Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 25, 2024 Thu
Time: 10:27 am
Time: 10:27 am
Results for deportation
45 results foundAuthor: Fitz, Marshall Title: The Costs of Mass Deportation: Impractical, Expensive, and Ineffective Summary: This paper argues that mass deportation of undocumented immigrants is prohibitively expensive and will trigger profound collateral consequences. The report analyses publicly available data to assess the costs and steps required to carry out such a policy - from point of arrest through transportation out of the country. The report adopts conservative assumptions for key variables to ensure that the estimated program and spending requirements are realistic and not overstated. The findings show conclusively that a deportation-only immigration strategy would be extremely expensive. Details: Washington, DC: center for American Progress, 2010. 23p. Source: Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118347 Keywords: DeportationIllegal Immigrants (U.S.)Immigration Policy (U.S.) |
Author: Schriro, Dora Bess Title: Immigration Detention Overview and Recommendations Summary: This report provides a comprehensive review and evaluation of the U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) system of Immigration Detention. It relies on information gathered during tours of 25 facilities, discussions with detainees and employees, meetings with over 100 non-governmental organizations and federal, state, and local officials, and the review of data and reports from governmental agencies and human rights organizations. The report describes the policy, human capital, informational, and management challenges associated with the rapid expansion of ICE's detention capacity. The report identifies important distinctions between the characteristics of the Immigration Detention population in ICE custody and the administrative purpose of their detention as compared to the punitive purpose of the Criminal Incarceration system. The report provides a seven part framework for meeting the challenge of developing a new system of Immigration Detention. It concludes with concrete recommendations for reform. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2009. 35p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 117310 Keywords: Alien Detention CentersDeportationIllegal AliensImmigrant DetentionImmigrantsImmigration |
Author: Baum, Jonathan Title: In the Child's Best Interest? The Consequences of Losing a Lawful Immigrant Parent to Deportation Summary: Congress is considering a comprehensive overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws more than a decade after the enactment of strict immigration measures. Lawmakers should take this opportunity to reaffirm the nation’s historic commitment to family unity by addressing the discrete provisions that currently undermine it. Current U.S. immigration laws mandate deportation of lawful permanent resident (LPR) parents of thousands of U.S. citizen children, without providing these parents an opportunity to challenge their forced separations. Through a multi-disciplinary analysis, this policy brief examines the experiences of U.S. citizen children impacted by the forced deportation of their LPR parents and proposes ways to reform U.S. law consistent with domestic and international standards aimed to improve the lives of children. This report includes new, independent analysis of U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) data. We estimate that more than 100,000 children have been affected by LPR parental deportation between 1997 and 2007, and that at least 88,000 of impacted children were U.S. citizens. Moreover, our analysis estimates that approximately 44,000 children were under the age of 5 when their parent was deported. In addition to these children, this analysis estimates that more than 217,000 others experienced the deportation of an immediate family member who was an LPR. The report concludes with a number of recommendations. Details: Berkeley, CA; Davis, CA: International Human Rights Law Clinic; Chief Earl Warren Institute on Race, Ethnicity and Diversity, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law; Immigration Law Clinic, University of California, Davis, School of Law, 2010. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 21, 2010 at: http://www.law.ucdavis.edu/news/images/childsbestinterest.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.law.ucdavis.edu/news/images/childsbestinterest.pdf Shelf Number: 119837 Keywords: DeportationImmigrantsImmigration |
Author: Gardner, Trevor, II Title: The C.A.P. Effect: Racial Profiling in the ICE Criminal Alien Program Summary: The goal of the Criminal Alien Program (CAP) is to improve safety by promoting federal-local partnerships to target serious criminal offenders for deportation. Indeed, the U.S. Congress has made clear that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) “should have no greater immigration enforcement priority than to remove deportable aliens with serious criminal histories from the United States, …” The Warren Institute’s analysis of arrest data pursuant to an ICE-local partnership in Irving, Texas demonstrates that ICE is not following Congress’ mandate to focus resources on the deportation of immigrants with serious criminal histories. This study also shows that immediately after Irving, Texas law enforcement had 24-hour access (via telephone and video teleconference) to ICE in the local jail, discretionary arrests of Hispanics for petty offenses — particularly minor traffic offenses — rose dramatically. This report probes the marked rise in low-level arrests of Hispanics. Specifically, the report examines whether there was an increase in lawless behavior in the Hispanic community in Irving or whether there was a change in local policing priorities. The Warren Institute’s study of arrest data finds strong evidence to support claims that Irving police engaged in racial profiling of Hispanics in order to filter them through the CAP screening system. Details: Berkeley, CA: Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Race, Ethnicity & Diversity, University of California, Berkeley Law School, 2009. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Brief: Accessed October 22, 2011 at: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/policybrief_irving_FINAL.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/policybrief_irving_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 123082 Keywords: Criminal AliensDeportationHispanicsIllegal AliensImmigrants (U.S.)Racial Profiling |
Author: Kohli, Aarti Title: Secure Communities by the Numbers: An Analysis of Demographics and Due Process Summary: The United States will deport a record number of individuals this year, due in large part to rapidly expanding federal immigration programs that rely on local law enforcement. The numbers are sobering: annual deportations have increased over 400% since 1996 and more than a million people have been removed from this country since the beginning of the Obama administration. Almost 300,000 individuals are currently in deportation proceedings but have not yet been removed. The newest and most controversial immigration enforcement program partnering with local law enforcement is Secure Communities. Secure Communities was introduced by the Bush administration in March 2008 and piloted in 14 jurisdictions beginning in October 2008. Under President Obama, the program has expanded dramatically. As of the drafting of this report, Secure Communities is active in 1,595 jurisdictions in 44 states and territories, a 65% increase since the beginning of this year. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has stated that it plans to have the program active in all jurisdictions in the United States by 2013. Like earlier programs such as the 287(g) program and the Criminal Alien Program (CAP), Secure Communities mobilizes local law enforcement agencies’ resources to enforce federal civil immigration laws. Whereas earlier programs such as 287(g) trained law enforcement agents to assist with immigration enforcement, Secure Communities relies heavily on almost instantaneous electronic data sharing. This data sharing has transformed the landscape of immigration enforcement by allowing ICE to effectively run federal immigration checks on every individual booked into a local county jail, usually while still in pre-trial custody. It has long been the case that local law enforcement agencies electronically share fingerprint data from the people they arrest with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). If that data comes from a Secure Communities jurisdiction, however, the FBI now forwards the fingerprints to the DHS. DHS checks the fingerprints against the Automated Biometric Identification System, also known as IDENT, a fingerprint repository containing information on over 91 million individuals, including travelers, applicants for immigration benefits, and immigrants who have previously violated immigration laws. When a match is detected, ICE reportedly examines its records to determine whether the person is deportable. If ICE believes an individual may be deportable, or if ICE wishes to further investigate an individual’s immigration status, then ICE issues a detainer. The detainer is a request to the local police to notify immigration authorities when the individual is going to be released from criminal custody and to hold the individual for up to two days for transfer to ICE. Despite the scrutiny that the program has generated in the public sphere, the federal government has conducted limited systematic analysis of its own data on individuals who are arrested under Secure Communities. To address this gap in knowledge, the Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy at UC Berkeley School of Law has undertaken a comprehensive study of data provided by the federal government to the National Day Labor Organizing Network (NDLON), the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Clinic at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law pursuant to a partial settlement in NDLON v. ICE. This initial report is the first in a series based on that data. In this report, we attempt to better understand the profile of individuals who have been apprehended through Secure Communities and the process they have encountered as they are funneled through the system. Overall, the findings point to a system in which individuals are pushed through rapidly, without appropriate checks or opportunities to challenge their detention and/or deportation. This conclusion is particularly concerning given that the findings also reveal that people are being apprehended who should never have been placed in immigration custody, and that certain groups are over-represented in our sample population. Details: Berkeley, CA: Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy, University of California, Berkeley Law School, 2011. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 22, 2011 at: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Secure_Communities_by_the_Numbers.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Secure_Communities_by_the_Numbers.pdf Shelf Number: 123083 Keywords: DeportationIllegal AliensImmigrantsImmigration EnforcementRacial Profiling |
Author: Rosenblum, Marc R. Title: Interior Immigration Enforcement: Programs Targeting Criminal Aliens Summary: Congress has a long-standing interest in seeing that immigration enforcement agencies identify and deport serious criminal aliens. The expeditious removal of such aliens has been a statutory priority since 1986, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its predecessor agency have operated programs targeting criminal aliens for removal since 1988. These programs have grown substantially since FY2005. Despite the interest in criminal aliens, inconsistencies in data quality, data collection, and definitions make it impossible to precisely enumerate the criminal alien population, defined in this report as all noncitizens ever convicted of a crime. CRS estimates the number of noncitizens incarcerated in federal and state prisons and local jails—a subset of all criminal aliens—at 173,000 in 2009, with state prisons and local jails accounting for somewhat more incarcerations than federal prisons. The overall proportion of noncitizens in federal and state prisons and local jails corresponds closely to the proportion of noncitizens in the total U.S. population. DHS operates four programs designed in whole or in part to target criminal aliens: the Criminal Alien Program (CAP), Secure Communities, the § 287(g) program, and the National Fugitive Operations Program (NFOP). The CAP, Secure Communities, and certain § 287(g) programs are jail enforcement programs that screen individuals for immigration-related violations as they are being booked into jail and while they are incarcerated; the NFOP and some other § 287(g) programs are task force programs that target at-large criminal aliens. This report describes how these programs work and identifies their common features and key differences among them. While consensus exists on the overarching goal to identify and remove serious criminal aliens, these programs have generated controversy, particularly Secure Communities and the § 287(g) program. On one hand, the Obama Administration and other supporters of jail enforcement programs see them as efficient and even-handed ways to identify criminal aliens. The Administration has taken steps to strengthen and expand Secure Communities and plans to implement the program in every law enforcement jurisdiction in the country by 2013. On the other hand, some lawmakers and advocacy groups have raised concerns that Secure Communities and the § 287(g) program have not been narrowly targeted at serious criminal offenders and that the programs may have adverse impacts on police-community relations, may result in racial profiling, and may result in the detention of people who have not been convicted of criminal offenses and may not be subject to removal. Disagreements about the merits of jail enforcement programs overlap with a separate set of questions about the role of states and localities in immigration enforcement. These jurisdictional questions have focused in particular on Secure Communities, in part because the Administration initially appeared to present it as a discretionary program but now takes the position that states and localities may not “opt out” of Secure Communities. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Services, 2011. 49p. Source: Internet Resource: R42057: Accessed November 19, 2011 at: http://mexicoinstitute.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/csr-interior-enforcement.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://mexicoinstitute.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/csr-interior-enforcement.pdf Shelf Number: 123402 Keywords: Criminal Aliens (U.S.)DeportationIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrationsImmigrants |
