House GOP Immigration Bill Would Expand Federal Power Over Citizens

A Republican immigration bill facing a House vote will expand the federal government’s power over individuals seeking jobs, employers hiring workers and Americans who want to protect victims of war and persecution. The “Secure the Border Act of 2023” would prohibit means of reducing illegal entry that have proven effective, such as parole programs for certain Latin American countries, and double down on enforcement-only policies. The National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) recently examined 100 years of Border Patrol apprehensions data and found “periods of reduced illegal entry occurred not because of enforcement but due to economic and demographic changes and the U.S. government opening legal pathways.”

Mandating Employers And Potential Employees To Gain Permission To Work Via A Government System

The House bill (Section 801) mandates nearly all Americans who change or start a job would need to gain permission to work through the federal government E-Verify system or a potential follow-on employment verification system. The government would require individuals to submit personal information that would be checked through a government database.

While a number of companies use E-Verify, the bill would mandate all employers with 10,000 or more employees to start using it within six months, and employers with at least one worker are required to do so within 24 months. Politico reported lawmakers reached a deal not to apply the mandate to farmworkers, although new bill text showing such a change has yet to be published.

The bill’s language may not inspire confidence in how well the system will work. The legislation states the system should have “appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to prevent unauthorized disclosure of personal information” and “to have reasonable safeguards against the system’s resulting in unlawful discriminatory practices.”

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) tweeted, “Republicans are about to make a huge mistake. Biden forced millions of Americans to take VACCINES by threatening their JOBS, and turning EMPLOYERS into enforcers. Imagine giving Biden the ultimate on/off switch for EMPLOYMENT. . . . Not a single illegal immigrant will get deported due to E-Verify. Meanwhile, the federal government will accumulate more power over every legal citizen.”

Analysts have not found much evidence the current E-Verify system prevents unauthorized hiring. “Supporters of national E-Verify argue that the system can be fixed,” writes Fiona Harrigan in Reason. “But making E-Verify work flawlessly and ensuring total compliance from employers would require far more government funding, far more punitive enforcement, and potentially invasive biometric proof of identity—all of which would come back to bite American citizens.”

Preventing Americans From Helping Victims Of War And Persecution

The House bill (Title VII) would severely limit an administration’s ability to use parole to allow into the United States individuals in need of humanitarian protection. The language in the House bill prohibits the Secretary of Homeland Security from using “eligibility criteria describing an entire class of potential parole recipients.”

Under Uniting for Ukraine, Americans have sponsored more than 200,000 Ukrainians who have fled Russia’s invasion, primarily Ukrainian women and children. The Biden administration also paroled thousands of Afghans into the United States after the fall of Kabul. The new restrictions in the House bill would prevent a repeat of such efforts, even though hundreds of thousands of Americans are eager to help people in unfortunate circumstances.

A House source confirmed the bill would cut off future parole programs for war victims. Current parolees would be forced to leave the United States after their parole expires. They would only be allowed to renew once for a year (Section 701). Ukrainians (and other parolees) could only stay if they were approved for a different immigration status. It would be challenging for many Ukrainians to obtain asylum under current law, and the House bill makes it more difficult for anyone to be approved for asylum.

Ending Effective Means of Reducing Illegal Entry

Parole programs for Cuba, Venezuela, Haiti and Nicaragua were the primary target of House Republicans in restricting the use of parole. However, Border Patrol data show these parole programs have been effective in reducing illegal entry. “In January 2023, as a way to provide legal pathways, the Biden administration announced parole programs for up to 30,000 individuals a month from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to enter the United States with a U.S. sponsor,” noted a recent NFAP report. “The parole programs produced dramatic results and almost unprecedented effectiveness in reducing illegal entry as measured by encounters with Border Patrol agents.

“The number of Border Patrol encounters at the Southwest border declined by 95% for Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela as a group between December 2022 and March 2023. Border Patrol encounters for all other countries not in the parole programs increased by 15% during this period. The parole policies represented a humane alternative to forcing individuals to seek protection by entering through dangerous routes between ports of entry because legal access to the United States is blocked.”

The bill (Section 122) would also end using the CBP One app for asylum applicants to schedule an appointment at a port of entry. The alternative to applying for asylum at a port of entry is for individuals to cross the border and present themselves. Banning the use of the app, as the bill does, would almost certainly increase unlawful entry, as would ending the parole programs.

Ending Asylum

Many Americans care about the country’s historic role as a haven from persecution. The House bill attempts to end that role.

The bill (Division B, Title 1) largely adopts the language of a controversial bill authored by Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX). (See here.) One change is that the DHS secretary is no longer required (but retains the option) to close all ports of entry to asylum seekers when it is not possible to detain, deport or return to Mexico every person who attempts to apply for asylum, according to a House source.

The House legislation, similar to the Roy bill, contains “detention, return, [and] removal requirements” for asylum seekers that, if necessary, could be enforced by lawsuits from state attorneys general.

The House bill narrows the grounds of eligibility for asylum in several ways, including by giving the benefit of the doubt to persecuting foreign governments by making individuals ineligible for asylum if “rogue foreign government officials [were] acting outside the scope of their official capacity.” That provision and others are designed to make it less likely individuals could be approved for asylum in the United States.

Analysts note shutting off a legal way to seek human rights protection is against U.S. international obligations. It would likely encourage people to undertake more dangerous means of seeking freedom and opportunity.

Seizing Private Land To Build A Government Wall

Because the House bill (Section 102) requires building a border wall, the legislation will empower the federal government to use eminent domain and seize private landowners’ property along the Southwest border. The bill states, “Not later than seven days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall resume all activities related to the construction of the border wall along the border between the United States and Mexico that were underway or being planned for prior to January 20, 2021.”

During the Trump administration, many landowners fought efforts to lose their land to a federal government border wall. “Mr. Trump . . . has suggested during meetings to “take the land” of private landowners,” according to the New York Times. “The law is on the administration’s side. Eminent domain lawyers and scholars said in interviews that landowners along the border have limited options once they receive a request from the government.” One landowner said, “You’re disposable Americans if you happen to be on the south side of the wall.”

Border Patrol data show the Trump administration’s enforcement policies did not reduce illegal entry. (See here.) Southwest border apprehensions rose over 100% between FY 2016 and FY 2019 (from 408,870 to 851,508). After the initial shock of Covid-19 wore off, encounters on the Southwest border increased by over 300% between April and October 2020. (The Border Patrol reported encounters rather than apprehensions starting in March 2020 because of the Title 42 health authority.)

The House bill is not expected to pass the Senate, and President Biden has threatened to veto the legislation if it does. However, the bill is likely an important marker of where at least one political party stands on addressing illegal immigration, the federal government’s proper role and the use of government power.