This paper examines Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), tracing its legislative history from its 1994 enactment through its temporary reinstatement under the LIFE Act and its ultimate expiration in 2001. The paper analyzes the political and public opposition that prevented its renewal — particularly in the post-9/11 climate — and weighs the benefits it offered to undocumented immigrants, businesses, and family unity against the concerns raised by anti-immigration advocacy groups and legislators. It also compares Section 245(i) with the 2009 Reuniting Families Act (H.R. 2709), identifying key differences in scope and purpose, and examines the support and opposition each measure has attracted.
The paper demonstrates effective use of policy comparison as an analytical framework. By systematically contrasting Section 245(i) with the Reuniting Families Act across dimensions such as target population, scope, and legislative intent, the author shows how two measures addressing similar problems can differ fundamentally in approach and impact. This technique is useful in law, political science, and public policy writing.
The paper is organized around a series of focused questions, each treated as a discrete section: the legislative background of Section 245(i), reasons for its expiration, its advantages, its detractors, a comparison with the Reuniting Families Act, and the supporters and opponents of that act. This Q&A-driven structure ensures comprehensive topic coverage and makes the argument easy to follow section by section.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) allows an alien's immigration status to be changed from that of a temporary parolee or non-immigrant to the permanent status of immigrant, provided the alien was paroled or admitted properly upon entering the United States. Section 245(i) of this act was passed by Congress in 1994. Under this section, aliens who were not otherwise eligible for an adjustment of status were permitted to seek a change in immigration status without having to leave the U.S., upon paying a penalty fee (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services).
This law had actually expired much earlier, on January 14, 1998. However, as part of the LIFE Act (Legal Immigration Family Equity Act), INA Section 245(i) was temporarily reinstated by Congress on December 21, 2000, until its expiry four months later on April 30, 2001. As of the time of this writing, the law stands expired, with the exception that only "grandfathered aliens" — those who had filed their immigration visa petitions or labor certifications on or before the closing date — are permitted to adjust their immigration status under Section 245(i) (Adjustment of Status under the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act ("LIFE Act")); (Ewell, 87).
President Bush had made the revival of this law one of his top priorities when he came into power. However, the events of September 11, 2001 made the general public extremely skeptical about illegal immigrants, many of whom came to be perceived as synonymous with terrorists. Most people were opposed to any liberalization of immigration laws and wanted stricter enforcement, especially regarding unlawful entry into the country. The involvement of illegal aliens such as Mahmud Abouhalima and Mohammed Salameh in the 1993 World Trade Center bombings, and the fact that most of the 9/11 hijackers had violated their immigration status by exploiting loopholes in the legal system, effectively scuttled any plans to revive Section 245(i) (Federation for American Immigration Reform); (Farnam, 14).
Moreover, nationwide polls conducted in the aftermath of 9/11 reflected deep-seated opposition to any laxity in dealing with illegal immigrants and a widespread view that the government was not acting responsibly in screening aliens or securing the borders. When Senator Richard Gephardt, the House minority leader, introduced a bill for the re-extension of Section 245(i) in October 2002 before the 107th Congress, there was considerable controversy over the issue, and 245(i) was not reauthorized (Federation for American Immigration Reform); (Farnam, 14); (Jakubowski, U.S. Policy on Mexican Immigration: The Challenges of Legalization).
A fundamental reality one must acknowledge is that America will continue to attract migrants — both legal and illegal — despite all security measures, owing to the employment opportunities and income disparities between the U.S. and various other nations. It is equally true that the United States needs a workforce that is unskilled, skilled, and diverse. Migrants from Mexico, in particular, are of special concern, as a large proportion enter illegally across the border, many risking their lives in the process. Such immigrants are often exploited, and there have been documented cases of death and forced prostitution. Section 245(i) of the INA serves several important purposes in this context. First, it would enable targeted legalization for immigrants who entered the U.S. legally but violated their status by overstaying their visas and are eligible to remain. Second, it would also benefit those who entered the country illegally but otherwise qualify to stay (Jakubowski, U.S. Policy on Mexican Immigration: The Challenges of Legalization).
