The Controversy Surrounding H.R. 4437

download The Controversy Surrounding H.R. 4437

of 13

  • date post

  • Category


  • view

  • download


Embed Size (px)


Presentation summarizing information related to HR 4437.

Transcript of The Controversy Surrounding H.R. 4437

  • 1. The Controversy Surrounding H.R. 4437 By: Ms. Lee MLA Citation: Lee, T. The Controversy Surrounding H.R. 4437. BMS School for Advanced Studies. Los Angeles, CA. 28 Mar. 2006.
  • 2. Reminders
    • This is a House bill, indicated by the "H.R." before its number.
    • A bill is a legislative proposal before Congress.
    • A bill must be passed by both the House and Senate and then be signed by the President before it becomes law.
    The process works the same at State and Federal Levels
  • 3. Background
    • This bill was sponsored by
    • F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.
    • State: Wisconsin, District 5
    • Birthday: Jun 14, 1943 / 62 years old
    • Religion: Episcopalian
    • Party: Republican
    • The bill has 35 co-sponsors
  • 4. Status of this Bill
    • Official Title: To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to strengthen enforcement of the immigration laws, to enhance border security, and for other purposes.
    • Introduced: Dec 6, 2005
    • Last Action:Dec 17, 2005:
    • Received in the Senate.
    • Status: Passed House
    • (92% of Republicans supporting,
    • 82% of Democrats opposing.)
    • Dec 16, 2005: This bill passed
    • in the House of Representatives
    • by roll call vote. The totals were: 239 Ayes, 182 Nays, 13 Present/Not Voting. This bill has been passed in the House. The bill now goes on to be voted on in the Senate.
    Blue=Aye Red=Nay Green=No Vote AKA: The Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005
  • 5. What does this Bill Say?
    • Unlawful presence would now be considered a crime and a felony , meaning that undocumented immigrants may have to serve jail time and would be banned from future legal status and from re-entry into the country.
    • Immigrants, including asylum-seekers, victims of human trafficking, victims of domestic abuse, and children who are apprehended along an international border or at a port-of-entry would be detained until such time as they are removed from the nation or otherwise provided immigration relief.
    • Anyone or any organization who assists an individual without documentation to reside in or remain in the United States knowingly or with reckless disregard as to the individuals legal status would be liable for criminal penalties and five years in prison. This could include church personnel who provide shelter or other basic needs assistance to an undocumented individual. Property used in this act would be subject to seizure and forfeiture.
    • The use of expedited removal, which would permit officers to remove a potential asylum-seeker without providing an opportunity to appear before an immigration judge or qualified adjudicator, would be mandated within 100 miles of the border and within 14 days of a persons entry into the country.
  • 6. What Does this Bill Say? (Continued)
    • The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would be required to erect up to 700 miles of fencing along the Southwest border at points with the highest number of immigrant deaths.
    • State and local law enforcement are authorized to enforce federal immigration laws. State and local governments which refuse to participate would be subject to the loss of federal funding.
    • Asylum seekers and refugees who are convicted of a minor offense, such as petty theft, would be banned from permanent legal residence and eventual citizenship.
    • Document fraud would be considered an aggravated felony and would subject an asylum-seeker to deportation and bars to re-entry.
    • The Department of Homeland Security [DHS] would be given the authority to continue to detain individuals who have served their sentences based upon a determination that they are a dangerous alien, contrary to Supreme Court rulings barring indefinite detention.
    • The diversity visa lottery program, which allows 50,000 immigrants each year from countries around the world to permanently reside in the United States , is eliminated.
  • 7. Multiple Perspectives - Pro
    • Rep. Tom Tancredo, Republican, CO-6
    • We must push forward with securing our border,
    • building a fence and deploying military technology.
    • We must reinvest meaning in citizenship, getting rid
    • of the incentive to birth so-called anchor babies on
    • U.S. soil. We must end illegal alien sanctuary policies
    • which pit officer against officer, and one level of
    • government against another Chairman
    • Sensenbrenners bill is a first step towards gaining
    • control of our border and enforcing the law. But, it is
    • just thata first step. My immigration reform allies in
    • Congress intend to expand and improve his
    • proposal.
    Rep. Duncan Hunter, Republican, CA-52 The San Diego Border Fence continues to serve its primary function with unquestioned success, added Hunter. There is no doubt that its duplication at specific locations along our southern border will be equally successful and bring us one step closer to a border region that is no longer overrun by illegal aliens.
  • 8. Multiple Perspectives - Con
    • Rep. Mike Turner, Republican OH-3
    • Recently, I voted against the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 (H.R. 4437). My concern with the legislation is that it makes all illegal immigrants felons. The extreme punishments in the bill mandate that those who assist illegal aliens are also felons.
    Rep. John Boehner, Republican OH- 8 We need to get serious about border protection. After September 11th, tolerating violations of our immigration policies is no longer an option, said Boehner. But under the guise of securing our borders, this bill gives the federal government authority to sign-off on every hiring decision in the country. Federal bureaucrats will have Americans personal information at the touch of a button. This has Big Brother written all over it.
  • 9. Public Response - Protests
    • Public displays of solidarity in opposition to the legislation have brought attention to the bill.
    • On March 10, 2006, approximately 300,000 protesters poured into Chicago's city streets over the issue.
    • This demonstration was followed by another in Milwaukee on March 24.
  • 10. Public Response (Protests Nationwide)
    • Over the weekend (3/24/06-3/26/06) hundreds of thousands of people in Arizona, Chicago, Ohio, and California protested this legislation.
  • 11. Public Response (Public Protests)
    • The Grand March of 2006 - On March 25 people marched in Los Angeles with a turnout estimated at almost 1 million people; police state it is the largest demonstration the city has ever seen.
  • 12. Public Protests (Student Protests)
    • On 3/24/06 and 3/27/06 thousands of students nationwide walked out to protest this bill.
    • The Grand Walkout of 2006 - In Los Angeles, students held a massive walkouts on 3/27/06. Some 20,000-30,000 students walked out of their schools in protest. This was the largest recorded walkout in District history.
  • 13. What do you Think?
    • You will create a multiple-paragraph opinion statement composition and presentation on H.R. 4437.
    • Remember, support your assertions with evidence or relevant elaborations.
    • As a Quickwrite talk with your partner then list your opinion