September 16, 2016, 11:13 am
Background checks: The Achilles' heel of immigration reform
Much of the discussion concerning immigration and accepting refugees from foreign war zones has revolved around background checks. Regardless of whether you’re attending a Democratic, Republican, or Libertarian speech on immigration, every candidate has stated in one way or another that a background check will be a deciding factor in allowing someone to enter the United States. Recently, the Obama administration announced that it is planning to increase the number of refugees it will allow into the U.S. to 110,000, a 57 percent boost since 2015.
According to an interview with NBC News regarding the upcoming increase in refugees, an administration official insisted that the new arrivals under the revised plan will undergo "rigorous screening" before they are allowed in the country. On the other side of the aisle, Republican Presidential Candidate Donald Trump called for “extreme vetting” of immigrants coming into the US. However, as an experienced investigator, I can’t help but question the logistical details behind these statements, regardless of who is saying them.
The truth is, criminal background information is based on the laws of country in question, as well as the quality of record-keeping and their relationship with the U.S. While some countries still only keep paper records, many retain criminal records at local jurisdictions and have no centralized database in the way that the US, Canada, the UK and many European Union countries do. Therefore, it is common in many countries that each city, state, or province must be searched separately to determine if a criminal history exists on the applicant. To complicate matters even more, each jurisdiction also has its own rules and regulations as to how records are kept and released, with many record queries only covering a period of two to three years. This is in sharp contrast to the FBI-managed Interstate Identification Index, which keeps arrest and conviction information on file for life.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...gration-reform
