Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act has been a controversial part of our immigration law since its inception in 1994. 245(i) allows illegal immigrants who are eligible for immigrant visas but who are illegally in the United States to adjust their status with the INS in the U.S. upon payment of a thousand dollar penalty. In the absence of section 245(i), illegal immigrants must pursue their visa applications abroad. Pursuant to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, those who have been illegally present in the United States for a year would be barred for reentry for 10 years. Supporters of section 245(i) argue that it promotes family unity because, without it, illegal immigrants would be forced to leave the United States and their American families for many years. I believe we must also recognize that by allowing illegal immigrants to adjust their status in the United States, section 245(i) serves as an open invitation to those waiting in the queue for immigrant visas to jump the line and enter the United States illegally. This is not fair to those immigrants who respect the immigration laws of our country and wait patiently in their home countries for visas, sometimes for years. Such line-jumping negates the deterrent power of the bar on readmission for long-term illegal immigrants, which was a key reform of our immigration laws.
Jim Sensenbrenner: “Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act has been a controversial part of our immigration law since its…”
On the recordMay 21, 2001
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Share
More from Jim Sensenbrenner
Sep 30, 2020
I believe U.S. citizens would be best served if antitrust continues to retain its traditional focus on promoting consumer welfare and competition in markets.
Dec 10, 2019
I challenge you, because every one of you that will vote no on this amendment is going to be saying, I think that Joe Biden is a liar.
Feb 13, 2020
I make the point of order that a two-thirds vote is required for passage of this joint resolution because it does have the effect of amending the Constitution. And on the point of order, Madam Speaker, there was an extension that was…





