Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:38 pm
Time: 9:38 pm
Results for illegal aliens
125 results foundAuthor: Kerwin, Donald Title: Immigrant Detention: Can ICE Meet Its Legal Imperatives and Case Management Responsibilities? Summary: On August 6, 2009, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced plans to revamp its detention system, with the goal of bringing it in line with the agency's civil detention authorities. The initiative is designed to reduce the agency's reliance on local jails and private prisons, address longstanding concerns related to conditions of confinement, and centralize management of its detention system. The subsequent disclosure by ICE that 10 more detainees died in its custody between 2004 and 2007 than it had previously reported underscores the need for detention reform and, in particular, for reform of ICE information systems. This report explores whether the ICE database and case tracking system adequately serve the agency's need to adhere to its legal mandates governing bond and parole, to administer its custody review processes for post-removal order detainees, to assess the eligibility of detainees for alternative programs, and to abide by its national detention standards. Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2009. 37p. Source: Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 116383 Keywords: Illegal AliensImmigrant DetentionImmigrants |
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: Stana, Richard M. Title: Border Patrol: Checkpoints Contribute to Border Patrol's Mission, but More Consistent Data Collection and Performance Measurement Could Improve Effectiveness Summary: This U.S. Border Patrol operates checkpoints on U.S. roads, mainly in the southwest border states where most illegal entries occur. As part of a three-tiered strategy to maximize detention and apprehension of illegal aliens, Border Patrol agents at checkpoints screen vehicles for illegal aliens and contraband. This report assesses (1) checkpoint performance and factors affecting performance, (2) checkpoint performance measures, (3) community impacts considered in checkpoint placement and design, and (4) the impact of checkpoint operations on nearby communities. The report recommends several actions to strengthen checkpoint design and staffing, and improve the measurement and reporting of checkpoint effectiveness, including community impact. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2009. 138p. Source: Internet Resource; GAO-09-824 Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 116244 Keywords: Border PatrolBorder SecurityContrabandIllegal Aliens |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia Title: The Persistence of Racial Profiling in Gwinnett: Time for Accountability, Transparency, and an End to 287(g) Summary: Georgia is among those states that have no laws to prohibit racial profiling, as the Georgia General Assembly has rejected repeated attempts to pass such a law. Accordingly, law enforcement personnel throughout Georgia may continue to stop individuals based solely on their race or ethnicity, often without any measure of accountability. This is of particular concern in Gwinnett County, where testimonies affirm that officers disproportionately target people of color for perceptual stops, investigations, and enforcement. The incidents of racial profiling in Gwinnett County have been particularly exacerbated after the implementation of the 287(g) program, which allows local law enforcement of participate in enforcement of federal immigration laws. Both before and after the implementation of this program, the ACLU of Georgia received complaints from drivers, pedestrians, and Gwinnett community members showing that police officers are targeting immigrants and people of color for stops, searches, and interrogations. Details: Atlanta, GA: ACLU of Georgia, 2010. 26p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118216 Keywords: Illegal AliensImmigrantsLaw Enforcement (Georgia)Racial Profiling (Georgia) |
Author: Seattle University School of Law. International Human Rights Clinic Title: Voices from Detention: A Report on Human Rights Violations at the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, Washington Summary: This study examined the conditions at the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, Washington. It found violations of international human rights law, the Constitution and the Refugee Convention, including lack of due process, mistreatment of detainees (including strip searches), insufficient food and medical care and language barriers, among others. Details: Seattle: International Human Rights Clinic, Seattle University School of Law, 2008. 80p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118300 Keywords: Due ProcessHuman Rights ViolationsIllegal AliensImmigrant DetentionImmigrantsPrison Conditions |
Author: New York University School of Law Immigrant Rights Clinic Title: Locked Up But Not Forgotten: Opening Access to Family and Community in the Immigration Detention System Summary: This report examines the way that visitation with family and community functions in the current immigration detention context and the way it should function in order to affirm the humanity and dignity of immigration detainees and maximize fairness and transparency in a system lacking in both. Details: New York: New York University School of Law Immigrant Rights Clinic, 2010. 47p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118593 Keywords: Illegal AliensImmigrant Detention (U.S.)Immigrants |
Author: Baddour, Ann Title: Justice for Immigration's Hidden Population: Protecting the Rights of Persons with Mental Disabilities in the Immigration Court and Detention System Summary: This report documents the scope of the problems facing immigrants with mental diabilities in the state of Texas. The report presents an analysis and recommendations on five core principles integral to ensuring just treatment and due process for immigrants with mental disabilities. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Appleseed, 2010. 88p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118629 Keywords: Illegal AliensImmigrant DetentionImmigrantsMentally Ill Offenders |
Author: Constitution Project Title: Recommendations for Reforming Our Immigration Detention System and Promoting Access to Counsel in Immigration Proceedings Summary: In recent years, the United States has witnessed a dramatic increase in the number of non-citizens held in immigration detention. This rapidly increasing population has drawn attention to the poor conditions of the nation's immigration detention facilities and the barriers immigrant detainees face in seeking representation of counsel in removal proceedings. These problems raise a variety of constitutional and policy concerns. This report examines expedited removal, mandatory pre-removal detention, and post-removal detention and suggests much-needed agency-level and congressional reform. Details: Washington, DC: Constitution Project, 2009. 46p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118713 Keywords: Illegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigration |
Author: Saunders, Jessica Title: Enforcing Immigration Law at the State and Local Levels: A Public Policy Dilemma Summary: About 12 million out-of-status aliens currently reside in the United States, and it is estimated that it will take 15 years and more than $5 billion for the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement to apprehend just the current backlog of absconders. One proposed solution to this enforcement problem is for federal agencies to partner with state and local law-enforcement agencies to apprehend and deport fugitive aliens. Currently, the federal government does not require state and local agencies to carry out specific immigration enforcement actions; however, comprehensive immigration reform may address this issue in the near future. Before such legislation is drafted and considered, it is important to understand all the potential impacts of a policy incorporating immigration enforcement by nonfederal entities. As there is very limited evidence about the effects of involving state and local law enforcement in immigration enforcement duties, this paper seeks to clarify the needs and concerns of key stakeholders by describing variations in enforcement approaches and making their pros and cons more explicit. The paper also suggests areas for research to add empirical evidence to the largely anecdotal accounts that now characterize discussions of the involvement of state and local law enforcement in immigration enforcemenet efforts. Details: Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2010. 6p. Source: Internet Resource; Issues in Policing: Occasional Paper Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118623 Keywords: Illegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigration Reform |
Author: Appleseed Title: Assembly Line Injustice: Blueprint to Reform America's Immigration Courts Summary: This report presents an evaluation of the Immigration Court system across the U.S. by gathering the opinions of those who face the challenges of the system on a daily basis. Interviews were conducted among a broad sample of experts, including practitioners, officials of nonprofit associations, leaders of professional organizations, academics and governmental players. This report presents the findings of these interviews, as well as a series of recommendations to bring the reality of fair play and equal justice to the Immigration Court system. Details: Washington, DC: Appleseed, 2009. 39p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118771 Keywords: Illegal AliensImmigrants (U.S.)Immigration Court |
