Immigration laws in the United States are constantly evolving, with new policies and regulations being implemented to address various issues. One such policy that has been in the spotlight in recent years is Section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). This provision, also known as the “crime of moral turpitude” clause, has had a significant impact on the immigration process for many individuals. In this article, we will explore the history of Section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii), its current implications, and its effects on immigration.

Understanding Section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii)

Section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the INA states that any non-citizen who has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) is subject to deportation from the United States. This provision has been in place since the early 20th century and has been a source of controversy and debate. The term “moral turpitude” is not explicitly defined in the INA, leaving it up to interpretation by immigration officials and courts.

The History of Section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii)

The concept of moral turpitude has been a part of US immigration law since the late 1800s. However, it was not until the early 1900s that it was codified into law with the enactment of the INA. The purpose of this provision was to prevent the entry of individuals who were deemed to be of “bad moral character” and to deport those who were already in the country. Over the years, the definition of moral turpitude has been expanded and refined through various court cases. In general, crimes that involve dishonesty, fraud, or intent to harm others are considered to be CIMTs. This includes offenses such as murder, theft, and fraud, but also extends to lesser offenses such as shoplifting and simple assault.

The Impact of Section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) on Immigration

The implementation of Section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) has had a significant impact on the immigration process for many individuals. Non-citizens who are convicted of a CIMT are subject to deportation, even if they have lived in the US for many years and have established a life here. This has led to the separation of families and the disruption of communities. Moreover, the broad and vague definition of moral turpitude has resulted in many individuals being deemed deportable for minor offenses that may not necessarily reflect their character. This has raised concerns about the fairness and consistency of the application of this provision.

Challenges Faced by Non-Citizens

For non-citizens facing deportation under Section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii), the consequences can be severe. They may be forced to leave behind their families, jobs, and homes in the US and return to a country they may not have lived in for many years. In some cases, they may also face difficulties in obtaining legal status in their home country, making it difficult for them to reunite with their loved ones in the US. Additionally, non-citizens who have been convicted of a CIMT may also face challenges in obtaining certain immigration benefits, such as a green card or citizenship. This can have a significant impact on their ability to live and work in the US legally.

Recent Developments and Controversies

In recent years, Section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) has been the subject of much debate and controversy. Some argue that the provision is too broad and vague, leading to the deportation of individuals who may not pose a threat to society. Others argue that it is necessary to protect the US from individuals who have committed serious crimes. In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in Sessions v. Dimaya that the definition of moral turpitude in the INA was unconstitutionally vague. This decision has led to a decrease in the number of deportations under this provision, as immigration officials and courts are now required to use a clearer and more specific definition of CIMTs.

Conclusion

Section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the INA has had a significant impact on the immigration process in the US. Its broad and vague definition of moral turpitude has led to the deportation of many individuals, often resulting in the separation of families and communities. While recent developments have provided some relief, the provision continues to be a source of controversy and debate. As immigration laws continue to evolve, it is important to consider the implications of such provisions on individuals and their families.

FAQs

1. What is Section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the INA?
   • Section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act states that any non-citizen who has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude is subject to deportation from the US.
2. What is considered a crime involving moral turpitude?
   • Crimes that involve dishonesty, fraud, or intent to harm others are generally considered to be CIMTs. This includes offenses such as murder, theft, and fraud, but also extends to lesser offenses such as shoplifting and simple assault.
3. How has the definition of moral turpitude evolved over the years?
   • The concept of moral turpitude has been a part of US immigration law since the late 1800s, but it was not until the early 1900s that it was codified into law. Over the years, the definition has been expanded and refined through various court cases.