Clearly, its harshness has created lots of horror cases and injustices, and the INS should again have the discretion to deal sensibly with those cases. We do not yet know enough about how the summary exclusion provisions are affecting asylum claims. It is a disservice to the vast majority of aliens and citizens who, although perhaps just as disadvantaged as these offenders, struggle to stay out of trouble. Post-1996 criminal aliens should be subject to swift removal, although the INS should have discretion to deal with the truly exceptional cases. The judicial review restrictions, however, are too harsh and probably unconstitutional if strictly applied.
Immigration laws matter, even if the effects are often unintended.
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.