not a categorical match for the Immigration and Nationality Act's ('INA') firearms offense. We agree that he was not originally removable as charged, and so could not be convicted of illegal reentry."); see also Matter of Campos-Torres, [https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2014/07/25/3428.pdf 22 I&N Dec. 1289] (BIA 2000) (en banc) (A firearms offense that renders an alien removable under section 237(a)(2)(C) of the Act, {{uscsub|8|1227|a|2|C}} (Supp. II 1996), is not one 'referred to in section 212(a)(2)' and thus does not stop the further accrual of continuous residence or continuous physical presence for purposes of establishing eligibility for cancellation of removal."); Vartelas v. Holder, [https://casetext.com/case/vartelas-v-holder-10#p262 566 U.S. 257], 262 (2012). 14. ^1 2 {{uscsub|8|1101|a|43}} ("The term [aggravated felony] applies to an offense described in this paragraph whether in violation of Federal or State law and applies to such an offense in violation of the law of a foreign country for which the term of imprisonment was completed within the previous 15 years.") (emphasis added); Matter of Vasquez-Muniz, [https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2014/07/25/3461.pdf 23 I&N Dec. 207], 211 (BIA 2002) (en banc) ("This penultimate sentence, governing the enumeration of crimes in section 101(a)(43) of the Act, refers the reader to all of the crimes 'described in' the aggravated felony provision."); Luna Torres v. Lynch, 578 U.S. ___, [https://www.leagle.com/decision/insco20160519f95 136 S.Ct. 1623], 1627 (2016) ("The whole point of § 1101(a)(43)'s penultimate sentence is to make clear that a listed offense should lead to swift removal, no matter whether it violates federal, state, or foreign law."); see also {{uscfr|8|1001.1}}(t) ("The term aggravated felony means a crime (or a conspiracy or attempt to commit a crime) described in section 101(a)(43) of the Act. This definition is applicable to any proceeding, application, custody determination, or adjudication pending on or after September 30, 1996, but shall apply under section 276(b) of the Act only to violations of section 276(a) of the Act occurring on or after that date.") (emphasis added). 15. ^1 2 Matter of H-N-, [https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2014/07/25/3414.pdf 22 I&N Dec. 1039], 1040-45 (BIA 1999) (en banc) (case of a female Cambodian-American who was convicted of a particularly serious crime but "the Immigration Judge found [her] eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility, as well as for adjustment of status, and he granted her this relief from removal."); Matter of Jean, [https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2014/07/25/3472.pdf 23 I&N Dec. 373], 381 (A.G. 2002) ("Aliens, like the respondent, who have been admitted (or conditionally admitted) into the United States as refugees can seek an adjustment of status only under INA § 209."); INA § 209(c), {{uscsub|8|1159|c}} ("The provisions of paragraphs (4), (5), and (7)(A) of section 1182(a) of this title shall not be applicable to any alien seeking adjustment of status under [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1159 this section], and the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General may waive any other provision of [section 1182] ... with respect to such an alien for humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity, or when it is otherwise in the public interest.") (emphasis added); Nguyen v. Chertoff, [https://casetext.com/case/nguyen-v-chertoff#p110 501 F.3d 107], 109-10 (2d Cir. 2007) (petition granted of a Vietnamese-American convicted of a particularly serious crime); City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985) ("The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment commands that ... all persons similarly situated should be treated alike."). 16. ^1 2 Matter of J-H-J-, [https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/pages/attachments/2015/05/12/3836_0.pdf 26 I&N Dec. 563] (BIA 2015) (collecting court cases) ("An alien who adjusted status in the United States, and who has not entered as a lawful permanent resident, is not barred from establishing eligibility for a waiver of inadmissibility under section 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, {{uscsub|8|1182|h}} (2012), as a result of an aggravated felony conviction.") (emphasis added); see also De Leon v. Lynch, [https://casetext.com/case/cristian-eduardo-obregon-de-leon-v-lynch#p1232 808 F.3d 1224], 1232 (10th Cir. 2015) ("[Petitioner] next claims that even if he is removable, he should nevertheless have been afforded the opportunity to apply for a waiver under {{uscsub|8|1182|h}}. Under controlling precedent from our court and the BIA's recent decision in Matter of J–H–J–, he is correct.") (emphasis added). 17. ^See generally, Matter of Campos-Torres, [https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2014/07/25/3428.pdf 22 I&N Dec. 1289] (BIA 2000) (en banc) ("Pursuant to section 240A(d)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, {{uscsub|8|1229b|d|1}} (Supp. II 1996), an offense must be one 'referred to in section 212(a)(2)' of the Act, {{uscsub|8|1182|a|2}} (1994 & Supp. II 1996), to terminate the period of continuous residence or continuous physical presence required for cancellation of removal."); Nguyen v. Sessions, __ F.3d ___ No. 17-70251 (9th Cir. Aug. 23, 2018); Lopez v. Sessions, ___ F.3d ___, ___-___, No. 15-72747, p.13 (9th Cir. Aug. 22, 2018) ("As discussed above, the structure and text of the statute indicate that the fact of conviction (not the underlying conduct) is the relevant transaction for purposes of the retroactivity analysis."); Esquivel v. Lynch, [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20151002176 803 F.3d 699], 701 (5th Cir. 2015); Calix v. Lynch, [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20150428144 784 F.3d 1000], 1011-12 (5th Cir. 2015); Jaghoori v. Holder, [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20141118092 772 F.3d 764] (4th Cir. 2014); Jeudy v. Holder, [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20141118092 768 F.3d 595] (7th Cir. 2014); Sinotes-Cruz v. Gonzales, [https://www.leagle.com/decision/20061658468f3d119011650 468 F.3d 1190] (9th Cir. 2006). 