Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 25, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:02 pm
Time: 8:02 pm
Results for crimmigration
5 results foundAuthor: Armacost, Barbara E. Title: Immigration Policing: Federalizing the Local Summary: Recent immigration scholarship has identified two features of current immigration enforcement: the "federalization" of immigration law - meaning the growing participation of state and local police in immigration enforcement - and "crimmigration" - the increasing use of immigration law as a strategy for crime control. Scholars argue that these trends are new and that they have had a negative effect on immigration regulation. By contrast, supporters of state and local immigration enforcement point out that police officers can serve as a powerful "force multiplier" by funneling the highest priority illegal aliens - criminal aliens - into the federal immigration system. They argue that this won't change the shape of ordinary law enforcement. Neither side is correct. On the one hand, neither of these features is particularly new. For decades, federal immigration officials have been partnering with state and local officials and for nearly 100 years federal law has provided for deportation based on conviction of certain crimes. What is new is that enhanced funding and expanded programing has enlarged the scope of state and local participation and thrust it into public view. On the other hand, proponents of state and local police as "force multipliers" underestimate the extent to which this increased participation distorts both federal immigration enforcement policy and state and local law enforcement policy. These distortions result primarily from one salient feature of the merged system: the fact that state and local police involved in immigration enforcement make front-end law enforcement decisions in light of the promise of back-end immigration enforcement. This has led to the use of pre-textual stops and arrests ostensibly for traffic violations or minor crimes but actually for the purpose of feeding suspected illegal aliens into the immigration enforcement system. This article demonstrates how pre-textual enforcement actions distort federal and state/local enforcement priorities and undermine political accountability. They also lead, almost inevitably, to racial profiling that is largely impervious to legal and constitutional challenge. Assuming, as I do, that immigration policing and crimmigration are here to stay, the challenge is to harness the "force multiplier" of state and local enforcement without creating the dysfunction that can accompany it. The key is to find ways to decouple state and local law enforcement decisions from the promise of immigration enforcement. This article identifies some promising responses in this direction by ICE and state and local law enforcement agencies. While these early efforts are inadequate, they may point the way forward in a world in which immigration federalism and crimmigration are here to stay. Details: Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia School of Law, 2014. 78p. Source: Internet Resource: Virginia Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 2014-60 : Accessed March 19, 2015 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2504042 Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2504042 Shelf Number: 134978 Keywords: Border ControlCrimmigrationImmigrantsImmigration Enforcement (U.S.)PolicingRacial Profiling |
Author: Johnson, Kevin R. Title: Race-Based Law Enforcement: The Racially Disparate Impacts of Crimmigration Law Summary: This Essay was prepared for the Case Western Law Review's symposium on the 20th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996). Racially-charged encounters with the police regularly make the national news. Local law enforcement officers also have at various times victimized immigrants of color. For example, New York City Department (NYPD) officers in 1999 killed Amadou Diallo, an unarmed immigrant from Guinea, in a hail of gunfire; two years earlier, officers had tortured Haitian immigrant Abner Louima at a NYPD police station. Both victims were Black, which no doubt contributed to the violence. In less spectacular fashion, police on the beat by many accounts regularly engage in racial profiling in traffic stops of U.S. citizens and noncitizens of color. Removals of "criminal aliens" have been the cornerstone of the Obama administration's immigration enforcement strategy. Well-publicized increases in the number of removals of immigrants also have been the centerpiece of President Obama's political efforts to persuade Congress to pass a comprehensive immigration reform package. The hope behind the aggressive enforcement strategy has been to convince Congress that this is the time to enact comprehensive immigration reform. In the last few years, a body of what has been denominated "crimmigration" scholarship has emerged that critically examines the growing confluence of the criminal justice system and the immigration removal machinery in the United States. That body of work tends to direct attention to the unfairness to immigrants, as well as their families, of the increasing criminalization of immigration law and its enforcement. This Essay agrees with the general thrust of the crimmigration criticism, but contends that it does not go far enough. Namely, the emerging scholarship in this genre fails to critically assess