Author: Women's Refugee Commission Title: Torn Apart by Immigration Enforcement: Parental Rights and Immigration Detention Summary: Approximately 5.5 million children in the United States live with at least one undocumented parent. Three million of them are U.S. citizens. These children are uniquely situated in relation to federal immigration law because immigration enforcement activities against their parents can have a particularly dramatic and disproportionate effect on them. According to a report by the Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector General, more than 108,000 alien parents of U.S. citizen children were removed from the United States between 1998 and 2007.4 Deportation forces countless parents to make heart-wrenching decisions about what to do with their children. For some families, however, there is no choice to be made. Immigration apprehension, detention and deportation can trigger a complex series of events that undermine parents’ ability to make decisions about their children’s care, complicate family reunification and can — in some circumstances — lead to the termination of parental rights. With the exception of parents apprehended in large worksite enforcement operations, few parents benefit from time-of-apprehension protocols designed to minimize adverse consequences of detention and deportation on children. There is no guarantee that apprehended parents can make a phone call within a reasonable time of apprehension in order to make care arrangements for children. While Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) makes efforts to identify and release parents apprehended in large worksite raids, the majority of parents are not subject to any humanitarian protections and immigration officers struggle with how to handle apprehensions where children will be impacted. Many parents are transferred from the area in which they are apprehended to an immigration detention center without knowing what care arrangements have been made for their children and without knowing how to remain in contact with their children. For these parents, it can be difficult, if not impossible, to locate and reunite with their children at the conclusion of their immigration case. The legal systems governing immigration law and family and child welfare law are not well calibrated. The awkward intersection of these two disciplines can create challenges to parental rights and family unity, violations of due process, significant trauma for children and an undue burden for our social services system. Yet adverse effects that arise at the crossroads of the two systems could be reduced or avoided through policies and procedures that are not inconsistent with the enforcement of existing immigration or child welfare laws. Since the Women’s Refugee Commission began focusing on this issue in 2007, we have found that challenges to parental rights are becoming more frequent as immigration enforcement expands. Our interviews with detained parents continue to reveal cases in which parents are unable to locate or communicate with their children, unable to participate in reunification plans and family court proceedings, and unable to make arrangements to take their children with them when they leave the country. With the increased participation of states and localities in immigration enforcement programs like Secure Communities and the expansion of this program nationwide by 2013 we can expect the number of parents who are apprehended and deported to remain stable or increase. Unless ICE takes steps to reduce the unnecessary detention of parents, to ensure that detained parents can take steps to protect their parental rights and to facilitate the ability of parents facing deportation to make decisions in the best interest of their children, challenges to parental rights will remain a very real problem for children, families and society. Details: New York: Women's Refugee Commission, 2010. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 23, 2011 at: www.womenscommission.org Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 123440 Keywords: Children of Illegal ImmigrantsDeportationIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigration Enforcement |
Author: Title: Removals Involving Illegal Alien Parents of United States Citizen Children Summary: The Committee on Appropriations for the House of Representatives directed the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General, through H. Rep. 110-181, to report on detentions and removals involving U.S. citizen children and their parents among Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s detention center population over the past 10 years. The requested data included: (1) the total number of aliens removed from the United States; (2) the number of instances in which one or both parents of a U.S. citizen child were removed; (3) the reason for the parents’ removal; (4) the length of time the parents lived in the United States before removal; (5) whether the U.S. citizen children remained in the United States after the parents’ removal; and (6) the number of days a U.S. citizen child was held in detention. The United States conducted 2,199,138 alien removals between FYs 1998 and 2007. Existing data indicate that these removals involved 108,434 alien parents of U.S. citizen children. Alien parents were removed because of immigration violations, such as being present without authorization or committing criminal violations that affect immigration status. Data limitations decrease the reliability of these results, including the absence of a requirement for staff to collect data that establish which aliens are the parents of U.S. citizen children. We were unable to compile all the requested data because Immigration and Customs Enforcement does not collect the following specific information: (1) the number of instances in which both parents of a particular child were removed; (2) the length of time a parent lived in the United States before removal; and (3) whether the U.S. citizen children remained in the United States after the parents’ removal. Immigration and Customs Enforcement reported detaining no U.S. citizen children. We are recommending that Immigration and Customs Enforcement analyze and report on the feasibility of establishing procedures to document the number of removed alien parents and the age of aliens’ children to indicate whether they are minors or adults. Details: Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security, 2009. 23p. Source: OIG-09-15: Internet Resource: Accessed February 11, 2012 at http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/library/P3156.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/library/P3156.pdf Shelf Number: 124080 Keywords: Criminal Aliens (U.S.)DeportationIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrationsImmigrantsParents |
Author: Title: Detention and Removal of Illegal Aliens: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Summary: This report presents the results of our review of DHS’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) program for detaining and removing illegal aliens1 apprehended in the United States and at ports of entry. The program is administered through ICE’s Office of Detention and Removal (DRO). The objective of our review was to determine the extent to which DRO is performing its mission to remove all illegal aliens who are removable, including those that pose a potential national security or public safety threat to the U.S. Currently, DRO is unable to ensure the departure from the U.S. of all removable aliens. Of the 774,112 illegal aliens apprehended during the past three years, 280,987 (36%) were released largely due to a lack of personnel, bed space, and funding needed to detain illegal aliens while their immigration status is being adjudicated. This presents significant risks due to the inability of Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and ICE to verify the identity, country-oforigin, and terrorist or criminal affiliation of many of the aliens being released. Further, the declining personnel and bed space level is occurring when the number of illegal aliens apprehended is increasing. For example, the number of illegal aliens apprehended increased from 231,077 in FY 2002 to 275,680 in FY 2004, a 19 percent increase. However, during the same period, authorized personnel and funded bed space levels declined by 3 percent and 6 percent, respectively. These shortfalls encourage illegal immigration by increasing the likelihood that apprehended aliens will be released while their immigration status is adjudicated. Further, historical trends indicate that 62 percent of the aliens released will eventually be issued final orders of removal by the U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) and later fail to surrender for removal or abscond. Although DRO has received additional funding to enhance its Fugitive Operations Program, it is unlikely that many of the released aliens will ever be removed. As of December 30, 2005, there were more than 544,000 released aliens with final orders of removal who have absconded. Declining bed space and personnel levels are also making it difficult for ICE/DRO to detain and remove illegal aliens that are from countries other than Mexico (OTM) including aliens from countries whose governments support state sponsored terrorism (SST) or who promote, produce, or protect terrorist organizations and their members (SIC). Of the 605,210 OTMs apprehended between FY 2001 and the first six months of FY 2005, 309,733 were released of which 45,008 (15%) purportedly originated from SST and SIC countries. DRO estimates that in FY 2007 there will be 605,000 foreign-born individuals admitted to state correctional facilities and local jails during the year for committing crimes in the U.S. Of this number, DRO estimates half (302,500) will be removable aliens. Most of these incarcerated aliens are being released into the U.S. at the conclusion of their respective sentences because DRO does not have the resources to identify, detain, and remove these aliens under its Criminal Alien Program (CAP). It is estimated that DRO would need an additional 34,653 detention beds, at an estimated cost of $1.1 billion, to detain and remove all SST, SIC, and CAP aliens. Additionally, DRO’s ability to detain and remove illegal aliens with final orders of removal is impacted by (1) the propensity of illegal aliens to disobey orders to appear in immigration court; (2) the penchant of released illegal aliens with final orders to abscond; (3) the practice of some countries to block or inhibit the repatriation of its citizens; and (4) two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions which mandate the release of criminal and other high-risk aliens 180 days after the issuance of the final removal order except in “Special Circumstances.” Collectively, the bed space, personnel and funding shortages coupled with the other factors, has created an unofficial “mini-amnesty” program for criminal and other high-risk aliens. DRO’s goal is to develop the capacity to remove all removable aliens, and it has developed a strategic plan covering 2003-2012 entitled “Endgame,” to accomplish that goal. However, the plan identifies several significant challenges beyond its control, including the need for sufficient resources, political will, and the cooperation of foreign governments. Current resources, including those included in the FY 2006 Appropriations Act and the Administration’s FY 2007 budget request, are not sufficient to detain all high-risk aliens, including those from SST and SIC countries. We are recommending that the Assistant Secretary (ICE) develop a plan to provide ICE with the capacity to: (1) detain and remove high-risk aliens; (2) intensify its efforts to develop alternatives to detention; and (3) resolve with the State Department issues that are preventing or impeding the repatriation of illegal OTMs. Also, we are recommending that DRO expedite its efforts to implement a data management system that is capable of meeting its expanding data collection and analysis needs relating to the detention and removal of illegal aliens. Such a system would significantly enhance DRO’s ability to support future budget requests, identify emerging trends, and assess its overall mission performance. Details: Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security, 2006. 52p. Source: Office of Audits Report OIG-06-33: Internet Resource: Accessed February 11, 2012 at http://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/OIG_06-33_Apr06.pdf Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/OIG_06-33_Apr06.pdf Shelf Number: 124081 Keywords: Criminal Aliens (U.S.)DeportationDetentionIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrationsImmigrants |
Author: Hiemstra, Nancy Ann Title: The View From Ecuador: Security, Insecurity, and Chaotic Geographies of U.S. Migrant Detention and Deportation Summary: The central argument of this dissertation is that while the immigration enforcement policies of detention and deportation are politically positioned as critical strategies for protecting U.S. homeland security, these policies actually create insecurity at multiple scales. The project, grounded in both critical geopolitics and feminist political geography, endeavors to interrogate the ‗master narratives‘ behind these restrictive policies. First, the dissertation explores the historical, political, and cultural factors behind the United States‘ increased use of detention and deportation, as well as the deepseated structural factors driving Ecuadorian migration to the United States. Then, drawing on ethnographic fieldwork in Ecuador with deportees and family members of detained migrants, the study seeks to understand ways in which these policies are embodied both within and outside U.S. borders. It is suggested that the detention and deportation system engenders chaos – or the appearance of chaos – in numerous spaces and for various groups of individuals. Three ‗chaotic geographies‘ of the system are explored in order to scrutinize the enactment of immigration policy: the operation of the system itself, detainees‘ experiences, and reverberations of detention and deportation in Ecuador. Data show that inside U.S. borders, these enforcement policies interact recursively with processes of racialization and criminalization to generate insecurity for detained migrants and discipline employees to behave in particular ways. In addition, due to its inherent disorder and confusion, the detention and deportation system projects a cloak of impenetrability that hides the powerful actors behind its expansion, faults, and abuses. The dissertation then investigates how the chaos of detention and deportation extends transnationally to countries of migrant origin to produce insecurity precisely at the scale of the home for migrants‘ families, communities, and for returned migrants. In Ecuador, detention and deportation increase economic and ontological insecurity for family members and returned migrants in ways that spread throughout communities. Moreover, data from Ecuador illustrate that policymakers‘ objectives of deterrence do not play out as anticipated. In this project, the author joins critical scholars in calling for an expanded understanding of the concept of security, one which incorporates multiple scales and operates across political borders. Details: Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, 2011. 328p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed July 19, 2012 at: http://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1068&context=geo_etd&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3D%2522the%2520view%2520from%2520ecuador%253A%2520security%2522%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D2%26ved%3D0CFMQFjAB%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fsurface.syr.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1068%2526context%253Dgeo_etd%26ei%3DvwsIUOjYOsTr0QGY45XZAw%26usg%3DAFQjCNEdrVc4H0guG5jVeq8-VDDaxJvmQA#search=%22view%20from%20ecuador%3A%20security%22 Year: 2011 Country: Ecuador URL: http://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1068&context=geo_etd&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3D%2522the%2520view%2520from%2520ecuador%253A%2520security%2522%26source%3Dw Shelf Number: 125676 Keywords: Border SecurityDeportationIllegal AliensImmigrant DetentionImmigrantsImmigration (Ecuador) |
Author: Homeland Security Advisory Council. U.S. Department of Homeland Security Title: Task Force on Secure Communities: Findings and Recommendations Summary: The Task Force on Secure Communities is a subcommittee of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) and was created in June 2011 at the request of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano. HSAC, which is comprised of leaders from state and local government, first responder agencies, the private sector, and academia, provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary on matters related to homeland security. The Task Force was asked to consider how Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) may improve the Secure Communities Program, including how to address some of the concerns about the program that “relate to [its] impact on community policing and the possibility of racial profiling,” and “how to best focus on individuals who pose a true public safety or national security threat.” In addition, the Task Force was specifically charged with making recommendations “on how ICE can adjust the Secure Communities program to mitigate potential impacts on community policing practices, including whether and how to implement policy regarding the removals of individuals charged with, but not convicted of, minor traffic offenses who have no other criminal history.” Under Secure Communities, fingerprints of persons arrested by state and local law enforcement agencies, which those agencies routinely submit to the FBI for criminal justice database checks, are automatically shared with DHS. ICE then checks the local arrestee information against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) immigration databases. If ICE determines that it has an interest in an individual arrestee, the agency then determines what enforcement action to take. In most cases, the people determined to be of interest to ICE are subject to ICE enforcement action for reasons independent of the arrest or conviction. That is, the check of databases may indicate, for example, that the person is removable because he or she entered the country without inspection or overstayed a visa. Specific findings and recommendations are offered within. There is a strong consensus view, within the Task Force and in communities across the nation, that it is appropriate for ICE to continue to take enforcement action against serious criminal offenders who are subject to deportation. But because there are circumstances in which Secure Communities results in the removal of persons who are minor offenders or who have never been convicted of a crime, and because statements by ICE have left much confusion about the full reach of its enforcement priorities, many jurisdictions are concerned about the impact of Secure Communities on community policing. We recommend specific steps on which there is Task Force consensus that would help build trust in the program. Many Task Force members would go further, including recommending suspension of the program until major changes are made, or even recommending termination of what they believe is a fundamentally flawed program. Other members believe that reforms are necessary but the program nonetheless must continue to function. Those differences of view are reflected in the discussion below. ICE must recognize that it does not work in a vacuum and that its enforcement actions impact other agencies and the relationships with their communities in what some may conclude is a negative way. The following pages contain recommendations for ICE to revise the program while working with state and local police, elected officials, and other stakeholders, taking their concerns seriously and working in partnership to find appropriate solutions. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2011. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 5, 2012 at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/hsac-task-force-on-secure-communities-findings-and-recommendations-report.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/hsac-task-force-on-secure-communities-findings-and-recommendations-report.pdf Shelf Number: 126264 Keywords: Background ChecksCommunity PolicingCriminal Aliens (U.S.)Customs EnforcementDeportation |
