Seth M. M. Stodder, author of an article in The New Republic and who also served in the Department of Homeland Security as Director of Policy and Planning for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, recently said Congress should say “no” to anti-immigration provisions, which would hold up intelligence reform.

Last month, the Senate passed a bipartisan bill that would reform the intelligence community and enact most of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. But while House Republicans also passed a bill enacting some of these proposals, their version contained a number of “anti-immigrant provisions” that the Bush administration and most Democrats cannot support, wrote Stodder.

According to the article, The House bill includes provisions that, among other things, would require Homeland Security officers to use "expedited removal" authority to deport people without any hearing or process for review. This authority is based merely on the determination of an officer that the person has been residing in the U.S illegally for up to five years. However, Stodder claims that this is unfair to victims of human trafficking, battered spouses brought here by their abusers, and refugees fleeing religious or political persecution because these people might have been residing in the U.S illegally for up to five years.

The article claims that “this provision makes little sense” because current law permits the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to use "expedited removal" for aliens living in the U.S for up to two years who are usually apprehended close to the border, within hours of entry, not within days or years. So the expansion of "expedited removal" authority would mainly affect "interior" enforcement. Stodder’s final recommendation: “Congress should strip them [anti-immigrant provisions] out of the bill, and get on with the business at hand.”

Martine Kady II of the Congressional Quarterly reported last week that the Senate consented to the opinion of the House on several decisions in Congress, in order to strike a final compromise before the lame-duck session set.

What seemed to be the most major concession addressed the issue of the national intelligence budget when the Senate agreed to forgo its provision to declassify the total budget figure on national intelligence spending even though it was recommended in the September 11 commission report and by Senate negotiators. 

According to Kady’s article, second on the Senate’s concessions agenda was the amount of personnel and money the national intelligence director could transfer from one agency to another.  The Senate originally proposed that the director have full control to transfer unlimited numbers of personnel and money at a time, but after negotiations the decision, though not stated whether it is final or not, turned out a restriction allowing the director to only transfer ten percent of the two from agency to agency. 

During the Senate and House negotiations that led to these major concession, the Senate also agreed to several other “House-backed provisions” in areas such as civil penalties for airlines, deportation of foreigners trained by terrorists without judicial review, additional Border Patrol agents and wiretap surveillance of suspected terrorists.