the dominant role that race plays in modern law enforcement and how its racial impacts are exacerbated by the operation of a federal immigration removal process that consciously targets "criminal aliens." Part I of this Essay considers parallel developments in the law: (1) the Supreme Court's implicit sanctioning of race-conscious law enforcement in the United States, with the centerpiece of this symposium, Whren v. United States, the most well-known example; and (2) the trend over at least the last twenty years toward increased cooperation between state and local law enforcement agencies and federal immigration authorities. Part II specifically demonstrates how criminal prosecutions influenced by police reliance on race necessarily lead to the racially disparate removal rates experienced in the modern United States. Part III discusses how some state and local governments have pushed back on cooperation with federal immigration authorities, with effective community police practices being an important policy rationale invoked by local law enforcement for that resistance. Part III of this Essay further contends that more attention should be paid to the racially disparate impacts of linking immigration removals to the outcomes of a racially-tainted criminal justice system. It further sketches some modest reforms to the U.S. immigration laws that might tend to blunt, rather than magnify, some of these racial impacts. Details: Davis, CA: University of California, Davis, School of Law, 2015. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: UC Davis Legal Studies Research Paper No. 437: Accessed August 25, 2015 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2640755 Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2640755 Shelf Number: 136571 Keywords: CrimmigrationIllegal ImmigrantsImmigration EnforcementImmigration ReformRacial DisparitiesRacial Profiling in Law Enforcement |
Author: Armacost, Barbara E. Title: "Sanctuary" Laws: The New Immigration Federalism Summary: The policy of "immigration federalism" has justified granting state and local police officers greatly increased responsibilities for enforcing immigration laws, but the devolution of power has also generated enormous controversy. Supporters argue that the vast number of local police and their knowledge of local conditions can substantially assist federal immigration enforcement. Critics say that the policy has caused serious problems, including increased racial profiling and more pretextual arrests for minor crimes, and that the resulting alienation of immigrant communities has reduced public safety. The controversy is not just academic, as more than 270 local jurisdictions have adopted policies designed to resist immigration federalism. Some argue that these laws have only one purpose: to thwart federal enforcement and shelter illegal immigrants. National legislators have proposed legislation to squelch local resistance by cutting federal funds to those localities. Such responses are, however, fundamentally inconsistent with the very theory of federalism. The widespread resistance to immigration federalism is a state/local-inspired reaction to the serious, if unintended consequences of localized immigration policing. A true immigration federalist should view such local resistance not as mere opposition to quash, but as a "new immigration federalism," a source of insight into the on-the-ground problems with current immigration policies. This article argues that the policies enacted as part of the local resistance movement point the way both to specific solutions, and to a better - and more theoretically sound - immigration federalism. This "new immigration federalism" is already having an effect on federal immigration policy. Details: Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia, School of Law, 2016. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Virginia Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 2016-45 : Accessed August 30, 2016 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2823925## Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2823925## Shelf Number: 140092 Keywords: CrimmigrationIllegal ImmigrantsImmigration EnforcementImmigration PolicySanctuary Laws |
Author: Ryo, Emily Title: Detained: A Study of Immigration Bond Hearings Summary: Immigration judges make consequential decisions that fundamentally affect the basic life chances of thousands of non-citizens and their family members every year. Yet, we know very little about how immigration judges make their decisions, including decisions about whether to release or detain non-citizens pending the completion of their immigration cases. Using original data on long-term immigrant detainees, I examine for the first time judicial decision-making in immigration bond hearings. I find that there are extremely wide variations in the average bond grant rates and bond amount decisions among judges in the study sample. What are the determinants of these bond decisions? My analysis shows that the odds of being granted bond are more than 3.5 times higher for detainees represented by attorneys than those who appeared pro se, net of other relevant factors. My analysis also shows that the detainees' prior criminal history is the only significant legally-relevant factor in both the grant/deny and bond amount decisions, net of other relevant factors. This finding points to the need for further research on whether and how immigration courts might be exercising crime control through administrative proceedings. Details: Los Angeles: University of Southern California Gould School of Law, 2015. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: USC Law Legal Studies Paper No. 15-31; USC CLASS Research Paper No. CLASS15-29; Criminal Justice, Borders and Citizenship Research Paper No. 2628962: Accessed December 7, 2016 at: https://www.ssrn.com/en/index.cfm/top-authors/ Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.ssrn.com/en/index.cfm/top-authors/ Shelf Number: 140325 Keywords: Bond Hearings CrimmigrationIllegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigration Courts Judicial Decision-making Undocumented Immigrants |