Section 245(i) would also be a significant benefit for eligible legal immigrants on the verge of becoming permanent residents, allowing them to apply for green cards from within the U.S. rather than having to return to their home countries before applying. Third, it would help legalize thousands of unauthorized workers who receive extremely low wages precisely because of their undocumented status. From a governance perspective, it would help clear the backlog of immigration applicants and facilitate better tracking and surveillance, since more people would be brought into the documentation system. The argument that illegal immigrants are inherently potential terrorists is overly simplistic — naturalized U.S. citizens such as Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh were themselves terrorists — and violent crimes are also committed by native-born American citizens. Section 245(i) is pro-business and fiscally prudent, enabling businesses to retain indispensable employees who contribute to the national economy (Farnam, 17); (Jakubowski, U.S. Policy on Mexican Immigration: The Challenges of Legalization); (Section 245(i): A Matter of Family Unity and Common Sense).
Among opposing senators, West Virginia Democrat Robert C. Byrd's dissenting voice has been the loudest. In his floor statement on March 18, 2002, he described the move to extend 245(i) as "sheer lunacy" and "nonsense" (U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee); (Dinan, A4). Even when Republicans were in power, the anti-immigration wing of their party succeeded in mobilizing enough support to block the extension. This effort was spearheaded by Representatives Dana Rohrabacher (California), Brian Bilbray (California), and Lamar Smith (Texas). It was nevertheless due to pro-immigration advocates in both parties — including Richard Gephardt, David Obey, and Howard Berman (all Democrats), along with Republican Lincoln Diaz-Balart — that 245(i) was temporarily reinstated (Butterfield, AILA on 245(i) Provisions).
The Reuniting Families Act (H.R. 2709) was introduced before the 111th Congress by Representative Michael Honda, Chairman of the Asian Pacific American Caucus, in June 2009. This legislation shares some features with Section 245(i) but differs fundamentally in two respects. First, it primarily emphasizes "legal family-based immigration" and is designed to reunite the families of legal immigrants. Section 245(i), by contrast, places greater emphasis on legalizing illegal immigrants, many of whom entered the country through unauthorized means. Second, the Reuniting Families Act takes into account unclaimed and unused work and family visas that have been delayed by bureaucratic obstacles, and honors World War II Filipino war veterans by exempting their children from numerical caps. Completing the families of legal immigrants is the primary objective of the Reuniting Families Act, whereas family reunification is merely one of the "by-products" of Section 245(i) (Shank, Rep. Michael Honda to Announce Key Component of Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Reuniting Families); (Reuniting Families Act 2009); (Honda, The Reuniting Families Act (H.R. 2709)).
The central thrust of Section 245(i) is to bring more undocumented, unauthorized, and illegal aliens into the mainstream, irrespective of whether they have family members with lawful permanent resident (LPR) status. It also attempts to clear the massive backlogs of immigration and visa petitions. The Reuniting Families Act, by contrast, would clear backlogs only for families seeking reunification, by categorizing the spouses and minor children of LPRs as "immediate relatives" and exempting them from the family immigration numerical cap. The act would also increase the current per-country limit for green card issuance from 7% to 10%, and would permit the widows, widowers, and children of persons who die before the completion of the immigration process to obtain LPR status (Shank); (Reuniting Families Act 2009); (Honda).
The Reuniting Families Act also attempts to eliminate discriminatory clauses in existing immigration rules that prevent permanent same-sex partners from reuniting with their families in the United States. From the perspective of illegal immigrants, Section 245(i) would be more suitable, as it allows them to avoid returning to their home countries before filing a petition — a return that could result in a 3- to 10-year ban on re-entry. Section 245(i) would also clear a larger portion of the immigration backlog than the Reuniting Families Act. However, from the perspective of lawful permanent residents who have complied with all immigration rules and are waiting for family members to join them, the Reuniting Families Act appears the more appropriate remedy (Shank); (Reuniting Families Act 2009); (Honda).
You’re 59% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.