New federal immigration requirements, set to take effect in less than two years, would create waiting lines up to seven miles long at America’s borders, demand more processing time than there are minutes in the day, and dramatically reduce retail trade, particularly along the Canadian border.  Since the economies of the United States, Canada and Mexico are inextricably connected, the enormous shipping and traffic delays caused by this system could result in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs in Michigan, Texas, California, and other states along our
northern and southern borders.  Also, many manufacturing jobs -- jobs that rely on timely shipments --&nbssp; in other parts of America and jobs in the tourism industry would be lost.

 Section 110 of the 1996 immigration law, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA), compels the Immigration and Naturalization Service to introduce an entry and exit control system “for every alien departing the United States, and match the records of departure with the record of the alien’s arrival in the United States.”  The INS is required to implement such a system at land borders and sea ports, which is a departure from current law.

 This new requirement, made with little forethought, will not prevent illegal immigration, but will be expensive to implement and cause inordinate delays at border crossings for both persons and transport.  Additionally, the new law will not affect drug enforcement or terrorism prevention, and shows a willful disregard for America’s diplomatic agreements with our neighbors. 

 A broad coalition of organizations are seeking the repeal of Section 110, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Travel Industry of America, the Border Trade Alliance, and over 200 companies and associations as part of the Americans for Better Borders Coalition.
 
 

Background

The 1996 omnibus immigration bill that included Section 110 was a vast piece of legislation affecting many aspects of our complex immigration law, from asylum to alien smuggling to welfare reform.  Because of this, it is not surprising that parts of this legislation had some unintended consequences, several provisions of which have already been modified by the 105th Congress.

Section 110, while a small part of that legislation, will have dire consequences for trade between the US, Canada and Mexico, as well as for the states on our northern and southern borders.  This provision provides that, by September 30, 1998, the Attorney General must develop an automated entry and exit control system that will enable the INS to track the arrival and departure of “every alien” entering and leaving the U.S.  In 1998, a provision repealing the requirement for such a system passed the Senate in two different forms, but, due to opposition from the House immigration chairman, a 30-month delay, rather than an outright repeal, is what became law.  This amended version of the original law only served to move the implementation date to March 2001.

On the surface, such a requirement might not appear onerous.  However, because Section 110 specifically states that such a system would apply to “every alien,” the Attorney General must develop these entry and exit controls to apply not only at airports, but at all ports of entry into the United States, including land borders and seaports.  Currently, a paper-based entry and exit control system is in place and used mainly at airports.

This problematic section of the 1996 law, as originally drafted, called for a pilot program at airports to track visitors and to test the viability of expanding such a system in the future.  The mandated checks on “every alien” entering and leaving the U.S. at all ports of entry was not debated in the House or the Senate.  Instead, they were added just before finalization of the bill by conferees with
little thought as to the impact such a system would have on trade, border communities and tourism. As Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) subsequently stated, “I think that we all have come to realize that Section 110 of the 1996 Act [was] inserted into the conference with little or no record, [and] no consideration or debate.  It was well intended, there is no question, but I think poorly constructed.”
 

Border crossing delays

Only after the enactment of IIRAIRA did the full impact of Section 110 become apparent.  The INS, which has enough difficulty implementing the system currently in place, cannot implement an entry-exit system of this scope without causing extreme delays.  The problem is not lack of INS resources and manpower, but rather that each person crossing the border will have to be stopped and interviewed.

According to some experts, even with the best and most efficient system possible in place at land border crossings, delays would be such that the borders between the US, Mexico and Canada would in  effect, be shut down.  In Senate testimony, Dan Stamper, president of the Detroit International Bridge Company, attested that the Ambassador Bridge handles approximately 30,000
vehicle crossings per day between the U.S. and Canada.  Mr. Stamper testified that “assum(ing) the most efficient and remarkable entry and exit procedures in the world (that) will take only 30 seconds” per vehicle, and making another optimistic assumption that only half of those vehicles would have to go through the procedures, that would amount to “3,750 minutes of additional processing time each day.”  As there are only 1,440 minutes in a day, the implementation of Section 110 would mean that an already crowded border would effectively be closed.

The U.S.- Mexican border handles an even greater volume of traffic. Approximately 254 million people, 75 million cars and 3.5 million trucks cross the southern border at land points of entry each year. 

In further congressional testimony, an analysis of the projected impact a mere pilot program of entry-exit controls would have on the Thousand Island Bridge between New York and Ontario showed that delays could be as much as two and a half days.  The line of waiting vehicles would be more than 7 miles long. 