Author: Women's Refugee Commission Title: Halfway Home: Unaccompanied Children in Immigration Custody Summary: Thousands of children migrate to the United States each year. Many of these children come fleeing war, violence, abuse or natural disaster; others come to reunite with family members already here, or to seek better lives for themselves. They undertake difficult journeys, often across numerous international borders, and often alone. Unaccompanied children are some of the most vulnerable migrants who cross our borders, and are in need of special protections appropriate for their situation. Yet they face additional hurdles upon arrival. They are placed in custody while their immigration cases proceed through the courts, and they must undergo adversarial immigration proceedings, often without the help of a lawyer or guardian. In March 2003, the Homeland Security Act (HSA) transferred custody of unaccompanied alien children from the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). 4 ORR, a division of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) created the Division of Unaccompanied Children's Services (DUCS) to provide care and services to this population. In an effort to assess the effectiveness of the transfer, the Women's Refugee Commission* and the law firm of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (Orrick) embarked on a landmark study of the conditions of care and confinement for children in immigration proceedings without a parent or guardian. We visited 30 DUCS programs, three facilities where Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detains children and three Border Patrol stations. In addition, we interviewed staff, attorneys, advocates, social workers and more than 200 children. In this report, we provide an overview of what life is like for children in DUCS, Border Patrol and ICE custody. In general, we found that the treatment of most unaccompanied children has greatly improved with the transfer of custody to DUCS. The majority of children are eventually released to parents, relatives or sponsors and a good number of those not eligible for release are held in child-friendly shelter facilities or foster home placements. DUCS has made significant improvements in the quality of medical care, has identified children in need of protection and has created a mechanism to better ensure that children are released to safe environments. In addition, DUCS has created pilot programs to provide legal assistance and guardians ad litem to some children. The recent passage of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA) should further enhance protections for children. We conclude that HHS is the most appropriate entity to provide care and custody for unaccompanied children. However, while important improvements have been made and children are better cared for, the Women's Refugee Commission found that significant child protection challenges remain under the current system. Border Patrol and ICE, which are agencies of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), continue to detain children in inappropriate facilities. In addition, the DUCS program was based in large part on the old INS model of care and has suffered from growing pains and significant challenges as a result. The transfer of custody to DUCS has shifted service provision away from a criminal justice culture and injected social services into the system; however, the intent of the transfer, which was to decouple prosecution from care, has not been fully realized. The roles of prosecutor and caretaker continue to be interwoven in a manner that interferes with the best interest of children. As a result, today's system of care is in many ways a friendlier face superimposed on the old INS model. In essence, we found that the transfer of custody was incomplete because: - DHS still serves as the gatekeeper in deciding which children will be transferred to DUCS, and when. - DHS inappropriately retains custody of some children whom we consider to be unaccompanied. - DUCS continues in some cases to rely on an institutional model of care that lacks appropriate monitoring and oversight and that fails to protect confidentiality or provide adequate services to all children consistent with child welfare principles. As a result: - DHS exerts significant influence over care and custody of unaccompanied children despite the fact that DUCS is the legal custodian for this population. - Not all unaccompanied children are transferred to DUCS custody, and many who are transferred are not transferred within 72 hours, as mandated by the Flores Settlement (see Appendix I). - Conditions at Border Patrol and ICE facilities remain inappropriate for children. - Services are compromised by the concentration of DUCS programs in rural areas. - DUCS inappropriately shares children's information with DHS, undermining children's access to reunification and relief. - Children's ability to access protection is limited by a lack of legal representation and lack of access to guardians ad litem. - Despite clear procedures, DUCS does not have effective or adequate monitoring practices. - DUCS does not place all children in the least restrictive setting appropriate for their needs. It has recently been increasing the number of children placed in staff-secure and secure facilities and has few therapeutic programs. Details: New York: Women's Refugee Commission; Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, 2009. 93p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 17, 2018 at: http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/498c41bf2.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/498c41bf2.pdf Shelf Number: 117115 Keywords: Illegal AliensIllegal Immigrant ChildrenImmigrantsImmigrationUnaccompanied Children |
Author: Weller, Steven Title: A Bench Guide for State Trial Court Judges on the Immigration Consequences of State Court Criminal Actions Summary: This bench guide is intended to help state trial court judges identify circumstances before them in which a state criminal conviction or sentence might have possible collateral immigration consequences, to assure that alien litigants have been properly advised by their attorneys of the possible immigration implications of entering a guilty plea or going to trial. In particular, judges need to be aware of these issues when taking a guilty plea or determining an appropriate sentence. Details: Denver, CO: Center for Public Policy Studies, 2010. 58p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 119172 Keywords: Illegal AliensImmigrantsImmigrationJudges |
Author: Aung, Winston Set Title: Illegal Heroes and Victimless Crimes: Informal Cross-border Migration frm Myanmar Summary: This paper highlights the perception of those involved in the course of cross-border migration from Myanmar in each step they, intentionally or unintentionally, maintain the status of illegality. It also attempts to identify the implications of cross-border migration on migrants’ families and their community in the country of origin. Interviews and questionnaire surveys conducted in different projects in 2008 and 2009 in different places in Myanmar and neighboring countries, coupled with qualitative and quantitative analyses, attempt to enhance the reliability and representativeness of the findings in this paper. Details: Stockholm: Institute for Security and Development Policy, 2009. 56p. Source: Internet Resource; Asia Paper Year: 2009 Country: Burma URL: Shelf Number: 118592 Keywords: Human SmugglingHuman TraffickingIllegal AliensMigrantsMigration |
Author: U.K. Border Agency Title: Protecting Our Border, Protecting the Public: The UK Border Agency's Five Year Strategy for Enforcing Our Immigration Rules and Addressing Immigration and Cross Border Crime Summary: This document both clarifies the extent of the UK Border Agency law enforcement activities and sets out a vision as to how, over the next five years, they will develop their capability to protect the public from the harm caused by illegal immigration and smuggling. It also sets out how the agency will support the work of its criminal justice partners in tackling non-immigration crime committed by foreign nationals in the UK. Details: London: UK Border Agency, 2010. 37p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 118616 Keywords: Border CrimeBorder SecurityIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrationImmigrants |
Author: New Jersey Civil Rights Defense Committee Title: Voices of the Disappeared: An Investigative Report of New Jersey Immigrant Detention Summary: This report summarizes the independent findings of a group of citizen activists in New Jersey, the New Jersey Civil Rights Defense Committee (NJCRDC), who organized in early 2003 to expose and prevent the abuse of immigrants via the government's stepped-up immigration detention program after 9/11. Details: Piscataway, NJ: New Jersey Civil Rights Defense Committee, 2007. 40p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 119418 Keywords: IllegalIllegal AliensImmigrant DetentionImmigrants |
Author: Provine, Doris Marie Title: The Criminalisation of an Immigrant Population (ARI) Summary: Arizona has taken up the cause of immigration enforcement with a law requiring police to arrest persons suspected of being undocumented, and by criminalising activities associated with immigration. This has brought new life to the long-simmering debate about how to respond to the nation’s estimated 11 million unauthorised residents. The law is often described as an outgrowth of frustration with the federal government’s ‘broken’ immigration system. This broad characterisation is somewhat misleading. Arizona does not want the federal government to establish ‘a path towards citizenship’ or to regularise resident immigrants as it did in 1986. Rather, SB 1070 is designed to shift the national debate in a more restrictive direction. Arizona’s policy of ‘attrition through enforcement’ provides a rallying point for opponents of comprehensive immigration reform within parameters that appear legal and possibly appropriate in light of federal inaction. It was designed as a test case. Locally, SB 1070 signals the state’s unrelenting hostility towards its unauthorised residents and its indifference to those who must carry papers to prove their right to remain. To local police agencies, the state sends a warning: either prioritise immigration enforcement or risk a citizen-initiated lawsuit. Details: Madrid: Real Instituto Eleano, 2010. 9p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 119429 Keywords: Illegal AliensIllegal ImmigrationImmigrants (Arizona) |
