Thread: Senate Judiciary Committee Rejects Biometric Exit/Entry Amendment

Senate Judiciary Committee Rejects Biometric Exit/Entry Amendment

MAY 14, 2013 BY STEVE YOUNG

This morning during the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee mark-up of the Gang of Eight immigration bill, the Committee rejected Sen. Jeff Sessions’ (R-Alabama) amendment to require the use of a biometric entry and exit system at all ports of entry as already required by current law and repeatedly called for by terrorism experts. Below are the details as provided by Sen. Sessions’ office:

Background:
Sessions’ amendment would require the use of a biometric entry and exit system at all ports of entry before the adjustment to LPR status (after RPI status has already been granted).

After 17 years and multiple acts of Congress requiring biometric exit, it still has not been implemented despite the strong urging of the 9/11 commission as being needed for our nation’s security. Instead, S. 744 undermines this congressional requirement and does not call for a biometric system but a much-weaker and fraud-prone biographic system and, further, exempts land ports of entry.

We already know that anything less than what is in current law will not be effective. GAO has stated that a biographic exit system, like the one set forth in S. 744, will only hinder efforts to reliably identify overstays, and that without a biometric exit system, “DHS cannot ensure the integrity of the immigration system by identifying and removing those people who have overstayed their original period of admission—a stated goal of US-VISIT.”

This is a serious problem because, as the Government Accountability Office reported, about 40 percent of the illegal population in this country is composed of those who have overstayed their visas. Most of the 9/11 hijackers entered on nonimmigrant visas and several overstayed their period of admission undetected by law enforcement. Since then, at least 36 individuals who overstayed their visas have been convicted of terrorism-related charges, including Amine el-Khalifi, who attempted to bomb the U.S. Capitol last year.

Additional Detail:

Seventeen years ago in 1996, Congress first adopted a requirement for an entry-exit system because we knew that our government couldn’t accurately track who was entering and leaving the United States. (Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act)

In 2000, Congress passed another law requiring the entry-exit system to be implemented at all air, sea,and land ports of entry. (Immigration and Naturalization Service Data Management Improvement Act of 2000)

Again in 2000, when amending the Visa Waiver Program, Congress required a “fully automated entry and exit control system” to record entry and departure information for all aliens participating in the program. Congress also required the passports be machine-readable. (Visa Waiver Permanent Program Act)

After 9/11, Congress once again demanded the implementation of an entry-exit system through passage of the PATRIOT Act. The intent of Congress was crystal-clear:

“In light of the terrorist attacks perpetrated against the United States on September 11, 2001, it is the sense of the Congress that the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State, should fully implement the integrated entry and exit data system for airports, seaports, and land border ports of entry… with all deliberate speed and as expeditiously as practicable.”

Importantly, as part of the PATRIOT Act, Congress demanded that the entry-exit system be biometric.
According to DHS’s own website: “Unlike names and dates of birth, which can be changed, biometrics are unique and virtually impossible to forge. Collecting biometrics helps the U.S. government prevent people from using fraudulent documents to enter the country illegally. Collecting biometrics also helps protect your identity in the event your travel documents are lost or stolen.”

In 2002, Congress reiterated its demand for a biometric entry-exit system at all ports of entry of the United States, requiring that DHS issue aliens “only machine-readable, tamper-resistant visas and other travel and entry documents that use biometric identifiers.” It also required that the government install biometric readers and scanners “at all ports of entry in the United States.” (Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act)

In 2002, DHS initiated the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology Program, or US-VISIT, to develop this system. Two years later, US-VISIT was collecting biometric data on aliens entering the U.S.
In 2004, Congress again demanded a biometric entry exit system through the passage of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004:

“Congress finds that completing a biometric entry and exit data system as expeditiously as possible is an essential investment in efforts to protect the United States by preventing the entry of terrorists.”

“The Secretary of Homeland Security shall develop a plan to accelerate the full implementation of an automated biometric entry and exit data system.”

Currently, an entry capability is operating at approximately 300 (115 airports, 14 seaports, and 154 of 170 land ports) U.S ports of entry. However, a corollary exit program has never gotten beyond the pilot stage, despite widespread congressional support. Because of that, it is impossible to know exactly how many aliens have overstayed their period of admission.

After years of assurances that DHS was working toward implementing this system, it appears that they have quietly terminating the last pilot program – and there are several over the years – in 2011. The President’s FY2013 budget proposal does not specifically request money for biometric exit, and cuts $73 million for border security fencing, infrastructure, and technologies, and $6.7 million for technology modernization. DHS is now implementing a biographic exit system instead, which GAO has said is insufficient.http://immigrationreform.com/2013/05...try-amendment/

Senators argue over immigration bill ID mandates

By ERICA WERNER
Associated Press / May 14, 2013

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senators weighing a landmark immigration bill defeated an effort by Republicans Tuesday to require biometric identification — such as fingerprinting — to track who is entering and leaving the country.


The amendment by Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., would have required a biometric system to be in place before any immigrant here illegally could obtain permanent residency or citizenship.


‘‘This is a big, big hole in the system and it’s gone on for years and years,’’ Sessions said as the Senate Judiciary Committee opened its second day of meetings to plow through hundreds of amendments to legislation remaking the U.S. immigration system, a top priority for President Barack Obama.


‘‘This is one of the reasons the American people have so little confidence in any of the promises we make,’’ Sessions said.


An author of the bill, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, agreed with Sessions that biometric IDs are the most secure. But he said authors of the bill determined they were too costly to implement anytime soon. Indeed current law already requires such a system to be in place, but the Department of Homeland Security has been unable to implement it.


Instead the bill seeks electronic scanning of photo IDs.


‘‘Current law is a concept, and there is apparently not a whole lot of will by Republicans or Democrats to make the concept a reality,’’ Graham said. ‘‘What we've done is taken the current system and make it better.’’


Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said a biometric system would cost $25 billion. He and other Democrats said Sessions’ amendment would simply throw up barriers to a path to citizenship for the 11 million immigrants already in the country illegally.


The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 12 to 6 to defeat Sessions’ amendment. Graham and Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., joined with the Democrats on the committee in voting it down.


Graham, Flake, Schumer and Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., are four of the eight authors of the immigration bill. Since they sit on the Judiciary Committee together they have resolved to vote together against amendments that could strike at the core provisions of the legislation and threaten the fragile alliances behind it.


An author of the bill who’s not on the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said through a spokesman that he was disappointed in the outcome of the amendment and planned to push as the bill moves forward to add biometric screening into the legislation. Rubio is working to sell the bill to fellow conservatives, and is hearing complaints that it is too soft on border security. He’s said those aspects of the bill need to improve or it is unlikely to pass Congress.


The committee also voted 17-1 to defeat an amendment by Sessions to greatly curb new legal immigration programs under the bill, which creates a new visa for lower-skilled workers and also allows many more high-tech workers into the country. An amendment by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, to require additional information on job openings to be posted on the Labor Department website before an employer can hire a foreign worker on a high-tech visa passed by voice vote.end of story marker

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...SLM/story.html