Class 10: Ex Ante and Ex Post Screening
In Class 10, we turn from the categories of admission to inadmissibility and deportability. The grounds of inadmissibility and deportability, laid out in sections 212 and 237 of the INA, are core tools used by the government to screen immigrants, so we will focus on them carefully.
Sections 212 and 237 lay out many different grounds that can make a person “inadmissible” (the new term for what we have previously called “excludable”) or “deportable.” Our goal over the next three classes is not only to learn the details of a number of these particular grounds, but also to explore the overarching relationship between inadmissibility and deportability.
Reading:
Introduction to inadmissibility (555-58)
Inadmissible for immigration violations (INA §§ 212(a)(6), (7))
Deportable for immigration violations (632-34 and INA § 237(a)(1)(A))
The distinction between “admission” and “entry” (INA § 101(a)(13))
Bars on re-admission for prior immigration violations (568-72 and INA § 212(a)(9))
As you read, consider the following questions:
The grounds of inadmissibility and deportability overlap but are not identical. Thus, an important question in every case is whether a noncitizen is subject to the section 212 grounds of inadmissibility or the section 237 grounds of deportability. How do we figure this out?
Which non citizens were affected by Congress’s decision in 1996 to draw the regulatory line between § 212 and § 237 at “admission” rather than “entry”? Why do you think Congress moved the line?
What is the goal of the immigration control grounds of inadmissibility and deportability?
As the casebook notes, the bar on re-admission for “unlawful presence” that Congress added in 1996 was designed to encourage immigrants to comply with the terms of their visas and other immigration rules. But the bars are widely perceived to have failed at that goal. If that perception is right, why didn’t the bar create the incentives Congress had hoped for?
Back to Teaching