18. ^1 2 3 {{cite web |url=https://www.justice.gov/eoir/board-of-immigration-appeals |title=Board of Immigration Appeals |quote=BIA decisions are binding on all DHS officers and immigration judges unless modified or overruled by the Attorney General or a federal court. |publisher=U.S. Dept. of Justice |date=March 16, 2018 |accessdate=2018-12-05}} See also {{uscfr|8|1003.1}}(g) ("Decisions as precedents.") (eff. 2018); Citizens United v. FEC, [https://casetext.com/case/citizens-united-v-federal-election-comn#p362 558 U.S. 310], 362 (2010) ("Our precedent is to be respected unless the most convincing of reasons demonstrates that adherence to it puts us on a course that is sure error."); Al-Sharif v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, [https://casetext.com/case/al-sharif-v-us-citizenship-immigration-servs-2#p212 734 F.3d 207], 212 (3d Cir. 2013) (en banc) (same); Miller v. Gammie, [https://casetext.com/case/miller-v-gammie-3#p899 335 F.3d 889], 899 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (same). 19. ^Matter of Abdelghany, [https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2014/07/25/3796.pdf 26 I&N Dec. 254] (BIA 2014) 20. ^1 Zivkovic v. Holder, [https://casetext.com/case/zivkovic-v-holder#p911 724 F.3d 894], 911 (7th Cir. 2013) ("Because [Petitioner]'s aggravated felony convictions were more than a decade old before the 1988 statute took effect, they cannot be used as a ground for removal...."); Ledezma-Galicia v. Holder, [https://casetext.com/case/ledezma-galicia-v-holder-2#p1080 636 F.3d 1059], 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) ("[Petitioner] is not removable by reason of being an aggravated felon, because 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) does not apply to convictions, like [Petitioner]'s, that occurred prior to November 18, 1988."); but see Canto v. Holder, [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20100128189 593 F.3d 638], 640-42 (7th Cir. 2010) (good example of absurdity and violation of the U.S. Constitution). 21. ^NLRB v. SW General, Inc., 580 U.S. ___, ___, [https://casetext.com/case/natl-labor-relations-bd-v-sw-gen-inc#p939 137 S.Ct. 929], 939 (2017); see also In re JMC Telecom LLC, [https://www.leagle.com/decision/20091154416aibr73811120 416 B.R. 738], 743 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (explaining that "the phrase 'notwithstanding any other provision of law' expresses the legislative intent to override all contrary statutory and decisional law.") (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted) (emphasis added); In re Partida, [https://casetext.com/case/partida-v-us-dept-of-justice-in-re-partida-1#p912 862 F.3d 909], 912 (9th Cir. 2017) ("That is the function and purpose of the 'notwithstanding' clause."); Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell, [https://casetext.com/case/drakes-bay-oyster-co-v-jewell#p1083 747 F.3d 1073], 1083 (9th Cir. 2014) ("As a general matter, 'notwithstanding' clauses nullify conflicting provisions of law."); Jones v. United States, [https://casetext.com/case/jones-v-us-394#p5 No. 08-645C], p.4-5 (Fed. Cl. Sep. 14, 2009); Kucana v. Holder, [https://casetext.com/case/kucana-v-holder-7#N196680 558 U.S. 233], 238-39 n.1 (2010); Cisneros v. Alpine Ridge Group, [https://casetext.com/case/cisneros-v-alpine-ridge-group#p18 508 U.S. 10], 18 (1993) (collecting court cases). 22. ^{{cite journal|url=http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/geolr36&div=27&id=&page=|last=Carter|first=Michelle Leigh|title=Giving Taxpatriates the Boot, Permanently: The Reed Amendment Unconstitutionally Infringes on the Fundamental Right to Expatriate|work=Georgia Law Review|volume=36|issue=835|year=2002|accessdate=2012-05-18}} 23. ^http://www.ice.gov/doclib/pi/news/factsheets/060816dc287gfactsheet.pdf {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060925232202/http://www.ice.gov/doclib/pi/news/factsheets/060816dc287gfactsheet.pdf |date=September 25, 2006 }} 24. ^{{cite news |first=Katie |last=Zezima |title=Massachusetts Set for Its Officers to Enforce Immigration Law |work=New York Times |date=December 13, 2006 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/us/13romney.html?ex=1187582400&en=26f4c2bb4c5c983c&ei=5070}} 25. ^{{Cite book |url=https://www.luminafoundation.org/files/resources/removing-barriers-for-undocumented-students.pdf|title=Removing Barriers to Higher Education for Undocumented Students|last=Pérez|first=Zenen Jaimes|publisher=Center for American Progress|year=2014|isbn=|location=|pages=|via=}} 26. ^Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Public Law 104-208, 104th Cong. 1st sess. (September 30, 1996). 27. ^{{Cite journal|last=Wang|first=Julia Shu-Huah|last2=Kaushal|first2=Neeraj|date=April 2018|title=Health and Mental Health Effects of Local Immigration Enforcement|work=NBER Working Paper No. 24487 |doi=10.3386/w24487 }} External links
3 : 1996 in law|United States federal immigration and nationality legislation|Illegal immigration to the United States |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。