Author: Guttin, Andrea Title: The Criminal Alien Program: Immigration Enforcement in Travis County, Texas Summary: The Criminal Alien Program (CAP) is a program administered by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that screens inmates in prisons and jails, identifies deportable non-citizens, and places them into deportation proceedings. In this Special Report, The Criminal Alien Program: Immigration Enforcement in Travis County, Texas, provides a brief history and background on the CAP program. It includes a case study of CAP implementation in Travis County, Texas, which finds that the program has a negative impact on communities because it increases the community’s fear of reporting crime to police, is costly, and may encourage racial profiling. Details: Washington, DC: Immigration Policy Center, American Immigration Council, 2010. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 29, 2012 at: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Criminal_Alien_Program_021710.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Criminal_Alien_Program_021710.pdf Shelf Number: 126497 Keywords: Border PatrolBorder SecurityDeportationIllegal AliensImmigrantsImmigration (U.S.) |
Author: Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights Title: Immigration Enforcement -- The Dangerous Reality Behind "Secure Communities" Summary: Immigration Enforcement-- The Dangerous Reality behind “Secure Communities,” outlining the deep flaws in the program that nets 78% non-criminals in Illinois - three times nationwide rate. As US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) ramps up deportations to nearly 1,100 each day, it is selling its new “Secure Communities” program as a tool to help local police get dangerous criminals off the streets and out of the country. Yet here in Illinois, where 26 out of 102 counties participate so far, the program has been largely sweeping up immigrants who pose no harm to the community—disrupting families and wasting law enforcement resources paid for by Illinois taxpayers. Details: Chicago, IL: Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, 2011. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 7, 2012 at http://icirr.org/sites/default/files/ImmigrationEnforcementTheDangerousRealityBehindSecure%20Communities-1.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://icirr.org/sites/default/files/ImmigrationEnforcementTheDangerousRealityBehindSecure%20Communities-1.pdf Shelf Number: 126578 Keywords: DeportationImmigrant Detention (Illinois)Immigration Enforcement (Illinois)Secure Detention Centers |
Author: Alpes, Maybritt Jill Title: Bushfalling: How Young Cameroonians Dare to Migrate Summary: This book is written in reaction to, on the one hand, trafficking and smuggling discourses in Europe, and, on the other hand to the strong belief in the possibilities of bushfalling in Cameroon. Tensions between ambitions for mobility and imposed immobility are reflected in the way that Anglophone Cameroonians have started since the late 1990s to refer to emigration in Pidgin as ‘bushfalling’. Bushfalling is the act of going out to the wilderness (bush) to hunt down meat (money) and bring back these trophies. On the basis of an ethnographic study of migration brokers, consulate officers, aspiring migrants and their families, as well as deported migrants, this research investigates what makes young Cameroonians migrate at all cost. The books argues that we can only come to understand dynamics of trafficking and bushfalling if we take seriously the perspectives of people in countries of departure, as well as the plurality of regulatory dynamics that shape conditions of departure. By studying rather than presupposing the place of state, market and family actors within conditions of departure, this study unravels how the phenomena of bushfalling and trafficking do not exist merely because individuals chose to migrate at all cost. Details: Amsterdam: Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research, 2011. 266p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed November 9, 2012 at: http://dare.uva.nl/record/399071 Year: 2011 Country: Cameroon URL: http://dare.uva.nl/record/399071 Shelf Number: 126909 Keywords: DeportationHuman SmugglingHuman TraffickingIllegal ImmigrantsMarriage MigrationMigration (Cameroon) |
Author: Filindra, Alexandra Title: The Myth of "Self-Deportation": How Behavioral Economics Reveals the Fallacies behind “Attrition through Enforcement” Summary: The concept of “self-deportation” rests on a deceptively simple premise. According to its supporters, if the federal government invests more in enforcing immigration laws, and if states and localities take on additional immigration control responsibilities, the costs and risks of staying in the United States will increase substantially for undocumented immigrants. Faced with a high risk of being caught and imprisoned, “rational” undocumented residents will “give up and deport themselves” returning to their home countries rather than remain in the U.S. However, preliminary evidence from studies conducted in states where such enforcement laws have been enacted shows that immigration restrictionists have gotten it wrong. Immigrant population in these states has remained in place and the predicted exodus never materialized. Economic factors, rather than enforcement, have played a far more important role in reducing the rate of undocumented entry into the United States. This report uses important research findings from cognitive psychology and behavioral economics to explain why restrictionists have gotten it wrong and people do not behave in the “rational” way that restrictionists expect them to. Details: Wsahington, DC: Immigration Policy Center, American Immigration Council, 2012. 11p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 1, 2013 at: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/filindra_-_self-deportation_042912.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/filindra_-_self-deportation_042912.pdf Shelf Number: 128894 Keywords: DeportationIllegal ImmigrationImmigrantsImmigration Enforcement |
Author: Vine, John Title: A Thematic Inspection of How the UK Border Agency Manages Foreign National Prisoners Summary: 1. The UK Border Agency is responsible for deciding, in accordance with the law, whether foreign national prisoners should be deported from the UK. Where deportation is being considered, it also decides whether a person should be detained at the end of their prison sentence or released into the community with a requirement to report to the Agency if deportation has not occurred prior to the end of the prison sentence. This inspection assessed the effectiveness and efficiency of the Agency in managing foreign national prisoners. 2. Between 2007 and 2010, a total of 20,360 foreign national prisoners were deported from the UK. In 2010, 5,235 foreign national prisoners were deported. More than 2,500 (49 per cent) of these left the UK under a Facilitated Returns Scheme, which provided a cost-effective method of deportation. Greater emphasis had been placed on this scheme by the Agency with 19 per cent more foreign national prisoners deported than in 2009. A proportion of these people had been deported prior to the end of their custodial sentence under an Early Removal Scheme with consequent reduction in the cost of detention. 3. There was evidence of some good practice in decision-making with case owners proactively obtaining information from other public service agencies to ensure that decisions reflected all available evidence. However, the Agency had also made decisions to deport before foreign national prisoners had sufficient chance to make representations and, in five cases of our file sample, decisions to deport had been taken without the reasons being provided to the foreign national prisoner. 4. We found a significant disparity between the Agency’s and the courts’ interpretation of whether a foreign national prisoner should be entitled to remain in the UK on human rights grounds. Between March and December 2010, the Agency’s decisions to deport had been overturned in 425 cases by the First-Tier Tribunal – the overwhelming majority on human rights grounds. This contrasted with figures showing 151 foreign national prisoners being granted permission to remain on initial consideration by the Agency. In the 12 months to February 2011, 32 per cent of appeals lodged by foreign national prisoners against deportation had been successful. 5. There were a growing number of people whom the Agency had decided to deport, but had not done so, primarily because of difficulties in enforcing returns to particular countries, including the availability of travel documents. In 52 cases of our file sample (39%) the foreign national prisoner had yet to be deported. In May 2011 there were 3,775 foreign national prisoners in the community who had not been removed at the end of their custodial sentence. There was consistent awareness by staff and managers of the difficulties in obtaining travel documents, but no evidence that the issues and timescales were factored systematically into the handling of each case. 6. The Agency continues to rely on accurate referral of foreign national prisoners from prisons and the courts. Work had taken place to reduce the risks of incorrect referrals although the Agency was still seeking to locate 12 people who had been released directly from court or who had not been referred correctly. 7. By January 2011, over 1,600 foreign national prisoners were detained under immigration powers at the end of their custodial sentence, pending deportation. The average length of detention had increased from 143 days in February 2010 to 190 days in January 2011, and 27 per cent of all foreign national prisoners who were detained after their custodial sentence had been detained for longer than 12 months. 8. The Agency’s policy presumes the release of foreign national prisoners at the end of their sentence subject to an assessment of the risk they pose to the public and the risk of absconding. However, foreign national prisoners had remained in detention in 94 out of 97 cases sampled (97 per cent), where they had completed their sentence and where deportation was being pursued. Release needed to be authorised at senior Board level, in contrast to a decision to detain, which could be taken by lower management. 9. There was genuine fear and reluctance to release, given the potential implications of a foreign national prisoner committing a further offence, but no evidence that a detailed assessment of the risk of reoffending had taken place in each case. There was also a disparity between the number of people released from detention by the Agency and the number released on bail by the courts. Between February 2010 and January 2011, the Agency released 109 foreign national prisoners from detention compared with 1,102 released on bail by the courts. 10. The Agency had increased the amount of contact with foreign national prisoners who were serving their custodial sentence. However, there were no minimum standards for the level of contact that case owners should have, and consequently there were variations in practice. The Agency had not carried out an assessment to determine whether greater contact would be beneficial in terms of timeliness or accuracy of decision-making. 11. The standard of file management varied, with some containing documents arranged in a logical order, while others lacked information explaining actions that had been taken. In 11 of the cases sampled (8 per cent), information relating to people other than the foreign national prisoner was held on file with no explanation as to why this had happened. In addition, there was a risk that data obtained for foreign nationals who had been acquitted of an offence would be retained unlawfully in the absence of a clear retention or destruction policy. 12. The Agency received 144 complaints from foreign national prisoners between February 2010 and January 2011; the overwhelming majority relating to the standard of service provided by the Agency, and 31 of these had been substantiated. There was an inconsistent understanding amongst staff of what constituted a complaint, with the risk that some complaints were not being identified. Senior managers received feedback on the nature of complaints, although we found no evidence of specific operational changes that had occurred as a result. 13. The Agency routinely monitored the number of foreign national prisoners deported, the number detained following completion of their sentence and the length of detention. It had assessed the likely numbers and costs of foreign national prisoners remaining in detention or living in the community, and monitored risks at senior Board level. 14. Staff changes arising from measures to reduce costs were being introduced with a likely short-term drop in the number of deportations as new staff received training. Details: London: Independent Chief Inspector of the UK Border Agency, 2011. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 13, 2013 at: Independent Chief Inspector of the UK Border Agency Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 129386 Keywords: Criminal Offenders, Foreign NationalsDeportationPrisons, Foreign Nationals (U.K.) |