States with border communities that rely on cross-border trade and tourism would also be adversely affected.  Among the states, Michigan is Canada’s largest trading partner and is the fourth leading destination of Canadian tourists, behind New York, Washington, and Florida.  Approximately 2.75 million Canadians visit New York State for at least one night, spending over $400 million.  If border inconveniences arise, those Canadians may well choose to spend their dollars elsewhere.  Trade will be adversely affected at the already congested U.S.- Mexico border.  Our trade with Mexico exceeded $130 billion in 1996, the majority of which crossed the land border. 
 

Diplomatic relations

The State Department has expressed concern that the implementation of Section 110 at land borders will harm our diplomatic relations with Canada and Mexico.  It has been the longstanding policy of the United States not to require any special documentation for Canadians entering the country. Letters from the ambassadors of both nations indicated their concern at the negative impact such
entry-exit controls would have on the goodwill that exists among the U.S., Mexico and Canada, and on the large volume of cross-border trade.
 

Illegal Immigration and Terrorism

Section 110 would have a minimal impact on controlling illegal immigration and visa overstayers. While the collection of data on when aliens enter and exit the country can be useful when analyzing, for example, from which countries visa overstayers are likely to come, the benefits of such data in tracking down particular individuals who have overstayed their allotted time in the U.S. is
questionable and uncertain.

Since 1992, the INS has been unable to produce useable data from the paper-based entry-exit control system currently in place at airport.  With such a track record, it is doubtful that the INS would keep consistent departure records, that the entry of names was accurate, or that the system was matching
names correctly.  Such a system is likely to be fraught with errors and be unreliable.

The argument has been made by proponents of Section 110 that it will aid in the fight against terrorism.  However, given the likelihood of INS data entry errors, such an entry-exit control system would be sieve-like in its effectiveness.  Also, the instance of fraud with this system would be high, as an individual intending to stay in the United States could easily have someone else fill out the overstayer’s information on his exit card.  The same scenario is possible with electronic
identification.  Additionally, even if there was a list of names and passport numbers of individual visa overstayers, there would be no useful information as to where individuals could be located. Terrorists seeking to avoid entry into the proposed entry-exit system would merely have to leave before their lawful period of entry, typically six months, has expired.  Such a system will, at best,
provide information only on those who have overstayed their visas, with no assistance in identifying terrorists, drug traffickers or other aliens who might be engaged in unlawful activities.  If anything, the new required system is likely to undermine efforts to halt drug smuggling and terrorism, because if implemented, it would divert potentially billions of dollars for law enforcement efforts aimed at
directly dealing with those concerns.  This is one of the major reasons that the Senate Appropriations Committee approved repealing Section 110 both last year and this year. 
 

Conclusion

There is a significant problem with visa overstayers in the United States.  However, the entry-exit system mandated by Section 110 will not solve this problem.  Instead, it will significantly impede cross-border trade and tourism; cause grave economic harm to communities on both sides of the borders; engender ill-will with our neighbors; and has the potential for significant job destruction in trade-related and tourist-related industries.  There is no evidence that this system will have any effectiveness on stopping terrorism, drug trafficking, or halting the increasing problem of illegal immigration and visa overstayers.

Before superimposing a behemoth entry-exit system on the paper system already in place, it should be ensured that the current system is working without incident.  Additionally, the costs and feasibility of implementing a new system should be assessed before being mandated.  Also, evaluations of the effects Section 110 will have on border traffic congestion and border crossing
delays should have taken place before such a requirement was signed into law.  Finally, the Attorney General’s office should be held accountable to report to Congress on the effectiveness of the entry-exit control system at airports before including land border crossings and seaports.

The Senate Judiciary Committee concluded, “The Committee is keenly aware that implementing an automated entry-exit control system has absolutely nothing to do with countering drug trafficking, with halting the entry of terrorists into the United States, or with any other illegal activity at or near the borders.” 

Both the House and Senate have introduced legislation this congressional session to correct Section 110.  The Senate bill, S. 745 is sponsored by Sen. Spencer Abraham (R-MI), and the House bill, H.R. 1250 is cosponsored by Reps. Fred Upton (R-MI), John LaFalce (D-NY), and Henry Bonilla (R-TX).  Both bills incorporate many of the above suggestions as appropriate steps to take before embarking upon a new and untested border-crossing system.
 

Note: This report does not necessarily reflect the views of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution and its directors nor is it to be understood as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any legislation before Congress.
 

Notes:

1. Report of the Senate Judiciary Committee on S. 1360, 105th Congress.

2.  Testimony from Senate field hearing in Detroit, Michigan; October 14, 1997.

3.  Report of the Senate Judiciary Committee on S. 1360, 105th Congress.

4.  Submitted testimony from the Sear-Brown Group to the Senate Immigration Subcommittee.

5.  Testimony from Richard Czuba at Senate field hearing in Detroit, Michigan; October 14, 1997.

6. Report of the Senate Judiciary Committee on S. 1360, 105th Congress.