Author: Zhang, Sheldon Title: Get There Anyway You Can - Human Smuggling to the U.S. and the Policy Implications Summary: Human smuggling, although often sensationalized in the news media, is mostly a rather mundane business arrangement in which one assists or facilitates, often for a fee, the unauthorized entry of a foreign national into another country. In recent years, illegal immigration and the associated human smuggling activities have gone through discernible changes, some of which are brought about by the intensified debate on securing the nation’s borders and probably more are caused by the economic conditions and fundamental shifts in U.S. labor market. Details: Santiago, Chile: Global Consortium on Security Transformation, 2010. 19p. Source: Internet Resource; Policy Brief Series, No. 8. Accessed August 10, 2010 at http://www.securitytransformation.org/gc_publications.php Year: 2010 Country: International URL: http://www.securitytransformation.org/gc_publications.php Shelf Number: 119583 Keywords: Border SecurityHuman SmugglingIllegal AliensIllegal Immigration |
Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Alien Smuggling: DHS Needs to Better Leverage Investigative Resources and Measure Program Performance along the Southwest Border Summary: The southwest border is a threat to the security of the United States and Mexico. Within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Office of Investigations (OI) — part of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) — is the primary federal agency responsible for investigating alien smuggling along the southwest border. As requested, this report addresses, for the southwest border, (1) OI’s efforts to counter alien smuggling since 2005, and opportunities, if any, for ICE to use its resources more effectively; (2) the progress DHS has made in seizing alien smugglers’ assets since fiscal year 2005 and any promising techniques that could be applied to seize smugglers’ assets; and (3) the extent to which ICE has objectives related to alien smuggling and measures to assess progress. GAO interviewed officials in all four OI offices along the southwest border and analyzed data on OI’s cases and seizures, from fiscal years 2005 through 2009. GAO recommends, among other things, that DHS evaluate the feasibility of expanding the LEAR program, assess the Arizona Attorney General’s investigations strategy, and develop performance measures for MIRP. DHS agreed with four of five recommendations in this report directed to DHS but disagreed with establishing MIRP performance measures because it did not believe such action was appropriate. GAO believes this recommendation is consistent with the program’s intent. Details: Wshington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2010. 76p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 19, 2010 at: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10328.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10328.pdf Shelf Number: 119630 Keywords: Human SmugglingIllegal Aliens |
Author: Males, Mike Title: Scapegoating Immigrants: Arizona's Real Crisis Is Rooted in State Residents' Soaring Drug Abuse Summary: This report examines crime and drug abuse trends in Arizona over the last two decades of massive legal and nonlegal Hispanic in-migration. Based on a detailed analysis of law enforcement reports on crime rates in Arizona and the growth of the state’s Hispanic population over the past 20 years, this report finds that widespread assertions by many opinion leaders attributing rising crime to increased immigration are not confirmed by the best information available. To the contrary, this analysis found that crime rates in Arizona have fallen precipitously over the past 20 years as immigration has increased. Not only has crime plummeted, the number of undocumented immigrants in Arizona dropped by an estimated 40 percent, or by 200,000, from 2007 to 2010 due to the state’s economic and employment difficulties. This report suggests that new fears toward immigration have become conflated with deeper anxieties over Arizona’s unadmitted crisis of soaring drug abuse among its resident population. (Excerpts from the report) Details: San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2010. 11p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed Aubust 22, 2010 at: http://www.cjcj.org/files/Scapegoating_Immigrants.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/files/Scapegoating_Immigrants.pdf Shelf Number: 119655 Keywords: Drug Abuse and CrimeIllegal AliensImmigrants (Arizona)Immigration |
Author: Bouteillet-Paquet, Daphne Title: Smuggling of Migrants: A Global Review and Annotated Bibliography of Recent Publications Summary: The purpose of this thematic review is to survey existing sources and research papers on migrant smuggling and to provide a gap analysis of existing knowledge from a global perspective. Indeed, despite the fact that migrant smuggling has attracted great media and political attention over the last two decades, there has not been any comprehensive analysis of the state of expert knowledge. Great confusion still prevails about what is migrant smuggling within the global context of irregular migration. Smuggling of migrants is a crime defined under international law as “the procurement, in order to obtain, directly or indirectly, a financial or other material benefit, of the illegal entry of a person into a State of which the person is not a national or a permanent resident”, according to the definition of Article 3 (1) of the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air – commonly referred to as the Migrant Smuggling Protocol – supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime. In order to comply with the Migrant Smuggling Protocol, Article 6 also requires States to criminalize both smuggling of migrants and enabling of a person to remain in a country illegally in order to obtain, directly or indirectly, a financial or other material benefit as well as aggravating circumstances that endanger lives or safety, or entail inhuman or degrading treatment of migrants. By virtue of Article 5, migrants shall not become liable to criminal prosecution for the fact of having been smuggled under the Migrant Smuggling Protocol. It is therefore to be understood that the Migrant Smuggling Protocol aims to target migrant smugglers, not the people being smuggled. While most researchers refer to the Migrant Smuggling Protocol, some authors have developed a broader definition referring to the sociological characteristics of migrant smuggling. According to Van Liempt, a broader definition is necessary in order to properly reflect the changing character of intermediary structures in international migration processes and to shed a light on the possible criminal character of smuggling. From a sociological perspective, migrant smuggling may then include every act lying on a continuum between altruism and organized crime. Doomernik defines migrant smuggling as “every act whereby an immigrant is assisted in crossing international borders whereby this crossing is not endorsed by the government of the receiving state, neither implicitly nor explicitly”. To the extent that the literature available making a distinction to be made, the issues of “irregular migration” and “trafficking in persons” are deliberately not covered per se by this thematic review, despite the fact that these phenomena are closely connected with migrant smuggling in practice. The overall objective of the report is to enhance the concrete understanding of this phenomenon by looking at the following issues: - Chapter 2 will look at legal definitions of closely connected issues and the conceptualization of migrant smuggling; - Chapter 3 will look at the methodology currently applied for researching migrant smuggling; - Chapter 4 will discuss the strengths and limitations of the methods used to quantify irregular migration and migrant smuggling. It will also consider the current state of knowledge – or lack thereof – regarding smuggling trends, geography and organization of travel in different regions; - Chapter 5 will include a discussion about the motivations (root causes) and profile of smuggled migrants; - Chapter 6 will discuss the profile of migrant smugglers and motivations; - Chapter 7 will analyse smuggler-migrant relationships; - Chapter 8 will discuss the organizational structures of smuggling networks in different regions of the world; - Concrete recruitment processes and fees are discussed in chapter 9. The different methods to smuggle (basic transfer services versus all-inclusive service with travel visa smuggling, forged documents) but also the role of corruption as a cause and consequence of migrant smuggling will be considered; - Chapter 10 will be devoted to the human and social costs of migrant smuggling. The research is based on literature available in English and French language, such as journalistic books, reports and academic articles. Research reports published by international organizations and NGOs were also considered. Neither the annotated bibliography, nor the thematic review pretends to be comprehensive. Rather, they are conceived as a summary of existing knowledge and identified gaps based on the most recent and relevant research available. Details: Vienna: UNODC, 2010. 163p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 3, 2010 at: http://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/Marian/Smuggling_of_Migrants_A_Global_Review.pdf Year: 2010 Country: International URL: http://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/Marian/Smuggling_of_Migrants_A_Global_Review.pdf Shelf Number: 119735 Keywords: Human SmugglingHuman TraffickingIllegal AliensImmigrantsMigrantsOrganized Crime |