Author: McKee, Erin Title: Crimmigration in Oregon: Protecting the Rights of Noncitizen Defendants Summary: Several studies show that immigrants in the United States commit crimes at lower rates than native-born citizens and rates of violent crime in metropolitan areas fall as the immigrant population rises. Despite this, the specter of the "criminal alien" continues to haunt the popular imagination, aided by lurid media coverage highlighting the few cases of serious or violent crimes committed by immigrants. The Trump administration has greatly expanded the groups of people targeted for removal from the U.S., while severely limiting legal immigration. Enforcement actions are taking place against a broad group of noncitizens, including those who have committed only minor crimes or even no crimes at all. WHAT IS CRIMMIGRATION? Crimmigration broadly refers to the criminalization of migration, increased immigration detention and use of private prisons, the prison-to-deportation pipeline, and a deportation process described by one immigration judge as "what amount to death penalty cases heard in traffic court settings." Viewed narrowly, crimmigration refers to the immediate and long-term immigration consequences of criminal convictions. WHAT CAN OREGON DO TO PROTECT NONCITIZEN OREGONIANS AND THEIR FAMILIES? Crimmigration Report Infographic What Oregon Legislators Can Do.jpg We have developed a report as a resource for legislators and others that provides analysis of the legal steps that can be taken that will help to protect noncitizen Oregonians and their families. Click here to read the report. Legislators can: 1. Create Pre-Plea Diversion. Allow qualified defendants to enter pre-trial diversion or deferred adjudication without a guilty or no-contest plea. 2. Allow prior convictions to fit current law. Oregon has already reduced maximum sentences for Class A misdemeanors from 365 days to 364 and should allow this to apply retroactively. 3. Define the prosecutor's duty. Require prosecutors to consider avoiding adverse immigration consequences in plea negotiations. 4. Improve the effectiveness of the court's admonishment. Warn every defendant much earlier in the legal process that if they are a noncitizen that a conviction may have serious immigration consequences so they have time to seek appropriate help. 5. Prohibit disclosure of immigration status in court. No one should be forced to disclose their immigration status in court because it creates unnecessary risk of immigration enforcement and discrimination. 6. Define defense counsel's duty. Require defense counsel to ensure clients understand potential outcomes of their cases and the immigration consequences so they can make the best decisions for themselves and their families. 7. Expand post-conviction relief. Allow defendants to apply for relief within a reasonable period of discovering they received bad advice about the immigration consequences of a plea or conviction. Oregon can also: Crimmigration Report Infographic What Else Oregon Can Do.jpg 1. Uphold the "sanctuary state" law. State and local employees should be reminded of their duty to uphold the law by not using public resources to detect or apprehend people whose only violation is being present in the U.S. contrary to federal immigration law and should receive training about this. Law enforcement leaders and prosecutors should investigate violations of the "sanctuary state" law and prosecute offenders for official misconduct. Information about violations and training employees have received should be public. 2. End "broken windows" policing targeting low-level offenders. Stop bringing people to the courts for minor offenses where they become vulnerable to aggressive ICE enforcement. 3. Limit information sharing. Law enforcement agencies, prosecutors' offices, probation offices, and others should create policies that make it clear to staff where contacting ICE would go beyond the scope of their duties and punish violations. 4. End local jail contracts with ICE. Oregon’s jails should immediately stop contracting with ICE to detain noncitizens so that counties no longer profit from deportation. Details: Portland, Oregon: Oregon Justice Resource Center, 2018. Source: Internet Resource: January 9, 2019 at: https://ojrc.info/crimmigration-in-oregon/ Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/524b5617e4b0b106ced5f067/t/5b353c3503ce6435b6aa1026/1530215484282/Crimmigration+Report+June+2018.pdf Shelf Number: 154021 Keywords: Broken Windows PolicingCriminal AlienCrimmigrationDeportationImmigrantsImmigrationImmigration and Customs EnforcementImmigration DetentionImmigration StatusLaw EnforcementMigrationNative-Born Citizens NoncitizensPre-Trial DiversionSanctuary StateViolent Crime |