Author: Anderson, Victoria Title: Second Chances for All. Why Orange County Probation Should Stop Choosing Deportation Over Rehabilitation for Immigrant youth Summary: In recent years, the Orange County Probation Department (OCPD) has adopted a policy of referring immigrant children in its care to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In so doing, OCPD has violated confidentiality laws, undermined the rehabilitative goals of the juvenile justice system, impeded community policing efforts, unlawfully entangled its officers in federal immigration enforcement, and diverted county resources. This report was undertaken by the UC Irvine School of Law Immigrant Rights Clinic to analyze OCPD's referral policy, document some of these harms, and recommend possible solutions to address those harms. As a result of OCPD's referral policy, Orange County has led the state in juvenile immigration referrals. From December 2010 to November 2012, the OCPD Procedure Manual instructed probation officers to proactively investigate the immigration status of youth and granted OCPD's ICE Liaison Officer discretion to refer practically any child with "questionable immigration status" to ICE. Pursuant to this policy, OCPD referred approximately 170 youth to immigration authorities in the year 2011 alone. Between October 1, 2009 and February 10, 2013, ICE issued immigration detainer requests for numerous youth detained in Orange County Juvenile Hall; Orange County accounted for approximately 43% of all ICE detainer requests issued to juvenile facilities in the state. In November 2012, OCPD revised its referral policy; however, key problematic aspects of the policy were left unchanged. In the months following the policy change, OCPD has made a steady, if reduced, number of referrals. Approximately 24 youth were referred between December 2012 and September 2013. OCPD's referral policy violates state confidentiality law and undermines OCPD's mission to rehabilitate juveniles. The policy violates California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 827, which strictly limits access to juvenile case files, by requiring employees to provide ICE with "all pertinent information" to assist ICE's investigation of referred juveniles. Juvenile referrals also cause both children and their families to distrust the probation department, hindering cooperation necessary for rehabilitation. Furthermore, many juveniles referred to ICE are detained in federal custody for an indefinite period awaiting immigration court proceedings, separating them from their families and subjecting them to physical and mental hardships that increase their risk of recidivism. In cases where children are deported, they experience long-term separation from family and friends, and may be left to fend for themselves in countries where they have no support system. Juvenile referrals do not benefit public safety, and may even hinder policing efforts. Studies have repeatedly found that immigration status does not shape future delinquency. Also, OCPD's own studies indicate that as few as 8% of youth who come into contact with OCPD qualify as "chronic recidivists." Thus, targeting immigrant youth for deportation is unlikely to make Orange County safer. In fact, juvenile referrals can harm public safety because they foster distrust between immigrant communities and local police generally. Surveys show that approximately 44% of Latinos are less likely to contact police officers when they fear police officers will investigate their immigration status or that of their loved ones. OCPD's involvement in federal immigration enforcement exceeds its authority under the Constitution and can lead to illegal detention, deportation, and profiling. Under the Constitution, immigration status may only be determined by federal officers and classified according to federal standards, but OCPD's referral policy directs county officers to independently ascertain juveniles' immigration status, according to a local scheme inconsistent with federal standards. The Constitution also guarantees juveniles the right to be free from unlawful detention, but the referral policy violates that right with its blanket directive to detain juveniles subject to ICE detainers for up to five days past their scheduled release dates. Furthermore, officers untrained in the complexities of immigration status are likely to rely on apparent race and ethnicity in selecting juveniles for immigration investigations, exacerbating risks of illegal racial profiling. Finally, OCPD officers may erroneously refer U.S. citizens or other lawfully present youth to ICE, potentially leading to their unlawful detention and deportation. OCPD's referral policy involves the unnecessary expenditure of county resources to subsidize federal immigration enforcement. OCPD employees - including a dedicated ICE Liaison - spend time on the county payroll investigating juveniles' immigration status and communicating with ICE, and the county incurs additional detention costs when OCPD denies out-of-home placement to juveniles subject to ICE detainers and detains such juveniles past their release dates. Further costs may result from lawsuits filed by those affected by OCPD's referral policy or by civil rights organizations, challenging violations of confidentiality laws, the detention of juveniles on the basis of ICE detainers, racial profiling by OCPD officers, or the erroneous referral and resulting detention or deportation of lawfully present juveniles. Details: Irvine, CA: University of California Irvine, School of Law, immigrant Rights Clinic, 2013. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 12, 2014 at: http://www.law.uci.edu/academics/real-life-learning/clinics/UCILaw_SecondChances_dec2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.law.uci.edu/academics/real-life-learning/clinics/UCILaw_SecondChances_dec2013.pdf Shelf Number: 131887 Keywords: DeportationIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigrant EnforcementImmigrationJuvenile DetentionJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationRehabilitation |
Author: Rosenblum, Marc R. Title: The Deportation Dilemma: Reconciling Tough and Humane Enforcement Summary: The United States has deported a record number of unauthorized immigrants and other removable noncitizens in recent years. More than 4.5 million noncitizens have been removed since Congress passed sweeping legislation in 1996 to toughen the nation's immigration enforcement system. The pace of formal removals has quickened tremendously, rising from about 70,000 in 1996 to 419,000 in 2012. This report analyzes the current pipelines for removal and key trends in border and interior apprehensions, deportations and criminal prosecutions. With the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the midst of a review of its deportation policies to see if they can be conducted "more humanely," the report also examines the policy levers the Obama administration has to influence deportation policies, practices and results. Using Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Naturalization Service data, the authors identify striking trends in the deportation system since 1996: - A fundamental shift from a deportation system focused on informal returns (voluntary return and departure) to one focused on formal removals, which have more severe consequences for those who are repatriated. - Major expansion in the use of nonjudicial removal procedures such as expedited removal and reinstatement of removal, in which immigration enforcement officers rather than immigration judges make deportation decisions. - Escalating criminalization, with a rising proportion of those apprehended at the Southwest border charged with immigration-related criminal offenses. The report explains that three factors have been the key drivers of major changes in deportation outcomes during the last two decades: new laws that expand the grounds for removal and speed the removals process; sizeable and sustained increases in immigration enforcement personnel, infrastructure, and technology; and operational and policy decisions by three successive administrations to shape enforcement outcomes. The report describes the actual state of U.S. immigration enforcement: Who is being deported and where and how are they being apprehended? It also explores how the current administration is carrying out its enforcement mandates. The Obama administration inherited - and expanded upon - unprecedented capacity to identify, apprehend, and deport unauthorized immigrants. Nearly as many people were formally deported during the first five years of the current administration (over 1.9 million) as during the entire eight years of the prior administration (2.0 million). What is new is that the Obama administration also has implemented prosecutorial discretion policies to focus enforcement efforts, even as the overall scope of enforcement has grown. These policies provide guidelines for exercising discretion not to deport certain people in cases that are outside established priority categories. Overall, enforcement at the border and within the United States show sharply different pictures. At the border, there is a near zero-tolerance system, where unauthorized immigrants are increasingly subject to formal removal and criminal charges. Within the country, there is greater flexibility, with priorities and resources focused on a smaller share of the population subject to removal. Such differences are consistent with the different goals and circumstances confronting border and interior enforcement. But the impacts of these differing systems have begun to converge, raising increasingly complex questions and choices for policymakers and the public. The research presented here highlights the deportation dilemma: that more humane enforcement is fundamentally in tension with stricter immigration control; and that a more robust enforcement system inevitably inflicts damage on established families and communities. Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2014. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 3, 2014 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/deportation-dilemma-reconciling-tough-humane-enforcement Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/deportation-dilemma-reconciling-tough-humane-enforcement Shelf Number: 132208 Keywords: DeportationIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrationImmigration EnforcementUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: Stevens, Jacqueline Title: One Dollar Per Day: The Slaving Wages of Immigration Jail Work Programs - A History and Legal Analysis, 1943 - Present Summary: This Paper evaluates the legality of the $1 per day payments for work performed by those in custody under immigration laws as well as its genesis. In 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt issued an order moving the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) out of the Department of Labor and into the Justice Department. During this same time frame, the U.S. Government established internment camps for "enemy aliens," i.e., civilians in the United States and other countries in Latin America who were or were imagined to be citizens of Axis powers. In 1943, the Justice Department paid those so held 80 cents per day for their work performed in the camps; the average daily cost of each person's detention in 1943 was one dollar. This was the origins of the 1950 law authorizing paying those in custody under immigration laws for work performed. If those in immigration custody today were paid at the ratio from 1943, they would be earning about $80 per day. This paper draws on government documents and contracts obtained under the Freedom of Information Act as well as the program's implementation and history as the basis for a statutory analysis of the Government's defense of its legality. The Paper argues that under a reading of the relevant laws' plain meaning, legislative history, and purpose, the program appears to violate various labor laws and the Fifth, Sixth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. Details: Chicago: The Author, 2014. 160p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper, v. 2 (May 15, 2014): Accessed June 14, 2014 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2434006 Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2434006 Shelf Number: 132458 Keywords: DeportationDetention Illegal Immigrants Immigration Law Prison Labor Private Prisons Undocumented Immigrants |
Author: Human Rights Watch Title: "You Don't Have Rights Here". US Border Screening and Returns of Central Americans to Risk of Serious Harm Summary: In recent years, the United States has apprehended growing numbers of Central Americans crossing the US-Mexico border without authorization. These migrants have left their countries for many reasons, including fleeing rising violence by gangs involved in the drug trade. US Customs and Border Protection deports the overwhelming majority of migrants it apprehends from Central America in accelerated processes known as "expedited removal" or "reinstatement of removal." These processes include rapid-fire screening for a migrant's fear of persecution or torture upon return to their home country. "You Don't Have Rights Here" details how summary screening at the US border is failing to identify people fleeing serious risks to their lives and safety. It is based primarily on the accounts of migrants sent back to Honduras or in detention in US migrant detention facilities. An analysis of US government deportation data shows that the Border Patrol flags only a tiny minority of Central Americans for a more extended interview to determine if they have a "credible" fear of returning home. Migrants said that Border Patrol officers seemed singularly focused on deporting them and their families despite their fear of return. Some said that after their deportation they went into hiding, fearful for their lives. Human Rights Watch calls on the US government to ensure that immigration authorities give the cases of Central American migrants sufficient scrutiny before returning them to risk of serious harm. It also urges US authorities to stop detaining migrant children, and to improve migrants' access to lawyers. Details: New York: HRW, 2014. 49p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 17, 2014 at: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us1014_web.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Central America URL: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us1014_web.pdf Shelf Number: 133732 Keywords: Border SecurityDeportationHuman Rights AbusesIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigrantsImmigration Enforcement |
Author: Great Britain. National Audit Office Title: Managing and removing foreign national offenders Summary: Despite increased resources and tougher powers, the Home Office has made slower progress than expected in managing foreign national offenders (FNOs) in the UK and in removing them to their home countries. Today's report by the National Audit Office highlights the fact that the number of FNOs in prison and the number deported from the UK have remained broadly unchanged since 2006. Over that period, the number of foreign nationals in prison in the UK increased slightly (by 4%) from 10,231 to 10,649, despite a tenfold increase in the number of the Department's staff working on FNO casework. After an initial surge in the number removed from 2,856 in 2006-07 to 5,613 in 2008-09 (following the problems in 2006 when the Department found that 1,013 FNOs had been released without being considered for deportation), removal numbers have declined to 5,097 in 2013-14. With regard to prevention and early action, the Government did relatively little before December 2012 to tackle the problem of potential FNOs entering the UK. A new 2013 action plan has focused efforts on this aspect of prevention but it lacks a structured and informed approach. The Department is looking at better use of intelligence databases and has changed its immigration rules, but progress in modernising its border information system - the Warnings Index - has been slow. The NAO estimates that $70 million could be saved each year if all early identification opportunities were seized and acted upon. Today's report recognizes that the barriers to removal are considerable; these include FNOs exploiting legal and medical obstacles to removal. However, the spending watchdog identifies measures and opportunities for making progress which are not being maximized. NAO analysis of 1,453 failed removals in 2013-14 indicated that at least a third might have been avoided through better co-ordination of the bodies involved and fewer administrative errors. Following a change of approach from April 2013, all FNOs are now considered for deportation. This has increased removals from 4,722 in 2012-13 to 5,097 in 2013-14. The time taken to deport FNOs has also reduced from 369 days on average in 2012-13 to 319 days in 2013-14. According to the NAO, however, because of delays in starting cases and an over-reliance on form-filling, there is considerable scope to speed up the process. Greater use of early removal schemes could also save money. The NAO estimates that the 37% of FNOs who left as part of the Early Removal Scheme in 2013-14 saved L27.5 million, by reducing the average number of days spent in prison by 146. The Department and Ministry of Justice do not use cost data to manage FNOs. The NAO estimates that, in 2013-14, public bodies spent $850 million on managing and removing FNOs - around $70,000 per FNO. The Department has made limited progress since 2006 in removing FNOs who have completed their sentences. At the end of March 2014, more than one in six FNOs living in the community (760) had absconded, up 6% since 2010. Furthermore, 395 absconders have been missing since before 2010, of which 58 are high harm individuals. Despite the 2006 crisis, the Department did not keep records of FNOs released without consideration for deportation before January 2009, and estimates 151 FNOs have been released without consideration since then. Details: London: NAO, 2014. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 22, 2014 at: http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Managing-and-removing-foreign-national-offenders.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Managing-and-removing-foreign-national-offenders.pdf Shelf Number: 133797 Keywords: DeportationForeign NationalsImmigrants and CrimePrisoners, Foreign (U.K.) |