Author: Guild, Elspeth Title: Criminalisation of Migration in Europe: Human Rights Implications Summary: On 29 September 2008, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights (the Commissioner) issued a Viewpoint expressing his concern regarding the trend to criminalize the irregular entry and presence of migrants in Europe presented as part of a policy of migration management. He stated that ‘such a method of controlling international movement corrodes established international law principles; it also causes many human tragedies without achieving its purpose of genuine control.’ This Issue Paper builds on the concern of the Commissioner by examining, systematically, the human rights issues which arise from the phenomenon in Council of Europe member states of criminalisation of border crossing by people and of their presence on the territory of a state. Details: Strasbourg: Council of Europe, Commissioner for Human Rights, 2010. 53p. Source: Internet Resource: Issue Paper: Accessed September 7, 2010 at: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2010/feb/coe-hamm-criminalisation-of-migration.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Europe URL: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2010/feb/coe-hamm-criminalisation-of-migration.pdf Shelf Number: 119761 Keywords: Human RightsIllegal AliensImmigrantsImmigration |
Author: Mortensen, Ronald W. Title: Illegal, but Not Undocumented: Identity Theft, Document Fraud, and Illegal Employment Summary: This backgrounder examines illegal immigration-related document fraud and identity theft that is committed primarily for the purpose of employment. It debunks three common misconceptions: illegal aliens are “undocumented;” the transgressions committed by illegal aliens to obtain jobs are minor; and illegal-alien document fraud and identity theft are victimless crimes. It discusses how some community leaders rationalize these crimes, contributing to a deterioration of the respect for laws in our nation, and presents a variety of remedies, including more widespread electronic verification of work status (E-Verify and the Social Security Number Verification Service) and immigrant outreach programs to explain the ramifications and risks of document fraud and identity theft. Details: Washington, DC: Center for Immigration Studies, 2009. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 10, 2010 at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2009/back809.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.cis.org/articles/2009/back809.pdf Shelf Number: 119781 Keywords: Document FraudIdentity TheftIllegal AliensImmigrantsImmigration |
Author: Doctors Without Borders - Medecins Sans Frontieres Title: Migrants in Detention: Lives on Hold Summary: This report documents the impact of detention on the mental health and well being of migrants and asylum seekers in Greece and reveals the unacceptable living conditions in three detention centers (Pagani on Lesvos Island, Filakio in Evros and Venna in Rodopi(. The report calls on the Greek government to ensure humane and dignified living conditions in detention centres and to consider alternatives, especially for vulnerable groups. Details: Athens: Medecins Sans Frontieres, 2010. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 17, 2010 at: http://www.msf.org/source/countries/europe/greece/2010/Migrants_in_detention.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Greece URL: http://www.msf.org/source/countries/europe/greece/2010/Migrants_in_detention.pdf Shelf Number: 119826 Keywords: Illegal AliensMental HealthMigrant DetentionMigration |
Author: Stana, Richard M. Title: Immigration Enforcement: Better Controls Needed over Program Authorizing State and Local Enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws Summary: Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, authorizes the federal government to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies to train officers to assist in identifying those individuals who are in the country illegally. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is responsible for supervising state and local officers under this program. GAO was asked to review this program. This report reviews (1) the extent to which ICE has designed controls to govern 287(g) program implementation; and (2) how program resources are being used and the activities, benefits, and concerns reported by participating agencies. GAO reviewed memorandums of agreement (MOA) between ICE and the 29 program participants as of September 1, 2007. GAO compared controls ICE designed to govern the 287(g) program with criteria in GAO’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. GAO interviewed officials from both ICE and participating agencies on program implementation, resources, and results. Among other things, GAO recommends that the Assistant Secretary for ICE document the program objective, document and communicate supervisory activities, and specify data each agency is to collect and report. DHS and ICE agreed with the recommendations. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2009. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-09-109: Accessed October 7, 2010 at: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09109.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09109.pdf Shelf Number: 114779 Keywords: Illegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrationLaw Enforcement Training |
Author: Krisberg, Barry Title: Where is the Fire? Immigrants and Crime in California Summary: In a recent May 2010 survey, 9% of Californians identified immigration as the most important issue facing the state today. In an identical poll conducted two months prior only 3% of Californians identified immigration as the top priority. What explains the 6% jump over the course of a few weeks? Notably, Arizona’s Governor Jan Brewer signed a restrictive law targeting noncitizens, SB 1070, on April 23, 2010 in the time period between the two surveys. The Arizona law prompted a public debate over immigration enforcement and the proper role of state and local governments that continues today. One of the basic underlying assumptions of the Arizona law is that there is a nexus between immigration and crime. The rationale is that noncitizens are responsible for increasing crime and therefore states need to step in and enforce immigration laws. Locally, some current and potential elected officials reinforce this perception that California and the nation is beset by a crime epidemic that is caused to a large extent by undocumented immigrants. For example, California Republican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina said “I support Arizona’s efforts to protect its citizens... it’s a reflection of their frustration and fear.” Congressman Duncan Hunter described his home town of San Diego as plagued by “massive murders on the border, massive illegal immigration, massive importation of drugs.” Another prominent California member of Congress, Ed Royce, wrote, “(v)iolence along the U.S. Mexican border continues to increase at alarming rates. Our communities shouldn’t continue to live in fear of violent drug cartels, gangs and human traffickers.” Do these statements reflect the reality in California, the state with the largest foreign-born population in the country? In order to determine whether there is an association between crime and immigration, this paper examines violent crimes and serious property crimes at a statewide level in California, in counties along the southwest border, and in all other southern California counties. Most of the data in this analysis covers “foreign‐born” immigrants. This demographic category includes persons with permission to be in the U.S. for work, travel or educational purposes, those who entered nation on an unauthorized basis, as well as those possessing U.S. citizenship. Details: Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Center for Criminal Justice, University of California, Berkeley, 2010. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 29, 2010 at: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Where_is_the_fire.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Where_is_the_fire.pdf Shelf Number: 120120 Keywords: Illegal AliensImmigrants and CrimeImmigration |
