In many respects the 1996 amendments to the immigration act are draconian, and go so much further than necessary to accomplish stated congressional objectives. One of the most troubling aspects is the drastic cutback on due process protections by elimination of judicial review in many areas. In addition, I think that the amendments to the asylum and restriction on removal statutes are unwise and inconsistent with Refugee Convention norms. Persons who face persecution and would otherwise be eligible for protection can be barred for what may amount to minor criminal convictions. More than one member of Congress, including immigration committee chair Spencer Abraham, has commented that they didn't intend some of the harsh impacts of various aspects of the 1996 amendments.
Immigration laws matter, even if the effects are often unintended.
It's too soon to know all of the effects, but I'm convinced that Congress overreached and put in place a lot of very bad precedent. I'm also troubled that Congress enacted several backdoor measures to change legal immigration rather than make some of the harder choices on priorities for admission. Under domestic law, refugees already in the U.S. may not be deported, if their lives or freedom would be threatened, except if they have committed such a crime. Upon appeal, the 9th circuit found errors in the BIA's interpretation of the applicable statute and remanded. The INS appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.