Author: Lee, Evan Title: Regulating Crimmigration Summary: In the last decade, federal prison populations and deportations have both soared to record numbers. The principal cause of these sharp increases has been the leveraging of prior criminal convictions - mostly state convictions - into federal sentencing enhancements and deportations. These increases are controversial on political and policy grounds. Indeed, the political controversy has overshadowed the fact that the Nation's Article III and immigration courts have struggled with an exquisitely difficult set of technical problems in determining which state criminal convictions should qualify for federal sentencing enhancements and/or deportation. The crux of the problem is that the underlying crime can be viewed in a fact-sensitive manner - which usually benefits the government - or in an abstract, "categorical" manner - which usually benefits the individual. In two recent decisions, Descamps v. United States and Moncrieffe v. Holder, the U.S. Supreme Court has squarely sided with a categorical approach. Yet the implementation of a categorical approach faces three huge challenges: first, it cuts against the widely shared intuition that just punishment should turn on the facts of the case in question; second, it presupposes that federal courts will always be able to ascertain the essential elements of state offenses; and third, a categorical approach resists application to a significant number of existing federal statutes. This Article sketches out a coherent framework for administering a categorical approach across both federal sentencing and immigration, in the process reconciling seemingly inconsistent Supreme Court decisions and suggesting how several circuit splits should be resolved. Details: San Francisco: University of California Hastings College of the Law, 2015. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: UC Hastings Research Paper No. 128: Accessed February 12, 2015 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2559485 Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2559485 Shelf Number: 134604 Keywords: DeportationImmigrantsImmigrationPunishmentSentencing (U.S.)Sentencing Enhancements |
Author: Siskin, Alison Title: Alien Removals and Returns: Overview and Trends Summary: The ability to remove foreign nationals (aliens) who violate U.S. immigration law is central to the immigration enforcement system. Some lawful migrants violate the terms of their admittance, and some aliens enter the United States illegally, despite U.S. immigration laws and enforcement. In 2012, there were an estimated 11.4 million resident unauthorized aliens; estimates of other removable aliens, such as lawful permanent residents who commit crimes, are elusive. With total repatriations of over 600,000 people in FY2013-including about 440,000 formal removals-the removal and return of such aliens have become important policy issues for Congress, and key issues in recent debates about immigration reform. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides broad authority to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to remove certain foreign nationals from the United States, including unauthorized aliens (i.e., foreign nationals who enter without inspection, aliens who enter with fraudulent documents, and aliens who enter legally but overstay the terms of their temporary visas) and lawfully present foreign nationals who commit certain acts that make them removable. Any foreign national found to be inadmissible or deportable under the grounds specified in the INA may be ordered removed. The INA describes procedures for making and reviewing such a determination, and specifies conditions under which certain grounds of removal may be waived. DHS officials may exercise certain forms of discretion in pursuing removal orders, and certain removable aliens may be eligible for permanent or temporary relief from removal. Certain grounds for removal (e.g., criminal grounds, terrorist grounds) render foreign nationals ineligible for most forms of relief and may make them eligible for more streamlined (expedited) removal processes. The "standard" removal process is a civil judicial proceeding in which an immigration judge from DOJ's Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) determines whether an alien is removable. Immigration judges may grant certain forms of relief during the removal process (e.g., asylum, cancellation of removal), and the judge's removal decisions are subject to administrative and judicial review. The INA also describes different types of streamlined removal procedures, which generally include more-limited opportunities for relief and grounds for review. In addition, two alternative forms of removal exempt aliens from certain penalties associated with formal removal: voluntary departure (return) and withdrawal of petition for admission. These are often called "returns." Following an order of removal, an alien is inadmissible for a minimum of five years after the date of the removal, and therefore is generally ineligible to return to the United States during this time period. The period of inadmissibility is determined by the reason for and type of removal. For example, a foreign national ordered removed based on removal proceedings initiated upon the foreign national's arrival is inadmissible for five years, while a foreign national ordered removed after being apprehended within the United States is inadmissible for 10 years. The length of inadmissibility increases to 20 years for an alien's second or subsequent removal order, and is indefinite for a foreign national convicted of an aggravated felony. Absent additional factors, unlawful presence in the United States is a civil violation, not a criminal offense, and removal and its associated administrative processes are civil proceedings. As such, aliens in removal proceedings generally have no right to counsel (though they may be represented by counsel at their own expense). In addition, because removal is not considered punishment by the courts, Congress may impose immigration consequences retroactively. There were a record number of removals between FY2009 and FY2013, including 438,421 removals in FY2013. Approximately 71% of the foreign nationals removed were from Mexico. However, during the same time period the number of returns (most of which occur at the Southwest border) decreased to a low of 178,371 in FY2013-the fewest returns since 1968. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Services, 2015. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: CRS Report No. R43892: Accessed February 16, 2015 at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43892.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43892.pdf Shelf Number: 134629 Keywords: DeportationIllegal Immigrants (U.S.)ImmigrationUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: Meyer, Maureen Title: On the Front Lines: Border Security, Migration, and Humanitarian Concerns in South Texas Summary: In December 2014, WOLA paid its third visit in two years to the Rio Grande Valley, the part of the U.S.-Mexico border closest to the Gulf of Mexico, in south Texas. This region made headlines in summer 2014 as tens of thousands of unaccompanied Central American children crossed the border here. This crisis has declined somewhat, but 2015 is still on track to be the second-largest year on record for Central American child and family migration to the United States, most of it in the Rio Grande Valley. But this is just one crisis that this region is suffering. The Rio Grande Valley now records the highest number of migrants dying of dehydration and exposure as they walk through its arid ranch lands. It sits across from what is today the most violent segment of Mexico's border zone. This segment receives the largest portion of Mexican citizens deported by the United States, who face acute safety concerns upon their return. The situation on both sides of the border is extremely difficult: for migrants, for residents on the Mexican side, and for U.S. and Mexican law enforcement personnel who have to contend with it. It requires Washington and Mexico City to take bold and humane actions. This report recommends several. Details: Washington, DC: Washington Office on Latin America, 2015. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 9, 2015 at: http://www.wola.org/sites/default/files/MX/WOLA%20Report_South%20Texas%20Border%202015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.wola.org/sites/default/files/MX/WOLA%20Report_South%20Texas%20Border%202015.pdf Shelf Number: 134763 Keywords: Border Security (U.S.)DeportationIllegal MigrationImmigration PolicyMigrants |
Author: Vaughan, Jessica M. Title: Catch and Release: Interior immigration enforcement in 2013 Summary: A review of internal ICE metrics for 2013 reveals that hundreds of thousands of deportable aliens who were identified in the interior of the country were released instead of removed under the administration's sweeping "prosecutorial discretion" guidelines. In 2013, ICE reported 722,000 encounters with potentially deportable aliens, most of whom came to their attention after incarceration for a local arrest. Yet ICE officials followed through with immigration charges for only 195,000 of these aliens, only about one-fourth. According to ICE personnel, the vast majority of these releases occurred because of current policies that shield most illegal aliens from enforcement, not because the aliens turned out to have legal status or were qualified to stay in the United States. Many of the aliens ignored by ICE were convicted criminals. In 2013, ICE agents released 68,000 aliens with criminal convictions, or 35 percent of all criminal aliens they reported encountering. The criminal alien releases typically occur without formal notice to local law enforcement agencies and victims. These findings raise further alarm over the Obama administration's pending review of deportation practices, which reportedly may further expand the administration's abuse of "prosecutorial discretion". Interior enforcement activity has already declined 40 percent since the imposition of "prosecutorial discretion" policies in 2011.1 Rather than accelerating this decline, there is an urgent need to review and reverse the public safety and fiscal harm cause by the president's policies. Key Findings - In 2013, ICE charged only 195,000, or 25 percent, out of 722,000 potentially deportable aliens they encountered. Most of these aliens came to ICE's attention after incarceration for a local arrest. - ICE released 68,000 criminal aliens in 2013, or 35 percent of the criminal aliens encountered by officers. The vast majority of these releases occurred because of the Obama administration's prosecutorial discretion policies, not because the aliens were not deportable. - ICE targeted 28 percent fewer aliens for deportation from the interior in 2013 than in 2012, despite sustained high numbers of encounters in the Criminal Alien and Secure Communities programs. - Every ICE field office but one reported a decline in interior enforcement activity, with the largest decline in the Atlanta field office, which covers Georgia and the Carolinas. - ICE reports that there are more than 870,000 aliens on its docket who have been ordered removed, but who remain in defiance of the law. - Under current policies, an alien's family relationships, political considerations, attention from advocacy groups, and other factors not related to public safety can trump even serious criminal convictions and result in the termination of a deportation case. - Less than 2 percent of ICE's caseload was in detention at the end of fiscal year 2013. - About three-fourths of the aliens ICE detained in 2013 had criminal and/or immigration convictions so serious that the detention was required by statute. This suggests the need for more detention capacity, so ICE can avoid releasing so many deportable criminal aliens. Unless otherwise noted, the data for this report are from the 2013 fiscal year-end edition of ICE's "Weekly Departures and Detention Report" (WRD), which is prepared by the Information Resource Management Unit of ICE's Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO).2 This report compiles a variety of ICE caseload statistics, including encounters, arrests, detention, and removal of aliens. The tables in this report use data taken directly from the WRD. Details: Washington, DC: Center for Immigration Studies, 2014. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 29, 2015 at: http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/vaughan-ice-3-14_0.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/vaughan-ice-3-14_0.pdf Shelf Number: 135405 Keywords: DeportationIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigrants and CrimeImmigration (U.S.)Undocumented Immigrants |
Author: Rosenblum, Marc R. Title: Understanding the Potential Impact of Executive Action on Immigration Enforcement Summary: While much of the attention to the Obama administration's announcement of executive actions on immigration in November 2014 has focused on key deferred action programs, two changes that have not faced legal challenge are in the process of being implemented and may substantially affect the U.S. immigration enforcement system. These changes include the adoption by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of new policy guidance on which categories of unauthorized immigrants and other potentially removable noncitizens are priorities for enforcement, and the replacement of the controversial Secure Communities information-sharing program with a new, more tailored Priority Enforcement Program (PEP). The new policy guidance, which builds on previous memoranda published by the Obama administration in 2010 and 2011, further targets enforcement to noncitizens who have been convicted of serious crimes, are threats to public safety, are recent illegal entrants, or have violated recent deportation orders. MPI estimates that about 13 percent of unauthorized immigrants in the United States would be considered enforcement priorities under these policies, compared to 27 percent under the 2010-11 enforcement guidelines. The net effect of this new guidance will likely be a reduction in deportations from within the interior of the United States as DHS detention and deportation resources are increasingly allocated to more explicitly defined priorities. By comparing the new enforcement priorities to earlier DHS removal data, this report estimates that the 2014 policy guidance, if strictly adhered to, is likely to reduce deportations from within the United States by about 25,000 cases annually - bringing interior removals below the 100,000 mark. Removals at the U.S.-Mexico border remain a top priority under the 2014 guidelines, so falling interior removals may be offset to some extent by increases at the border. Taking the enforcement focus off settled unauthorized immigrants who do not meet the November 2014 enforcement priorities would effectively offer a degree of protection to the vast majority - 87 percent - of unauthorized immigrants now residing in the United States, thus affecting a substantially larger share of this population than the announced deferred action programs (9.6 million compared to as many as 5.2 million unauthorized immigrants). This report analyzes how many unauthorized immigrants fall within each of the new priority categories and how implementation of these priorities could affect the number of deportations from the United States, as well as what the termination of Secure Communities and launch of PEP could mean for federal cooperation with state and local authorities on immigration. Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2015. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 29, 2015 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/understanding-potential-impact-executive-action-immigration-enforcement Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/understanding-potential-impact-executive-action-immigration-enforcement Shelf Number: 136235 Keywords: Criminal Aliens Deportation Illegal Immigrants Immigration Immigration EnforcementUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: Noferi, Mark Title: A Humane Approach Can Work: The Effectiveness of Alternatives to Detention for Asylum Seekers Summary: For decades, the U.S. refugee protection system has been a symbol of the nation's generosity and openness to the world's persecuted. Yet since Congress' enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), asylum seekers arriving at the United States-Mexico border have been subject to mandatory detention and summary deportation processes, resulting in the deportation of countless persons in need of protection. Empirical research has found, however, that asylum seekers fleeing persecution arrive predisposed to comply with legal processes and trust the system to provide them a fair hearing, even if they might lose. If the U.S. government treats asylum seekers fairly and humanely-i.e., releases them following their apprehension and provides legal assistance before their hearing-evidence suggests that they will be likely to appear for proceedings. Put simply, a humane approach can work. This report reviews emerging research on the release of asylum seekers from detention, including the impact of various forms of alternatives to detention (ATD), summarizes the primary harms caused by immigration detention, and argues that releasing asylum seekers (on alternatives as needed) and affording legal assistance can protect the rights of asylum seekers and facilitate compliance with proceedings and legitimate removals, at far less human and financial cost than detention. Details: Washington, DC: American Immigration Council; New York: Center for Migration Studies, 2015. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 29, 2015 at: http://cmsny.org/wp-content/uploads/A-Humane-Approach-Can-Work.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://cmsny.org/wp-content/uploads/A-Humane-Approach-Can-Work.pdf Shelf Number: 136236 Keywords: Alternatives to DetentionAsylum SeekersDeportationImmigrants |
