I’ve read through most (I think) of the sections of the U.S. Citizenship Act that turn on criminal activity or policing. Here are some thoughts….

In section 1106, the proposal uses a wide array of criminal activity to bars people from the new legalization scheme.

As written, the proposal would not benefit people who have been convicted of a felony (excluding migration-related offenses)

or 3 or more misdemeanors (excluding marijuana possession or any state marijuana crime that is no longer a crime in that state, migration-related offenses, non-violent civil disobedience, and minor traffic offenses).

It would also not benefit people who have been convicted or committed an offense that makes the person inadmissible under much of existing immigration law.

This includes people who have committed or been convicted of most drug offenses, a crime involving moral turpitude (itself a nebulous concept), prostitution, and people who renounced their U.S. citizenship to avoid taxation.

Now for some interesting stuff. § 1202 narrows the “conviction” definition used in immigration law by requiring a “formal judgment of guilt.” Alternative dispositions will no longer be considered convictions for immigration law purposes.

Clarifies that cases being appealed aren’t convictions. Term of imprisonment only includes “period of incarceration ordered by a court,” deleting language in current INA that ignores suspension of sentence.

This section also would revive a power that criminal-court judges used to have called the judicial recommendation against deportation (JRAD). Now it would be called “judicial recommendation against removal” and would be granted to any sentencing court.

In § 1203, the bill would expand the current petty-offense exception to inadmissibility on the basis of a CIMT or controlled substances offense.

If enacted, § 1203 would exempt from inadmissibility someone who has “committed not more than 2 crimes” instead of only 1 crime.

This section leaves the rest of the current petty-offense exemption untouched (a possible maximum penalty of 1 year imprisonment and, if convicted, was sentenced to no more than 180 days imprisonment).

§ 1204 expands waiver options across the board by allowing DHS or DOJ to waive “any 1 or more grounds of inadmissibility” (except the espionage/terrorist basis).

This waiver would be available for humanitarian purposes, family unity, or “in the public interest.” The bill includes factors to consider, including the extent to which removal “would adversely affect the noncitizen.”

The impact on the applying noncitizen is significant because most waivers currently don’t allow consideration of removal on the person requesting the waiver.

§ 1204 would create a similar waiver for grounds of deportability, only the waiver of deportation would not help people convicted of murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor offenses, all of which are defined as aggravated felonies. Other AFs would be eligible for the waiver.

§ 2308 requires DHS to “issue policies governing the use of force.” This will apply to all DHS units, including CBP which has resisted adopting use of force guidelines commonly used by other law enforcement agencies.

This section also requires public disclosure of use-of-force incidents resulting in serious injury to a DHS officer or member of the public.

Onto detention...§ 2401 requires DHS to issue guidelines for “basic minimum standards of care” for people in CBP custody, which includes people held by the Border Patrol.

This section would require access to “appropriate” medical care, clothing, and “quiet, dimly illuminated sleeping quarters if he or she is detained overnight.”

This would spell a dramatic improvement of detention conditions inside Border Patrol holding facilities which are notoriously cold and where migrants often sleep on the floor.

Of course, major improvements means people would continue to be held inside BP holding facilities.

To that point, § 2402 requires guidelines for “treatment of children” in CBP custody which center on “the best interest of the child,” which is a common standard used in legal matters affecting kids but which is currently absent from immigration law.

This section bans “removal of a child from a parent or legal guardian for the purpose of deterring individuals” from coming to the United States. This seems to be a direct response to the Trump administration’s family-separation practice.

Interestingly—and potentially of significance—it also requires “reasonable arrangements for unannounced visits and inspections” by governmental and nongovernmental actors.

And now for the big change: § 4106 in effect, this creates an immigration public defender system. process. It would likely transform immigration courts dramatically.

Removes language from INA’s right-to-counsel provision that bars government from funding legal representation. Would replace that with language that allows DOJ to “appoint or provide counsel, at Government expense, to noncitizens in immigration proceedings.”

This would be a huge boost to due process. It would likely transform immigration courts dramatically.

Separately, § 4106 requires the IJ to appoint counsel “at the expense of the Government” for anyone facing removal who is “financially unable to obtain adequate representation.”

This includes, but appears not to be limited to, a child; person with a disability; survivor of abuse, torture, or violence; pregnant or lactating woman; or the parent of a U.S. citizen minor.

To pay for government-appointed lawyers, the proposal would add a $25 surcharge to any fee required by immigration law.

Also, section 4106 would create a disclosure requirement in removal proceedings that would improve efficiency and fairness by requiring DHS to share with people facing removal documents in the government’s possession.

In effect, this would allow attorneys to see the documents that the government is using against their migrant clients, putting them on a more equal playing field.

Currently, the only way to get these documents is to file one or more FOIA requests. Doing it this way is inefficient because it requires asking a centralized FOIA office to disclose documents that are sitting on the desk in front of the DHS prosecutor.

FOIA requests for immigration matters make up about half of all FOIA requests submitted to the entire federal government so this would free up a lot of resources to let FOIA do what it was intended to do—promote democratic oversight.

That’s all for now…The proposed legislation is at https://lindasanchez.house.gov/sites/lindasanchez.house.gov/files/2021.02.18%20US%20Citizenship%20Act%20Bill%20Text%20-%20SIGNED.pdf