REPEAL SECTION 110 OF THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REFORM
AND IMMIGRANT RESPONSIBILITY ACT

THE ISSUE:  Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRAIRA) requires the INS, no later than March 30, 2001, to introduce an automated entry and exit control system at land borders and sea ports that will “collect a record of departure for every alien departing the United States and match the records of departure with the record of the alien’s arrival in the United States.”  This system will cause unconscionably long delays at land borders, require extraordinarily expensive new development of and investment in technology and infrastructure, and will not significantly impact illegal immigration, drug enforcement, or protection against terrorism.

BACKGROUND:  Who is subject to the requirements of Section 110?  This new entry and exit control system will apply to all non-U.S. citizens who exit at any U.S. point of entry.  Thus, any non-U.S. citizen -- including U.S. permanent residents and short-term visitors, such as Canadians, will have to “check in” with the INS when they enter the U.S. and “check out” with the INS when they leave the U.S.  This system is mandated to be in place at all ports of entry, including land borders and seaports, which currently have no “check out” system in place at all, no later than March 30, 2001.

What is the problem with Section 110?  Section 110, as originally drafted, would have mandated a pilot program at airports to track entry and exit of visitors and to test the feasibility of a broader system of controls.  It was expanded during final congressional negotiations to mandate checks of non-citizens at all ports of entry to enable the INS to “discover” anyone remaining in the U.S. past their authorized period of stay.  However, no consideration was given to the impact that implementation of this system would have on trade, tourism or border communities.  Nonetheless, Congressional proponents have continued to push for immediate implementation.  The problem is that the INS has neither the technology nor the capacity to achieve this goal without drastic and unintended consequences:

·        Section 110 Will Negatively Impact the U.S. Economy:  The INS does not have the resources to implement an entry and exit control system of the scope contemplated by Section 110 without causing extreme delays and back-ups at ports of entry, particularly at land border crossings.  These delays will have a devastating impact on international trade and tourism, the U.S. economy and U.S. citizens.  Section 110 will hurt American communities and American citizens.

·        Section 110 is an Inefficient and Ineffective Enforcement Tool: Curbing the problem of visa overstayers is an important goal, but the development of the Section 110 database would not lead to actual apprehensions and removals of overstayers.  Section 110 provides only for the maintenance of a database to record entries and exits of all non-U.S. citizens.  The provision does not direct the INS as to what action if any should be taken based on this data collection.  Furthermore, it is not clear that the maintenance of such a database, if it could be created, would assist the INS in apprehending and removing those individuals recorded as overstayers.  Merely tracking down such persons within the United States would require an inordinate amount of resources.  At an estimated price of more than $2 billion for infrastructure costs alone, Section 110 is not only an ineffective enforcement tool, but an outrageously expensive one as well.

·        U.S. Citizens Will be Caught in the Net of Section 110: Although Section 110 requires only non-citizens to check in and out with the INS, it is unclear how the INS could create a system which would exempt U.S. citizens from its scope.  In order to ensure the integrity and reliability of an entry and exit control system, it is likely that U.S. citizens would be subjected to additional scrutiny by the INS when leaving or returning to the country.

RECENT ACTIONS:  In 1998, Congress delayed the required implementation date of Section 110 at land borders and seaports by 30 months, to March 30, 2001, and amended the provision to require that the system should not “significantly disrupt trade, tourism, or other legitimate cross-border traffic at land border points of entry.”  However, Congress did not require any sort of feasibility study or cost and impact assessment before implementation, and did not appropriate any additional funds for development of such a system.  In spring 1999, bi-partisan bills were introduced in the House and Senate (H.R.1650 and S.745) to remove the mandatory implementation deadline for land borders and seaports and mandate a one-year feasibility study.  Both bills also include additional funding for the INS, Customs and Border Patrol, to address current border congestion and improve deterrence of illegal immigration, drug smuggling and terrorists.  A repeal of Section 110 was also included in the Senate versions of the Commerce, State, Justice Appropriations and State Department authorization bills.

AILA’S POSITION:  Section 110 is bad for our economy, a burden to U.S. citizens, and an ineffective enforcement tool.  AILA fully supports H.R. 1650 and S.745 and the Senate-passed repeals.

34SE8001-Last Updated October 13, 1999