Author: Ewing, Walter A. Title: The Criminalization of Immigration in the United States Summary: For more than a century, innumerable studies have confirmed two simple yet powerful truths about the relationship between immigration and crime: immigrants are less likely to commit serious crimes or be behind bars than the native-born, and high rates of immigration are associated with lower rates of violent crime and property crime. This holds true for both legal immigrants and the unauthorized, regardless of their country of origin or level of education. In other words, the overwhelming majority of immigrants are not "criminals" by any commonly accepted definition of the term. For this reason, harsh immigration policies are not effective in fighting crime. Unfortunately, immigration policy is frequently shaped more by fear and stereotype than by empirical evidence. As a result, immigrants have the stigma of "criminality" ascribed to them by an ever-evolving assortment of laws and immigration-enforcement mechanisms. Put differently, immigrants are being defined more and more as threats. Whole new classes of "felonies" have been created which apply only to immigrants, deportation has become a punishment for even minor offenses, and policies aimed at trying to end unauthorized immigration have been made more punitive rather than more rational and practical. In short, immigrants themselves are being criminalized. Details: Washington, DC: American Immigration Council, 2015. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Special Report: Accessed August 3, 2015 at: http://immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/the_criminalization_of_immigration_in_the_united_states_final.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/the_criminalization_of_immigration_in_the_united_states_final.pdf Shelf Number: 136285 Keywords: DeportationIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrantsImmigration EnforcementImmigration Policy |
Author: Koball, Heather Title: Health and Social Service Needs of U.S.-Citizen Children with Detained or Deported Immigrant Parents Summary: Between 2003 and 2013, the U.S. government deported 3.7 million immigrants to their home countries. According to the most reliable estimates, parents of U.S.-born children made up between one-fifth and one-quarter of this total. This Urban Institute-MPI report examines the involvement of families with a deported parent with health and social service systems, as well as their needs and the barriers they face accessing such services. Drawing from fieldwork in five study sites in California, Florida, Illinois, South Carolina, and Texas, the researchers find that family economic hardship is highly prevalent following parental detention and deportation, while child welfare system involvement is rarer. Schools represent a promising avenue for interaction with these families and delivery of services, as school officials are perceived as safer intermediaries by unauthorized immigrant parents who may be skeptical of interaction with other government agencies. Other important sources of support include health providers, legal service providers, and community- and faith-based organizations that immigrants trust. The authors suggest a number of ways to provide services and reduce harm to children with detained and deported parents. First, health and human service agencies could improve their staff's language capacity, cultural competence, and knowledge of issues associated with immigration status. Another approach involves building bridges between health and human services agencies and informal local organizations that immigrants trust. Coordination among the key agencies (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, social service agencies, and foreign country consulates) is critical, especially for the provision of child welfare services. And small organizations implement many promising strategies to serve children with detained and deported parents, but often face limited resources and high staff turnover. Institutionalizing such strategies would provide a stronger safety net for these children and families in need. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute and Migration Policy Institute, 2015. 86p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 21, 2015 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/health-and-social-service-needs-us-citizen-children-detained-or-deported-immigrant-parents Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/health-and-social-service-needs-us-citizen-children-detained-or-deported-immigrant-parents Shelf Number: 136850 Keywords: Child WelfareDeportationIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant ChildrenImmigration Enforcement |
Author: Cantor, Guillermo Title: Enforcement Overdrive: A Comprehensive Assessment of ICE's Criminal Alien Program Summary: The Criminal Alien Program (CAP) is a massive enforcement program administered by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and has become the primary channel through which interior immigration enforcement takes place. Between two-thirds and three-quarters of individuals removed from the interior of the United States are removed through CAP. Each year, Congress allocates hundreds of millions of dollars to fund this program. Until now, however, little has been known about how CAP works, whom CAP deports, and whether CAP has been effective in meeting its goals. Based on government data and documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), this report examines CAP's evolution, operations, and outcomes between fiscal years 2010 and 2013. That data shows that through CAP's enormous web, ICE has encountered millions and removed hundreds of thousands of people. Yet, CAP is not narrowly tailored to focus enforcement efforts on the most serious security or safety threats - in part because CAP uses criminal arrest as a proxy for dangerousness and because the agency's own priorities have been drawn more broadly than those threats. As a result, the program removed mainly people with no criminal convictions, and people who have not been convicted of violent crimes or crimes the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) classifies as serious. CAP also has resulted in several anomalies, including that it appears biased against Mexican and Central American nationals. Moreover, the number of CAP removals differs significantly from state to state. ICE's reliance on CAP to achieve its goals will likely continue as ICE further narrows its focus on removing noncitizens with criminal convictions and continues to seek partnerships with state and local law enforcement to find them. This examination of CAP's outcomes from fiscal years 2010 to 2013 offers important insights into CAP's operations over time and its potential impact on communities moving forward. In particular, it raises questions about the ability of a broad "jail check" program to effectively remove serious public safety threats without resulting in serious unintended consequences, such as those described in this report Details: Washington, DC: American Immigration Council, 2015. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 5, 2015 at: http://immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/enforcement_overdrive_a_comprehensive_assessment_of_ices_criminal_alien_program_final.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/enforcement_overdrive_a_comprehensive_assessment_of_ices_criminal_alien_program_final.pdf Shelf Number: 137194 Keywords: DeportationImmigrant DetentionImmigrants and CrimeImmigration EnforcementUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: de Noronha, Luke Title: Unpacking the Figure of the "Foreign Criminal": Race, Gender and the Victim-Villain Binary Summary: The UK's Foreign National Prisoner (FNP) crisis' of June 2006 provides a key moment to unpack the figure of the 'foreign criminal' through. Through an analysis of media articles, Commons debates and NGO documents, I discuss the racialised and gendered stereotypes that were invoked in the construction of 'foreign criminals', as they were positioned within the victim-villain binary that characterises migration debates. In explaining the specific kinds of migrantness and criminality made to represent the FNP 'crisis', I argue that race and gender matter, and that they work through one another. The FNP 'crisis' incensed the media and politicians who framed the issue in terms of dangerous foreign men whose hypermasculinist violence presented a severe and existential threat to the British people. These images relied upon race for their intelligibility. While NGOs and advocates sought to challenge the idea that all, or even most, 'foreign criminals' deserve to be deported, they still tended to frame their arguments in terms of victims and villains. In doing so, advocates failed to challenge the gendered and racialised stereotypes that distinguish good migrants from bad ones - victims from villains. In the end, advocates and academics should retain critical distance from state categories if they are to avoid reifying these deeply entrenched narratives surrounding race and gender. Details: Oxford, UK: COMPAS, University of Oxford, 2015. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: COMPAS Working Paper 121: Accessed March 26, 2016 at: http://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/media/WP-2015-121-deNoronha_Unpacking_Foreign_Criminal.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/media/WP-2015-121-deNoronha_Unpacking_Foreign_Criminal.pdf Shelf Number: 138421 Keywords: DeportationForeign CriminalsGenderImmigrants and CrimeMigrantsRace |
Author: Burt, Geoff Title: Deportation, Circular Migration and Organized Crime: Haiti Case Study Summary: Like all OECD countries, Canada has a policy of deporting immigrants who have committed certain kinds of crime back to their countries of origin. This pattern of circular migration - immigration to Canada followed by deportation - has unique implications for the development of transnational organized crime. In some cases, criminal deportations have facilitated the development of transnational organized crime networks, which later threatened the security of the deporting country. This report examines the impact of deportations from Canada to Haiti on crime trends in both countries and analyzes the threats to public security in Canada. Canada's policy on criminal deportation must balance a number of competing factors. It must prioritize the safety of Canadian society while acknowledging the wide-ranging impacts of deportation on immigrant communities in Canada and the stability and security of the country accepting the deportees. Haiti suffers from widespread instability and a lack of law enforcement capacity. As a long-standing development partner of the Canadian government, the impact of deportations on crime trends in Haiti is a significant concern. While there is limited evidence that organized crime groups located in Haiti are a threat to security in Canada, the country's geographical location next to the Dominican Republic - the largest transshipment point for drugs entering Canada - suggests that this threat could materialize in the future. Building on best practices developed in other contexts, the report concludes with a discussion of mitigation strategies to minimize the negative impacts of criminal deportation both in Canada and in Haiti, and an examination of ongoing policy issues relating to forced criminal deportation to Haiti. Details: Ottawa: Public Safety Canada, Research Division, 2016. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Report: 2015-R031: Accessed September 30, 2016 at: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2015-r031/2015-r031-en.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Haiti URL: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2015-r031/2015-r031-en.pdf Shelf Number: 140519 Keywords: Alien CriminalsCriminal DeportationsDeportationOrganized Crime |
Author: Suarez, Ximena Title: A Trail of Impunity:Thousands of Migrants in Transit Face Abuses amid Mexico's Crackdown Summary: On September 3, 2016, in a public event with the United States' Republican party presidential candidate Donald Trump, Mexican president Enrique Pena Nieto commented on how essential it is for his government and for Mexico's relationship with the United States to make Mexico's southern border with Central America "more secure." This discourse is not new. In July 2014 Mexico announced the controversial "Southern Border Program" and has since pursued policies that prioritize securing the country's Southern Border from migrants through control measures and a significant increase in detentions and deportations, ignoring concerns about the human rights of migrants and potential refugees traveling through Mexico, in particular from Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala. A new assessment of the situation reveals that migration enforcement operations keep increasing, at a time when Mexican authorities have not sufficiently improved their capacity to screen migrants to detect protection concerns and to seriously investigate crimes against migrants in transit in the country. Official data, information obtained through freedom-of-information requests, journalistic sources, and information from some of the shelters assisting migrants in Mexico reveals that 2016 may be the year with the highest number of detentions, deportations, and asylum petitions in Mexico. Details: WOLA; Fundar: Centro de Analisis e Investigacion, and the Casa del Migrante Frontera con Justicia, in Saltillo, Coahuila, 2016. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 15, 2016 at: https://www.wola.org/analysis/a-trail-of-impunity/ Year: 2016 Country: Mexico URL: https://www.wola.org/analysis/a-trail-of-impunity/ Shelf Number: 144875 Keywords: DeportationHuman Rights AbusesIllegal MigrantsImmigration EnforcementMigrant DetentionMigrants |
Author: Eagly, Ingrid Title: Access to Counsel in Immigration Court Summary: It has long been the case that immigrants have a right to counsel in immigration court, but that expense has generally been borne by the non-citizen. Because deportation is classified as a civil rather than a criminal sanction, immigrants facing removal are not afforded the constitutional protections under the Sixth Amendment that are provided to criminal defendants. Whereas in the criminal justice system, all defendants facing even one day in jail are provided an attorney if they cannot afford one, immigrants facing deportation generally do not have that opportunity. Detained immigrants, particularly those held in remote locations, face the additional obstacle of accessing counsel from behind bars. Yet, in every immigration case, the government is represented by a trained attorney who can argue for deportation, regardless of whether the immigrant is represented. The lack of appointed counsel may have a profound impact on immigrants' ability to receive a fair hearing. Past research has highlighted the importance of counsel for asylum seekers, and regional studies have highlighted the important role attorneys play for immigrants navigating immigration courts in New York and San Francisco. Yet, up to now, the debate about access to counsel has proceeded with little reliable national information on how many immigrants facing deportation obtain attorneys, the barriers to accessing representation, and how such representation impacts the outcomes of their cases. This report presents the results of the first national study of access to counsel in U.S. immigration courts. Drawing on data from over 1.2 million deportation cases decided between 2007 and 2012, the report provides much-needed information about the scope and impact of attorney representation in U.S. immigration courts. Details: Washington, DC: American Immigration Council, 2016. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 24, 2016 at: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/access_to_counsel_in_immigration_court.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/access_to_counsel_in_immigration_court.pdf Shelf Number: 140826 Keywords: DeportationImmigrant DetentionImmigration CourtsImmigration EnforcementRight to CounselUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: De Genova, Nicholas Title: Detention, Deportation, and Waiting: Toward a Theory of Migrant Detainability Summary: The global expansion of deportation regimes has spurred an analogous expansion of migrant detention. Arguably even more than the onerous punitive power of deportation, detention imposes the sovereign power of a state on to the lives of non-citizens in a manner that transmutes their status into de facto legal non-personhood. That is to say, with detention, the condition of deportable migrants culminates in summary (and sometimes indefinite) incarceration on the basis of little more than their sheer existential predicament as “undesirable” non-citizens, often with little or no recourse to any form of legal remedy or appeal, and frequently no semblance to due process. Castigated to a station outside the law, their detention leaves them at the mercy of the caprices of authorities. The author argues that to adequately comprehend the productivity of this power to detain migrants, we must have recourse to a concept of detainability, the possibility of being detained. The paper situates the analysis of immigration detention in the framework of contemporary critical theory, interrogating the economy of different conditionalities and contingencies that undergird various degrees by which distinct categories of migrants are subjected to detention power. Details: Geneva, SWIT: Global Detention Project, 2016. 