Author: Wilson, Christopher E. Title: Immigration and Security: Does the New Immigration Law Protect the People of Arizona? Summary: On July 29, the first pieces of Arizona’s new immigration law, SB 1070, take effect without the most controversial parts of the legislation. The sections that mandated that Arizona police enforce federal immigration laws have been blocked by a federal judge pending further review. If fully implemented, the law would direct police to ascertain the immigration status of people they stop or detain while enforcing other laws, make it a state crime for immigrants to not have papers documenting legal status in their possession, and otherwise increase state pressure on unauthorized (some would say all) immigrants. Public opinion on the law is conflicted. Despite concerns by a majority of U.S. residents that the law may promote racial profiling or represent an unconstitutional usurpation of federal authority, the law enjoys broad popular support in Arizona and the nation. Recent polls have found that 60% of Americans and 55% of Arizonans are in favor of SB 1070. However, nationally 54% fear that the law will lead to racial profiling. While most of the current media attention is focusing on the legal challenges and potential effects of the law on civil rights, this analysis explores whether the law, intended address public security concerns in Arizona, would effectively achieve this goal. Too often, immigrants that enter the U.S. in search of economic opportunities are confused with the drug traffickers and organized crime groups that also illegally cross the U.S.-Mexico border. To the extent that these two groups are conflated, effective policy regarding immigration and border security is much less likely to be implemented. Details: Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson INternational center for Scholars, Mexico Institute, 2010. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 2, 2010 at: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/docs/Immigration%20and%20Security%20in%20Arizona%207.28.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/docs/Immigration%20and%20Security%20in%20Arizona%207.28.pdf Shelf Number: 120158 Keywords: Border SecurityIllegal AliensImmigrantsImmigration |
Author: Lopez, Mark Hugo Title: Illegal Immigration Backlash Worries, Divides Latinos Summary: The 2010 National Survey of Latinos (NSL) focuses on the views and opinions of Latinos about immigrants, illegal immigration and immigration policy. The survey was conducted from August 17 through September 19, 2010, among a randomly selected, nationally representative sample of 1,375 Latino adults, 542 of whom are native born and 833 of whom are foreign born. Details: Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center, 2010. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 3, 2010 at: http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/128.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/128.pdf Shelf Number: 120170 Keywords: HispanicsIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrationImmigrants |
Author: Parker, Alison Title: Locked Up Far Away: The Transfer of Immigrants to Remote Detention Center in the United States Summary: Immigrants who face deportation proceedings in the United States — whether they are legal permanent residents, refugees, or undocumented persons — increasingly are being transferred to remote detention centers by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE). Many immigrants are first arrested and detained in major cities like Los Angeles or Philadelphia— places where immigrants have lived for decades, and where their family members, employers, and attorneys also live. Days or months later, with no notice, immigrants are loaded onto planes for transport to detention centers in remote corners of states such as Texas or Louisiana. Once transferred, immigrants are so far away from their lawyers, evidence, and witnesses that their ability to defend themselves in deportation proceedings is severely curtailed. Locked Up Far Away shows that such detainee transfers are numerous and rapidly increasing; 1.4 million transfers occurred between 1999 and 2008, and the annual number of transfers increased four-fold during this period. As an agency responsible for the custody and care of hundreds of thousands of people each year, it is clear that ICE will sometimes need to transfer detainees. However, this report asks whether all or most detainee transfers are truly necessary, especially in light of how they interfere with immigrants’ rights to be represented by counsel, to present witnesses and evidence in their defense, and to fair immigration procedures. Immigrant detainees should not be treated like so many boxes of goods—shipped to the location where it is most convenient for ICE to store them. An agency charged with enforcing the laws of the United States should not need to resort to a chaotic system of moving detainees around the country in order to achieve efficiency. Instead, ICE should allow reasonable and rights-protective checks on its transfer power. Transfers do not need to stop entirely in order for ICE to respect detainees’ rights; they merely need to be reduced through the establishment of reasonable guidelines. The nation’s state and federal prisons operate effectively with such guidelines in place, and ICE should be able to do so as well. Details: New York: Human Rights Watch, 2009. 97p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 4, 2010 at: http://www.hrw.org/en/node/86789 Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.hrw.org/en/node/86789 Shelf Number: 120182 Keywords: Illegal AliensImmigrant DetentionImmigrants |
Author: Passel, Jeffrey S. Title: U.S. Unauthorized Immigration Flows Are Down Sharply Since Mid-Decade Summary: The annual inflow of unauthorized immigrants to the United States was nearly two-thirds smaller in the March 2007 to March 2009 period than it had been from March 2000 to March 2005, according to new estimates by the Pew Hispanic Center. This sharp decline has contributed to an overall reduction of 8% in the number of unauthorized immigrants currently living in the U.S.-to 11.1 million in March 2009 from a peak of 12 million in March 2007, according to the estimates. The decrease represents the first significant reversal in the growth of this population over the past two decades. Details: Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center, 2010. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 4, 2010 at: http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/126.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/126.pdf Shelf Number: 120183 Keywords: Illegal AliensImmigrantsImmigration |
Author: Silverman, Stephanie J. Title: Immigration Detention in America: A History of its Expansion and a Study of its Significance Summary: This working paper investigates the legislative origins of the US immigration detention system. This critical history is an attempt to broaden the discussion of the place and propriety of immigration detention in the American political landscape. The paper explains who has historically been subject to immigration detention, where and for how long the practice takes place, and what has lead to its rapid enlargement in recent decades. Using historical frames, this paper identifies and traces three key characteristics in the legislative development of the US immigration detention system: firstly, the increasingly restrictive nature of the system; secondly, the fact that the system it is more similar to an ad hoc bricolage of policies and contradictory justifications than a coherent assemblage of policies; and, finally, the criminalization of immigrants and resident non-citizens. What emerges from this narrative is a history of the expansion of the immigration detention system by the executive branch in response to periods of increasing politicization of immigration, particularly concerning the category of resident non-citizens. The paper argues that, in the absence of clear policy objectives, public oversight, and public accountability, government has developed the US immigration detention system without coherence and often hastily in reaction to events in the political sphere. Details: Oxford, UK: University of Oxford, Centre on Migration, Policy and Society, 2010. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper No. 80: Accessed December 15, 2010 at: http://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/publications/working-papers/wp-10-80/ Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/publications/working-papers/wp-10-80/ Shelf Number: 120514 Keywords: Illegal AliensImmigrant DetentionImmigrants (U.S.)Immigration |
Author: Beresford, Elizabeth Title: Migrant Women and Children at Risk: In Custody in Arizona Summary: A Women’s Refugee Commission delegation traveled to Arizona in June 2010 to monitor detention conditions and compliance with relevant detention standards, assess progress towards detention reform and further explore the impact of immigration enforcement and detention on family unity and parental rights. We faced numerous research barriers, including difficulty in gaining access to one of the two adult detention centers, an inability to interview adult detainees for whom we did not have preapproved signed consent forms and delay—and ultimately denial—of our request to visit the Nogales U.S. Border Patrol station and meet with Border Patrol staff. These incidents happened despite our constructive working relationship with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) headquarters in Washington, D.C., and suggest a resistance to reform and transparency at the field operations level as well as obstacles within Border Patrol at the headquarters level. These limitations also left our assessment with what should have been avoidable gaps. Key Findings • Despite efforts at policy reform within ICE, the detention system continues to be plagued by a lack of transparency and access, ineffective standards and monitoring and the unnecessary use of detention for vulnerable populations who pose no threat to our safety. • At adult facilities, conditions of care violate the 2000 and the 2008 detention standards, including lack of access to religious services and recreation, inadequate medical care and lack of grievance procedures. Adults and children reported abuse and deprivation of basic necessities (food and water) at U.S. Border Patrol facilities. • An increasing number of children in immigration custody are coming from Mexico, including many who are forced to smuggle people and drugs. Many children in care are on medication for mental health issues. • Family reunifications of unaccompanied children, appear to be decreasing, possibly as a result of fear created by the expansion of immigration enforcement. • Detained women involved in custody cases are almost universally unable to participate in them. Details: New York: Women's Refugee Commission, 2010. 9p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 16, 2010 at: http://womensrefugeecommission.org/reports/cat_view/68-reports/71-detention-a-asylum Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://womensrefugeecommission.org/reports/cat_view/68-reports/71-detention-a-asylum Shelf Number: 120526 Keywords: Illegal AliensImmigrant Detention (Arizona)Immigrants |
