The Charlotte Observer ran a New York Times story on immigration reform on its front page today. And as front-page NYT stories goes, this one leaves a lot to be desired. So here’s the deal:

Currently if you’re age 18+ and in the country illegally, either because you just came over the border or because you overstayed your visa, you rack up something called “illegal presence.” Six months of illegal presence gets you a three ban on legal reentry. Once you get to a year of illegal presence, the ban on legal reentry becomes 10 years.

Among the situations in which the ban may matter is when a U.S. citizen age 21 or older marries a foreign national. Under U.S. law, citizens age 21+ can immediately file for a green card (permanent legal residency) for their spouses. Now let’s suppose that the spouse isn’t in the country legally. There are two very different outcomes (In all cases, I’m presuming the marriages are real and NOT entered into just to get someone a green card):

1. The person the U.S. citizen is marrying came into the country legally but overstayed their visa. In most cases, current U.S. law forgives the overstay. The spouse can adjust their status and get their green card without leaving the country. Thus the three or 10-year ban does not come into play.

2. Now suppose the spouse came into the country without inspection. No visa, no passport, no nothing. They just came over the border. Or maybe their parents just brought them over the border when they were kids. Now let’s suppose they’re grown up now and have racked up enough illegal presence for the 10-year ban to come into play. They then marry a U.S. citizen age 21 or older. The citizen can still petition for a green card for their spouse… it’s just the paperwork is done in the spouse’s home country. They have to go there… at which point the 10-year ban on legal reentry kicks in. The reentry ban can be waved but currently that doesn’t happen very often.

This requirement that those who entered illegally (as opposed to those that overstayed) go back abroad to have their paperwork processed was a key element of a 1996 immigration reform law.

What the Obama administration wants to do is make it easier to wave the (10-year) reentry ban for spouses as they go back abroad to apply for their green cards. Does this go against the intent of the 1996 law? Probably. Is it an obvious attempt to attract more Hispanic votes? Yes. Is it bad policy? Maybe, maybe not, depending upon to whom the wavers are granted. Don’t really have a problem if the marriage is longstanding and especially if the couple has children that are already U.S. citizens.

This nation’s immigration laws are incredibly complex. It’s not a question of drawing a line but rather of drawing hundreds of lines. I’d argue that they are in places too lenient, too strict in other areas, and too complex in general.