10p. Source: Internet Resource: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/detention-deportation-waiting-toward-theory-migrant-detainability-gdp-working-paper-no-18 Year: 2016 Country: International URL: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/detention-deportation-waiting-toward-theory-migrant-detainability-gdp-working-paper-no-18 Shelf Number: 147936 Keywords: DeportationIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigrantsUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: Vakili, Bardis Title: Discharged, then Discarded: How U.S. Veterans are Banished by the Country they Swore to Protect Summary: Foreign-born soldiers have served the United States since the founding of the Republic. Their dedication to the military and to the country they love – indeed, for soldiers who came here as young children, the only country they've ever known – matches and often surpasses the commitment of the native born. Yet for some, honorable service has been rewarded with dishonorable actions on the part of a system they swore to defend and protect. They are members of what is unfortunately a growing brotherhood – veterans of the United States armed forces who have been unceremoniously deported. Many are combat veterans who sustained physical wounds and emotional trauma in conflicts going back to the war in Vietnam. Many have been decorated for their service. But service records notwithstanding, the U.S. has seen fit to kick them out of the country, sometimes for minor offenses that resulted in little if any incarceration. What’s worse, their military service entitled these men to naturalization. Many believed they became citizens by nature of their service and oath –some were told as much by their recruiters – and were never informed otherwise. They should all be U.S. citizens today, at home with their loved ones, but they languish in unfamiliar and often dangerous foreign places, unable in many cases to speak the native language, because of bureaucratic bungling and government indifference. Our report, Discharged, Then Discarded, documents our analysis of 59 cases of veterans who have been forced out of the country or are still in the U.S. but facing deportation. The vast majority of these men had been in the United States lawfully for decades and long ago lost any ties to the nations in which they were born. They were swept up in a backlash against immigrants that started in earnest 20 years ago with the passage of draconian laws that eliminated judicial discretion and reclassified many low-level offenses as "aggravated felonies" mandating deportation. In many cases, these were minor offenses committed by veterans who succumbed to the difficulties of readjusting to civilian life and paid their debt to society. Had they been naturalized, as they should have been after being honorably discharged, they would not have been forced to settle a second debt – lifetime banishment from the United States. In addition to the humiliation and ignominy of deportation, that banishment effectively denies these men access to often critically needed medical care. Regardless of immigration status, all U.S. military veterans are entitled to treatment at Department of Veterans Affairs medical facilities, but few deported veterans are granted the necessary waivers to access that care either in the states or abroad. In a few tragic cases, we found examples of veterans who could have been saved but died as their friends and loved ones tried desperately to cut through mountains of red tape. Banishment also wreaks havoc on the lives of the families left behind, who are overwhelmingly U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents themselves. Children grow up without their fathers, mothers raise families alone, and parents too old to travel cannot see their sons. Meanwhile, in some parts of the world, the deported veterans find themselves targets of recruitment efforts by cartels and gangs, and their resistance places their very lives at risk for the United States once again. The purpose of this report is to share the trends and patterns we have identified, to offer policy solutions to end the disgraceful practice of deporting veterans, address the needs of those who have been deported, and, ultimately, to help bring our banished veterans back home to the U.S. where they can be reunited with their families. Details: San Diego: American Civil Liberties Union of California: 2016. 63p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 2, 2016 at: https://www.aclusandiego.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/DischargedThenDiscarded-ACLUofCA.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.aclusandiego.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/DischargedThenDiscarded-ACLUofCA.pdf Shelf Number: 146269 Keywords: DeportationEx-Military Military VeteransVeterans |
Author: Anders, Therese Title: Kicked-out to the Gangs? Crime Spillovers of Deportation Summary: This article studies whether immigration enforcement induces international crime spillovers on “home” countries (where individuals are returned when deported). For this purpose, we use individual and municipal panel data on victimization, safety perceptions, and average violent crime matched with annual deportation flows from the United States to Mexico. To identify causal effects, we exploit the exogenous changes in U.S. immigration laws caused by the terrorist attacks of 2001. These changes induced higher variations on exposure to deportation flows for Mexican municipalities closer to the 28 U.S.-Mexican repatriation points. We find that individuals more exposed to deportation have a higher likelihood of being victims of robberies and also have lower safety perceptions. Deportees, however, are mostly the victims and not the perpetrators of crime. Details: Unpublished paper, 2015. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 16, 2017 at: http://www.sandravrozo.com/uploads/2/9/3/0/29306259/arr-2015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Latin America URL: http://www.sandravrozo.com/uploads/2/9/3/0/29306259/arr-2015.pdf Shelf Number: 146978 Keywords: Crime SpilloversDeportationGangsImmigration EnforcementMigration |
Author: Leyro, Shirley P. Title: The Fear Factor: Exploring the Impact of the Vulnerability to Deportation on Immigrants' Lives Summary: This qualitative study explores the impact that the fear of deportation has on the lives of noncitizen immigrants. More broadly, it explores the role that immigration enforcement, specifically deportation, plays in disrupting the process of integration, and the possible implications of this interruption for immigrants and their communities. The study aims to answer: (1) how vulnerability to deportation specifically impacts an immigrant's life, and (2) how the vulnerability to deportation, and the fear associated with it, impacts an immigrant's degree of integration. Data were gathered through a combination of six open-ended focus group interviews of 10 persons each, and 33 individual in-depth interviews, all with noncitizen immigrants. The findings reveal several ways in which the vulnerability to deportation impacted noncitizen immigrants' lives: the fear of deportation produces emotional and psychological distress, which leads immigrants to have negative perceptions of reception into the United States, all which create barriers to integration. In addition, the findings reveal that the fear of deportation and the resulting psychological distress constitutes a form of legal violence. Legal violence is an emerging framework by Menjivar & Abrego (2012) that builds upon structural and symbolic violence, and refers to state-sanctioned harm perpetuated against immigrants via harsh immigration laws. The fear of deportation, combined with the structural reality of legal violence, creates an environment that impedes integration. The effect of deportability on immigrants' lives is of interest on the level of both individual integration and community cohesion. Details: New York: City University of New York, 2017. 196p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed July 29, 2017 at: http://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/1681/ Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/1681/ Shelf Number: 146609 Keywords: DeportationImmigrantsImmigration and CrimeImmigration EnforcementImmigration PolicyUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: Center for Migration Studies Title: Point of No Return: The Fear and Criminalization of Central American Refugees Summary: The purpose of this study was to ascertain the challenges faced by Central American migrants who returned home after failing to gain asylum or other international protection in the United States or Mexico. Cristosal interviewed individuals who fled from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras under threats of violence and persecution and had been deported back to their country of origin to determine why they fled their homelands, why they could not secure asylum, and on their situations post-return. In the context of mass migration from these countries, the study used indepth interviews to understand the different ways in which people experienced the violence and fear that forced them to flee and how their responses upon "voluntary return" or deportation back to their country of origin were shaped by that same violence. While there are many studies on the flight of persons from the Northern Triangle of Central America (NTCA), little is known about the experience of refugees who cannot secure protection in another country and are deported to their home country, from which they originally fled. What are the psychosocial, security, and human rights consequences for people who migrated out of fear for their lives and were then forced to return to the situation that forced them to flee? Details: New York and San Salvador: CMS and Cristosa, 2017. 53p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 16, 2017 at: http://cmsny.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/CMS-Cristosal-Report-final.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Central America URL: http://cmsny.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/CMS-Cristosal-Report-final.pdf Shelf Number: 148203 Keywords: Asylum Seekers DeportationImmigrants Refugees |
Author: University of Washington. Jackson School of International Studies Title: The Cycle of Violence: Migration from the Northern Triangle Summary: This report documents the brutal and pervasive abuses suffered by Central American migrants in efforts to seek refuge from gang and state violence, government corruption, social exclusion, and endemic poverty. The cyclical nature of this violence - that is, the tendency of its victims to be caught in a cycle of forced migration, deportation, and remigration - reflects that the involved governments have collectively failed in both resolving its underlying causes and stemming its devastating effects. For instance, reintegration programs that might afford deportees the opportunity to rebuild their lives are thoroughly lacking in the NTCA; and simultaneously, U.S. and Mexican immigration officials are routinely neglecting their legal obligations to screen apprehended migrants for asylum claims before summarily deported them. Our aim is to explicate factors such as these, which reveal long-standing patterns of impunity for criminal organizations and corrupt officials, negligence, and a lack of political will which perpetuate what has become a deepening cycle of human rights abuses. By using data from the cases of Salvadoran, Guatemalan, Honduran, and Mexican clients who sought legal counsel at El Rescate - as well as scholarly works, government figures, and the findings of various nongovernmental organizations - our report sheds light on the policies and practices that have systematically marginalized those compelled to flee the Northern Triangle. Details: Seattle: The School, 2017. 74p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 27, 2018 at: https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/bitstream/handle/1773/38696/Cycle%20of%20Violence_Task%20Force%20Report%202017%20FINAL.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y Year: 2017 Country: Central America URL: https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/bitstream/handle/1773/38696/Cycle%20of%20Violence_Task%20Force%20Report%202017%20FINAL.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y Shelf Number: 149925 Keywords: DeportationGangsImmigrantsMigrationViolence |
Author: Akkerman, Mark Title: Expanding the Fortress: The policies, the profiteers and the people shaped by EU's border externalisation programme Summary: The plight of the world's 66 million forcibly displaced persons tends to only trouble the European Union's conscience when the media spotlight turns on a tragedy at Europe's borders or when displacment is perceived to be en route to Europe. Only one European nation - Germany - is even in the top ten countries worldwide that receive refugees leaving the vast majority of forcibly displaced persons hosted by some of the world's poorest nations. The invisibility therefore is only broken when border communities such as Calais, Lampedusa, Lesvos become featured in the news as desperate people fleeing violence end up dead, detained or trapped. These tragedies aren't just unfortunate results of war or conflict elsewhere, they are also the direct result of Europe's policies on migration since the Schengen agreement in 1985. This approach has focused on fortifying borders, developing ever more sophisticated surveillance and tracking of people, and increasing deportations while providing ever fewer legal options for residency despite ever greater need. This has led many forcibly displaced persons unable to enter Europe legally and forced into ever more dangerous routes to escape violence and conflict. What is less well-known is that the same European-made tragedy plays out well beyond our borders in countries as far away as Senegal and Azerbaijan. This is due to another pillar of Europe's approach to migration, known as border externalisation. Since 1992 and even more aggressively since 2005, the EU has developed a policy of externalising Europe's border so that forcibly displaced people never get to Europe's borders in the first place. These policies involve agreements with Europe's neighbouring countries to accept deported persons and adopt the same policies of border control, improved tracking of people and fortified borders as Europe. In other words, these agreements have turned Europe's neighbours into Europe's new border guards. And because they are so far from Europe's shores and media, the impacts are almost completely invisible to EU citizens. This report seeks to shine a spotlight on the policies that underpin this externalisation of Europe's borders, the agreements that have been signed, the corporations and entities that profit, and the consequences for forcibly displaced people as well as the countries and populations that host them. It is the third in a series, Border Wars, that have examined Europe's border policies and shown how the arms and security industry has helped shape European border security policies and have then reaped the rewards for ever more border security measures and contracts. This report shows a significant growth in border externalisation measures and agreements since 2005 and a massive acceleration since the November 2015 Valletta Europe - Africa Summit. Using a plethora of new instruments, in particular the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa (EUTF), the Migration Partnership Framework and the Refugee Facility for Turkey, the European Union and individual member states are now providing millions of euros for an array of projects to stop migration of certain people from taking place on or across European territory. This includes collaboration with third countries in terms of accepting deported persons, training of their police and border officials, the development of extensive biometric systems, and donations of equipment including helicopters, patrol ships and vehicles, surveillance and monitoring equipment. While many projects are done through the European Commission, a number of individual member states, such as Spain, Italy and Germany also take a lead in funding and training through bilateral agreements with non-EU-countries. What makes this collaboration in the context of border externalisation particularly problematic is that many of the governments receiving the support are deeply authoritarian, and the support they are receiving is often going to precisely the state security organs most responsible for repression and abuses of human rights. The European Union in all its policies has a fine rhetoric on the importance of human rights, democracy and rule of law, but there seems to be no limits to the EU's willingness to embrace dictatorial regimes as long as they commit to preventing 'irregular migration' reaching Europe's shores. As a result there have been EU agreements and funding provided to regimes as infamous as Chad, Niger, Belarus, Libya and Sudan. These policies therefore have far-reaching consequences for forcibly displaced persons, whose 'illegal' status already makes them vulnerable and more likely to face human rights abuses. Many end up in either exploitative working conditions, detention and/or get deported back to the countries they have fled from. Women refugees in particular face high risks of gender-based violence, sexual assault and exploitation. Violence and repression against forcibly displaced persons also pushes migration underground, reconfigures the business of smuggling and reinforces the power of criminal smuggling networks. As a result, many persons have been forced to look for other, often more dangerous routes and to rely on ever more unscrupulous traffickers. This leads to an even higher death toll. Moreover the strengthening of state security organs throughout the MENA, Maghreb, Sahel and Horn of Africa regions also threatens the human rights and democratic accountability of the region, particularly as it also diverts much needed resources from economic and social spending. Indeed, this report shows that Europe's obsession with preventing migrants is not only diverting resources, it is also distorting Europe's trade, aid and international relationships with the entire region. As many experts have pointed out, this is laying the ground for further instability and insecurity in the region and the likelihood of greater refugees in the future. There is however one group that have benefited greatly from the EU's border externalisation programmes. As the earlier Border Wars reports showed, it is the European military and security industry that have derived the most benefit for delivering much of the equipment and services for border security. They are accompanied by a number of intergovernmental and (semi-)public institutions that have grown significantly in recent years as they implement dozens of projects on border security and control in non-EU-countries. Details: Amsterdam: Transnational Institute (TNI), 2018. 112p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 30, 2018 at: https://www.tni.org/files/publication-downloads/expanding_the_fortress_-_1.6_may_11.pdf Year: 2018 Country: Europe URL: https://www.tni.org/files/publication-downloads/expanding_the_fortress_-_1.6_may_11.pdf Shelf Number: 150748 Keywords: Border ControlBorder SecurityDeportationImmigrantsImmigrationImmigration PolicyRefugeesSmuggling of Goods |
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. Oregons 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 |
Author: National Juvenile Justice Network Title: Supporting Immigrant Youth Caught in the Crosshairs of the Justice System Summary: Executive Summary Out of the estimated 11.1 million noncitizen immigrants living in America today, approximately one million are children under 18 years old. Many of these youth have come to this country fleeing violence and oppression, carry complex emotional burdens from trauma, and face basic language barriers. As national anti-immigrant rhetoric has escalated to the point of associating immigrants with animals and infestation and equating immigrant youth with gang members, these youthful immigrants have often become caught in the crosshairs of the justice system. Rather than being supported to develop into successful adults, immigrant youth are more often being targeted for arrest, detention, and deportation. As immigrant youth engage with the school and youth justice systems in this country, it is incumbent upon us to treat these youth - as we aspire to treat all youth in the United States - equitably, with dignity, and in a way that supports positive youth development and the rehabilitative goals of the youth justice system. Supporting immigrant youth has become increasingly more difficult, however, as federal, state, and local jurisdictions have adopted laws and policies that are threatening to immigrant youth and their families and fail to humanely support them. These include policies that promote local cooperation with federal immigration authorities, facilitate the deportation of immigrant youth and families, fail to protect the confidentiality of young people's school and justice records, increase harm to immigrant youth involved in the justice system, and fail to provide trauma informed, culturally and linguistically competent services for immigrant youth. While some of these policies negatively impact all youth, they can have profound consequences for immigrant youth, including higher risk of detention and the possibility of deportation. All these policies further serve to traumatize and instill fear in immigrant youth, impeding their ability to follow through on the services that will lead them on the path to positive youth development. Recommendations NJJN makes the following recommendations to support policies that uplift all families and further best practices for positive youth development for all youth, regardless of immigration status. 1) Do not entangle local and state law enforcement, youth justice, and school officials with federal immigration enforcement and encourage laws and policies that support immigrant youth. 2) Do not use gang databases and, where used, do not share them with federal authorities. 3) Safeguard students with policies that prohibit federal immigration authorities from entering schools, require warrants or other court documents to review student records, and discourage the use of school resource officers for the handling routine disciplinary matters. 4) Protect the confidentiality of all youth in the justice system, including immigrant youth. 5) Avoid detaining youth, including immigrant youth. 6) Use an immigration lens when reviewing current and proposed youth justice policies. Consider the possibility that children and/or adults that care for them may be immigrants and take actions that support their healthy development, rather than further traumatizing or harming them. 7) Ensure youth in the juvenile justice system have access to defense counsel that understand the immigration consequences of juvenile justice system involvement and, where necessary, access to immigration attorneys. Details: Washington, DC: 2018. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 16, 2019 at: http://www.njjn.org/our-work/supporting-immigrant-youth-caught-in-the-crosshairs-of-the-justice-system Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/Supporting%20Immigrant%20Youth,%20NJJN%20Policy%20Platform,%20August%20%202018.pdf Shelf Number: 154225 Keywords: DeportationImmigrant YouthImmigrantsImmigration and Customs EnforcementJuvenile Justice SystemJuvenilesMigrantsRefugees |
Author: Global Detention Project Title: Immigration Detention in France: Longer, More Widespread, and Harder to Contest Summary: France has one of Europe's oldest - and largest - administrative immigration detention regimes. Since 1981, the year it adopted its first law explicitly providing for immigration detention, the country has passed some 30 immigration laws. In 2017, the country placed 46,857 people in immigration detention, 42 percent of whom were held in overseas territories (by way of comparison, in the United Kingdom, during the year ending in March 2018, approximately 29,000 people "entered detention"). Detainees in France spent on average 12.8 days in detention, far below the 45 days legal limit in place at that time. France operates 24 long-term immigration detention centres, euphemistically labelled centres de retention administrative ("administrative retention centres"), which have a total capacity of 1,543 beds. The country also operates 26 short-term administrative detention facilities called locaux de retention administrative. In 2018, the Interior Ministry announced plans to boost bed space in CRAs by 450 during 2019. Although European Union (EU) law allows member states to detain migrants for up to 18 months for deportation purposes, France retained - until recently - one of the lowest limits among EU member states (along with Iceland [42 days] and Spain [60 days]). In 2018, however, the situation changed significantly - prompted by Europe's "migration crisis" - with the adoption of controversial new legislation which, inter alia, doubles the detention limit to 90 days and reduces the time frame to apply for asylum from 120 days to 90 days. Many civil society organisations and national human rights institutions challenged the new law, with some critics calling it the Code de la honte ("code of shame"). The French ombudsman said, "Contrary to the discourse that everything should be done in favour of asylum seekers, they are in fact badly treated by this project." According to the ombudsman, the accelerated asylum procedures will "impose impossible deadlines on asylum seekers - which risks causing asylum seekers to lose their rights to appeal." Another recently adopted law, the March 2018 asylum bill, also came under sharp criticism because of fears that it may lead to widespread detention of asylum seekers who are awaiting transfer to another EU country under the Dublin III procedure. The law, which allows for the detention of people who have not yet been served an expulsion order, represents a major departure from previous French asylum protection policies. French NGOs are present on a daily basis inside the centres de retention administrative (CRAs) to provide legal and other forms of advice to detainees. Each year, they publish joint authoritative analyses of laws, policies, and practices, as well as detailed information on every detention facility. While having a permanent civil society presence in immigration detention centres is not wholly unique to France (in Lebanon, for instance, Caritas has had an office in the countrys main immigration detention centre), the French system seems to stand apart from others in the breadth of involvement of NGOs inside its 24 long-term facilities. As a result, there is a tremendous amount of readily available information about operations at detention centres, which is exceedingly rare. In the French overseas territory of Mayotte (part of the Comoros archipelago in the Indian Ocean), the French Constitution and successive immigration laws authorise important derogations to the application of immigration law. Local authorities expelled some 60 people a day from Mayotte during 2016 (with most denied access to a lawyer or judge before their expulsion)11 in defiance of the French ombudsman's recommendations as well as the European Court of Human rights' jurisprudence on the right to access an effective remedy. Although it has a population of less than 250,000, Mayotte manages to deport nearly 20,000 people each year: 17,934 in 2017 and 19,488 in 2016. In many countries the language of immigration detention can appear to be opaque or misleading. In the case of France, it crafted the terminology retention administrative ("administrative retention") as early as 1981, when it adopted its first immigration detention provisions. While some countries, including Argentina, have adopted this language, French-speaking countries like Belgium, Canada, and Switzerland continue to employ the word detention. A joint ministerial audit in 2005 found that this language created a "paradoxical" situation because "the alien placed in retention remains a free person, against whom no charge has been laid; he is only momentarily 'retained,' for the time required for organising his return. The whole paradox of retention lies in this principle. Before the judge of liberty and detention (JLD) the procedure is civil even if it borrows aspects of criminal law, in particular because the JLD can challenge the conditions of the arrest and the regularity of the custody." While many leading French advocates and academics have argued that detention centres should be called "camps" and denounced the use of euphemistic language when referring to places of deprivation of liberty, French civil society for the most part seems not to have specifically challenged the use of the word retention. However, the impact of this "paradoxical" phrasing is often clear in public and official discourse. For instance, during the debate over the 2018 legislation, the Minister of Justice misleadingly characterised the detention of families as allowing "children to be in an administrative centre with their parents." Civil society protest against immigration detention is common. Non-violent silence protests (cercles de silences) have been regularly held in many French cities since 2011. Many NGOs have argued that detention is a disproportionate response to irregular migration and that it largely fails in its stated purpose of enabling removal since less than half of the country's detainees are expelled following detention (40 percent of immigration detainees in mainland France were expelled in 2017, 42 percent of whom were expelled to another EU country). In contrast, officials bemoan that the high proportion of expulsion orders cancelled by judges creates obstacles, even though these judgments are based on respect for the rule of law. Details: Geneva, Switzerland: Global Detention Project, 2018. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 17, 2019 at: https://reliefweb.int/report/france/immigration-detention-france-longer-more-widespread-and-harder-contest Year: 2018 Country: France URL: https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Immigration-Detention-in-France-October-2018.pdf Shelf Number: 154243 Keywords: Asylum SeekersDeportationHuman Rights AbusesImmigrationImmigration DetentionImmigration EnforcementImmigration PolicyMigrationRefugees |
Author: Johnson, Kevin R. Title: The New Latinx 'Repatriation'? Removals, Criminal Justice, and the Efforts to Remove Latinx Peoples from the United States Summary: Several historical episodes have indelibly influenced the sense of belonging of generations of persons of Mexican ancestry - and Latinx generally - in the United States. Two powerful examples aptly illustrate this point. During the hard times of the Great Depression, state and local governments, with the support of the U.S. government, "repatriated:" approximately one million persons of Mexican ancestry, including many U.S. citizen children as well as immigrant parents, to Mexico. Similarly, the U.S. government in 1954 in the military-style "Operation Wetback," directed by a retired general, removed hundreds of thousands of persons of Mexican ancestry, including many U.S. citizen children, from the Southwest. Those discriminatory events have shaped the identities of Latinx people in the United States. History has condemned these episodes of racial intolerance. Nonetheless, we may be seeing history repeat itself, but with even larger numbers of people injured. Ushering in breath-taking changes in immigration law and enforcement, President Donald J. Trump has boldly moved to reduce immigration to, and the number of immigrants in, the United States. This Article contends that, because so many of the measures directly and indirectly target Latina/os, they represent the equivalent of an attempt at a "new" Mexican repatriation- a concerted effort to remove Latinx people, focusing on Mexicans and Central Americans, from the country. Just as the previous campaigns did, the new efforts further encourage Latinx non-citizens, along with U.S. citizen children, to "self-deport" (i.e., leave the country) or to never come to the United States. Part I of this Article reviews previous efforts to remove persons of Mexican ancestry from the United States, namely what is known as the "Mexican repatriation" during the Great Depression and "Operation Wetback" in 1954. Part II considers the impacts on Latinx of the contemporary efforts by the Trump administration to remove immigrants from the United States, and to reduce legal immigration. It further draws parallels between the "new" and "old" repatriation campaigns. Details: Davis, CA: University of California, Davis - School of Law, 2019. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: UC Davis Legal Studies Research Paper: Accessed April 13, 2019 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3353508 Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3353508 Shelf Number: 155390 Keywords: Crimmigration DeportationIllegal Immigrants Immigration Enforcement Immigration Reform Latinos Mexicans Racial Disparities Racial Profiling |