Author: Nomikos, John M. Title: Illegal Immigration and Organized Crime in Greece Summary: During the 1990’s the immigration problem in Greece started to have explosive dimensions due to political and economic developments in South-East Europe, but also due to the continuous conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa. An important factor which played an important role in shaping these developments was the collapse of Alia’s regime in Albania (1991) and the subsequent flow of illegal immigrants from Albania into Greece and also from other Balkan countries (Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, FYROM) due to the political unrest that took place in the Balkans during that period. In Greece, immigration policy is facing the same inflexibility which does not solve the problem but rather functions in a fragmentary way and does not constitute a substantial effort in solving the problem. Dealing with illegal immigration as a national security threat is a strategic option and it is absolutely necessary the formation of an immigration policy which will prevent the flow of illegal immigrants and give directions in regard to the integration of the legal immigrants in Greek society in coordination with the European Immigration Policy which will be formed by the European Commission. Greece has to form and implement a long term immigration policy which will include efficient mechanisms of internal and external control (cooperation of Ministries of Employment, Interior, National Defense, Foreign Affairs, Public Health and Mercantile Marine) in cooperation with our European Union partners and non- European Union states like Turkey, where the bigger number of illegal immigrants are flowing to Greece. This article has three sections. The first section is referring to the institutional framework in Greece and the observations in regard to the implementation or not of this framework in order to handle in a more efficient way the immigration problem. The second section is describing the causes of the flow of illegal immigrants in Greece and the repercussions on national security. Finally, the third section is referring to the latest developments in European Union immigration policies and the role of Immigration Liaison Officers (ILO) in facing illegal immigration. Liaison Officers (ILO) are serving in the immigration offices of the European Union Member States and they try to coordinate and implement national immigration policies into a common European Immigration Policy. Details: Athens, Greece: Research Institute for European and American Studies, 2010. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Paper No. 144: Accessed December 17, 2010 at: http://www.rieas.gr/images/rieas144.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Greece URL: http://www.rieas.gr/images/rieas144.pdf Shelf Number: 120541 Keywords: Illegal AliensIllegal ImmigrationImmigrants (Greece)Organized Crime |
Author: Verdery, C. Stewart, Jr. Title: Brick by Brick: A Half-Decade of Immigration Enforcement and the Need for Comprehensive Immigration Reform Summary: The United States has undertaken a massive immigration enforcement initiative over the past five years. The report that follows, written by C. Stewart Verdery, assistant secretary for border and transportation security policy at the Department of Homeland Security from 2003-2005, catalogues the spectrum of measures and the breadth of enforcement resources that have been deployed during this period. The Center for American Progress believes that strong border enforcement and tough worksite enforcement on law-breaking employers are fundamental components of a rational immigration system. That does not mean, however, that we endorse all of the enforcement tactics that have been adopted over the past five years. Many of the initiatives that are detailed in this report reflect sensible steps to restore the rule of law. But CAP believes that others—the so-called “287g program,” for example—misallocate resources and have had a destructive effect on communities. From CAP’s perspective, initiatives like the expansion of expedited removal and mandatory detention policies also raise serious concerns of fairness, proportionality, and due process. Moreover, any massive enforcement apparatus struggles to maintain the integrity of established standards and operationalize leadership priorities. So even smartly designed enforcement policies can become deeply flawed when implemented, leading to widespread rights violations and other unintended consequences. Irrespective of where one comes down on the wisdom of specific enforcement measures, the unprecedented commitment of resources to border and interior enforcement is inarguable. Anti-immigration agitators and politicians who seek to use immigration as a wedge issue argue that we cannot reform our legal immigration system until we have secured the border. The findings contained in this report demonstrate the untenability of this “enforcement-first” line of argument. Details: Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, 2010. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 23, 2010 at: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/06/pdf/dhs_enforcement.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/06/pdf/dhs_enforcement.pdf Shelf Number: 120630 Keywords: Border SecurityIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigration |
Author: Hoefer, Michael Title: Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2010 Summary: This report provides estimates of the number of unauthorized immigrants residing in the United States as of January 2009 by period of entry, region and country of origin, state of residence, age, and gender. In summary, DHS estimates that the unauthorized immigrant population living in the United States decreased to 10.8 million in January 2009 from 11.6 million in January 2008. Between 2000 and 2009, the unauthorized population grew by 27 percent. Of all unauthorized immigrants living in the United States in 2009, 63 percent entered before 2000, and 62 percent were from Mexico. Details: Washington, DC: Office of Immigration Statistics, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2011. 7p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 28, 2011 at: http://www.ilw.com/immigrationdaily/news/2010,0210-unauthorized.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.ilw.com/immigrationdaily/news/2010,0210-unauthorized.pdf Shelf Number: 120883 Keywords: Illegal AliensIllegal ImmigrationImmigrants |
Author: Haddal, Chad C. Title: Border Security: The Role of the U.S. Border Patrol Summary: The United States Border Patrol (USBP) has a long and storied history as our nation’s first line of defense against unauthorized migration. Today, the USBP’s primary mission is to detect and prevent the entry of terrorists, weapons of mass destruction, and illegal aliens into the country, and to interdict drug smugglers and other criminals along the border. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 dissolved the Immigration and Naturalization Service and placed the USBP within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Within DHS, the USBP forms a part of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection under the Directorate of Border and Transportation Security. During the last decade, the USBP has seen its budget and manpower more than triple. This expansion was the direct result of congressional concerns about illegal immigration and the agency’s adoption of “Prevention Through Deterrence” as its chief operational strategy in 1994. The strategy called for placing USBP resources and manpower directly at the areas of greatest illegal immigration in order to detect, deter, and apprehend aliens attempting to cross the border between official points of entry. Post 9/11, the USBP refocused its strategy on preventing the entry of terrorists and weapons of mass destruction, as laid out in its recently released National Strategy. In addition to a workforce of over 20,000 agents, the USBP deploys vehicles, aircraft, watercraft, and many different technologies to defend the border. In the course of discharging its duties, the USBP patrols 8,000 miles of American international borders with Mexico and Canada and the coastal waters around Florida and Puerto Rico. However, there are significant geographic, political, and immigration-related differences between the northern border with Canada and the Southwest border with Mexico. Accordingly, the USBP deploys a different mix of personnel and resources along the two borders. Due to the fact that approximately 98.7% of unauthorized migrant apprehensions by the USBP occur along the Southwest border, the USBP deploys over 85% of its agents there to deter illegal immigration. The northern border is more than two times longer than the Southwest border, and features far lower numbers of aliens attempting to enter illegally, but may be more vulnerable to terrorist infiltration. As a consequence of this, the USBP has focused its northern border efforts on deploying technology and cooperating closely with Canadian authorities through the creation of International Border Enforcement Teams. Some issues for Congress to consider could include the slow rate of integration between the USBP’s biometric database of illegal aliens and the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) biometric database of criminals and terrorists; the number of unauthorized aliens who die attempting to enter the country each year; the increasing attacks on Border Patrol agents, and the threat posed by terrorists along the sparsely defended northern border as well as the more porous Southwest border. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2010. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: RL32562: Accessed March 16, 2011 at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL32562.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL32562.pdf Shelf Number: 121027 Keywords: Border PatrolBorder SecurityContrabandDrug TraffickingIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrationSmuggling |
Author: Nunez-Neto, Blas Title: Border Security: Apprehensions of “Other Than Mexican” Aliens Summary: The United States Border Patrol (USBP) within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is charged with securing our nation’s borders between official ports of entry (POE). As the USBP discharges its mission it encounters unauthorized aliens from around the world attempting to illegally enter the United States. In fiscal year (FY) 2004, USBP agents apprehended 1.16 million people attempting to enter the country illegally between official POE; 93% of these aliens were Mexican nationals. Because the vast majority of people apprehended each year by the USBP are Mexican nationals, the agency categorizes aliens as Mexicans or Other Than Mexicans (OTM). Over the past three years, OTM apprehensions have more than tripled nationwide and have been concentrated along the South Texas border. The reasons for this dramatic increase, and its geographical concentration in Texas, are not altogether clear. The number of people entering the country illegally between POE, and the concomitant proliferation of human and drug smuggling networks, can present risks to national security due to the ever-present threat of terrorism. Terrorists and terrorist organizations could leverage these illicit networks to smuggle a person or weapon of mass destruction into the United States, while the large number of aliens attempting to enter the country illegally could potentially provide cover for the terrorists. Additionally, the proceeds from these smuggling networks could potentially be used to finance terrorism. The issue of OTM apprehensions has received publicity recently for many of these reasons, which were highlighted during congressional testimony by DHS then-Deputy Secretary Admiral James Loy when he stated that Al-Qaeda is considering infiltrating the Southwest border due to a belief that “illegal entry is more advantageous than legal entry for operational security reasons.” OTMs apprehended along the Southwest border by the USBP between official POE cannot be returned to Mexico because Mexico will not accept them. Instead, they must be returned to their countries of origin, or third countries that will accept them, by the Office of Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) within Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). However, DRO does not have enough detention beds to accommodate every OTM that is apprehended. As a result of this, the majority of OTMs apprehended by the USBP are released into the interior of the United States with notices to appear before an immigration judge. Most of these released OTMs fail to show up for their hearings and are not ultimately removed. In order to address the increasing number of OTMs being apprehended and circumvent the regular removal process, the USBP is currently expanding its Expedited Removal (ER) program. Issues for Congress include the potential for terrorist infiltration, the lack of detention bed-space that causes OTMs to be released into the interior of the country, and how best to deploy DHS resources to address the growing number of OTMs entering into the country illegally. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2005. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: RL33097: Accessed March 16, 2011 at: http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/library/P1.pdf Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/library/P1.pdf Shelf Number: 121028 Keywords: Border PatrolBorder SecurityIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrationSmuggling |
Author: Hoffmaster, Debra A. Title: Police and Immigration: How Chiefs Are Leading their Communities through the Challenges Summary: Local police and sheriffs’ departments increasingly are being drawn into a national debate about how to enforce federal immigration laws. In many jurisdictions, local police are being pressured to take significantly larger roles in what has traditionally been a federal government responsibility. This is not a simple matter for local police. Active involvement in immigration enforcement can complicate local law enforcement agencies’ efforts to fulfill their primary missions of investigating and preventing crime. While no two communities are affected by immigration in the same way, the current system creates a number of challenges for local police, such as understanding an extremely complicated set of federal laws and policies, and working to develop trust and cooperation with undocumented immigrants who are victims of or witnesses to crime. For several years now, PERF has been focusing attention on the question of illegal immigration and its impact on local police departments. Immigration laws are federal statutes, so this is fundamentally a matter for the federal government to decide. But Congress has not been able to pass any comprehensive immigration reform legislation. Arizona’s passage in April 2010 of SB 1070, a new law designed to expand the role of local police in immigration enforcement, and the Obama Administration’s decision to challenge the Constitutionality of this state law in federal court, have focused national attention on the question of federal, state, and local enforcement of immigration laws. In the meantime, many local communities and police agencies are struggling to devise local policies and strategies that reflect their own values and are consistent with the federal government’s efforts, which seem to ebb and flow with changing Administrations. This publication explores the role of six leading police departments in their communities’ immigration debates, and how they navigated the challenges and pressures surrounding the immigration issue. Our six case-study jurisdictions were not chosen at random; these six cities have experienced some of the most contentious local battles on this issue in recent memory. The case studies were conducted between December 2008 and September 2009. The goal of this report is to provide a base of information about what police are currently doing regarding immigration enforcement. Following are brief summaries of the six case studies. Each chapter concludes with a set of lessons learned and guiding principles for dealing with immigration issues. In addition, a concluding chapter includes a set of Recommendations for Congress and the Obama Administration, and Recommendations for Local Police Agencies. These recommendations are based on the lessons learned in the six case studies as well as through a National Summit on Immigration Enforcement held in July 2009 in Phoenix. Details: Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum, 2010. 96p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 18, 2011 at: http://www.policeforum.org/library/immigration/PERFImmigrationReportMarch2011.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.policeforum.org/library/immigration/PERFImmigrationReportMarch2011.pdf Shelf Number: 121077 Keywords: Illegal AliensIllegal ImmigrationImmigrantsImmigration EnforcementImmigration LawsPolicing |
Author: Wuebbels, Mark Title: Demystifying Human Smuggling Operations Along the Arizona-Mexican Border Summary: The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview and analysis of the problem of human smuggling along the U.S. - Mexican border. Using open source material, economic analysis, and experts’ opinions, the paper details the scope, methods, and associated negative externalities of human smuggling. In writing this report, careful attention was made to separate between incidents of trafficking and human smuggling. However, since many times media articles, especially in Spanish, use the term trafficking instead of smuggling, some of the citations and original sources will include the terms human trafficking. As such, to the greatest extent, information applicable only to human trafficking has been eliminated. This paper is split into two parts. The first part begins by defining human smuggling and its component crimes. To this end, it lays out the international, federal, and state legal definitions of human smuggling as well as the federal jurisdictions for human smuggling’s component crimes. After defining the problem, this paper discuses the logic behind the decision to migrate. It reflects the prevailing wisdom among migration experts as well as an alternative explanation of the decision making process. Next, the paper lays out the various estimates of the UDA population and extrapolates the potential flow of undocumented aliens (UDA) across U.S. borders. The paper then describes the UDA population in terms of nationality and socio-economic characteristics. Finally, the paper presents the necessary elements for smuggling operations. The second part is a primer on current smuggling operations in different states in Mexico. Using open source literature from Mexican and U.S. newspapers, it outlines human smuggling methods, the roads and transportation they use, and the path UDAs use to reach the United States. In general, the purpose is to show how the fundamental elements of human smuggling are expressed in reality. Details: Report prepared for the Arizona State Attorney General, 2005. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 1, 2011 at: http://policy-traccc.gmu.edu/resources/publications/wuebbe01.pdf Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: http://policy-traccc.gmu.edu/resources/publications/wuebbe01.pdf Shelf Number: 121216 Keywords: Border SecurityHuman SmugglingIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigration |
Author: U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Office of Inspector General Title: Management of Mental Health Cases in Immigration Detention Summary: Immigration and Customs Enforcement apprehends, detains, and removes illegal aliens from the United States. Aliens in custody must be provided with appropriate medical treatment and care. The Health Service Corp serves as the medical authority for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and provides direct care or arranges for outside health care services to detained aliens in custody. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Health Service Corps staffs only 18 of the nearly 250 detention centers nationwide and has limited oversight and monitoring for mental health cases across immigration detention centers. As a result, Immigration and Customs Enforcement is not fully aware of all detainees with mental health conditions, or the level of care being provided. The Health Service Corps has experienced persistent vacancies in mental health positions which have raised concerns about the effectiveness of provider care. As of August 2010, vacancy rates at 11 of the 18 facilities staffed with Health Service Corps employees were 50% or more. In addition, facilities were not always well-equipped to support the needs of detainees with mental illness or located in areas with access to community mental health care facilities. Immigration and Customs Enforcement needs to (1) establish a staffing plan that aligns staffing with the facilities’ mental health caseload, (2) make appropriate space available to provide needed treatment, (3) develop a classification system for facilities to determine the level of care that can be provided, (4) make timely requests for mental health information, (5) clarify decision-making authorities for detainee transfer decisions, (6) establish protocols for handling mental health information, (7) release guidance on custodians, and (8) develop field guidance for using specialty facilities. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, 2011. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: OIG-11-62: Accessed April 22, 2011 at: http://www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/mgmtrpts/OIG_11-62_Mar11.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/mgmtrpts/OIG_11-62_Mar11.pdf Shelf Number: 121475 Keywords: Illegal AliensImmigrant DetentionImmigrantsMental Health Care |
Author: Jeszeck, Charles A.: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Criminal Alien Statistics: Information on Incarcerations, Arrests, and Costs Summary: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) estimated that as of fiscal year 2009 the total alien--non-U.S.-citizen--population was about 25.3 million, including about 10.8 million aliens without lawful immigration status. Some aliens have been convicted and incarcerated (criminal aliens). The federal government bears these incarceration costs for federal prisons and reimburses states and localities for portions of their costs through the Department of Justice's (DOJ) State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP). GAO was asked to update its April and May 2005 reports that contained information on criminal aliens. This report addresses (1) the number and nationalities of incarcerated criminal aliens; (2) the types of offenses for which criminal aliens were arrested and convicted; and (3) the costs associated with incarcerating criminal aliens and the extent to which DOJ's methodology for reimbursing states and localities for incarcerating criminal aliens is current and relevant. GAO analyzed federal and SCAAP incarceration and cost data of criminal aliens from fiscal years 2003 through 2010, and conviction and cost data from five states that account for about 70 percent of the SCAAP criminal alien population in 2008. GAO analyzed a random sample of 1,000 criminal aliens to estimate arrest information due to the large volume of arrests and offenses. GAO also estimated selected costs to incarcerate criminal aliens nationwide using The number of criminal aliens in federal prisons in fiscal year 2010 was about 55,000, and the number of SCAAP criminal alien incarcerations in state prison systems and local jails was about 296,000 in fiscal year 2009 (the most recent data available), and the majority were from Mexico. The number of criminal aliens in federal prisons increased about 7 percent from about 51,000 in fiscal year 2005 while the number of SCAAP criminal alien incarcerations in state prison systems and local jails increased about 35 percent from about 220,000 in fiscal year 2003. The time period covered by these data vary because they reflect updates since GAO last reported on these issues in 2005. Specifically, in 2005, GAO reported that the percentage of criminal aliens in federal prisons was about 27 percent of the total inmate population from 2001 through 2004. Based on our random sample, GAO estimates that the criminal aliens had an average of 7 arrests, 65 percent were arrested at least once for an immigration offense, and about 50 percent were arrested at least once for a drug offense. Immigration, drugs, and traffic violations accounted for about 50 percent of arrest offenses. About 90 percent of the criminal aliens sentenced in federal court in fiscal year 2009 (the most recently available data) were convicted of immigration and drug-related offenses. About 40 percent of individuals convicted as a result of DOJ terrorism-related investigations were aliens. SCAAP criminal aliens incarcerated in selected state prison systems in Arizona, California, Florida, New York, and Texas were convicted of various offenses in fiscal year 2008 (the most recently available data at the time of GAO's analysis). The highest percentage of convictions for criminal aliens incarcerated in four of these states was for drug-related offenses. Homicide resulted in the most primary offense convictions for SCAAP criminal aliens in the fifth state--New York--in fiscal year 2008. GAO estimates that costs to incarcerate criminal aliens in federal prisons and SCAAP reimbursements to states and localities ranged from about $1.5 billion to $1.6 billion annually from fiscal years 2005 through 2009; DOJ plans to update its SCAAP methodology for reimbursing states and localities in 2011 to help ensure that it is current and relevant. DOJ developed its reimbursement methodology using analysis conducted by the former Immigration and Naturalization Service in 2000 that was based on 1997 data. Best practices in cost estimating and assessment of programs call for new data to be continuously collected so it is always relevant and current. During the course of its review, GAO raised questions about the relevancy of the methodology. Thus, DOJ developed plans to update its methodology in 2011 using SCAAP data from 2009 and would like to establish a 3-year update cycle to review the methodology in the future. Doing so could provide additional assurance that DOJ reimburses states and localities for such costs consistent with current trends. In commenting on a draft of this report, DHS and DOJ had no written comments to include in the report. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2011. 71p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-11-187: Accessed April 22, 2011 at: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11187.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11187.pdf Shelf Number: 121479 Keywords: Costs of CrimeCriminal AliensHomeland SecurityIllegal AliensImmigrantsImmigrants and CrimeImmigration |
Author: Texas Border Security Council Title: Texas Border Security Council Report to Governor Rick Perry Summary: During the 80th Texas State Legislative Session, Governor Perry requested that the Texas Legislature appropriate $100 million to support border security operations along the 1,254 miles of Texas/Mexico Border. The 80th Texas State Legislature allocated $110 million for border security and created the Border Security Council through Senate Bill 11. The Council was formed to make recommendations to the Governor on reporting requirements, performance standards and audit measures for the use of state funds appropriated for border security, and to advise the Governor on the allocation of discretionary state homeland security funds. The Border Security Council held a series of five public hearings in the fall of 2007 and received testimony from business owners, law enforcement officers, local elected officials and private citizens. Throughout their five public hearings and three open meetings, the Border Security Council found the following: General Findings: Powerful and ruthless Mexican crime cartels dominate the U.S. drug and human smuggling business, and they use former military commandos and transnational gangs to support their operations on both sides of the border. The citizens who live in the smuggling corridors along the border suffer the daily consequences of smuggling-related violence, burglary, vandalism, and trespassing. Drug and human smuggling organizations victimize illegal aliens in search of economic opportunities in the U.S. A porous Texas/Mexico border threatens every region in the state and the nation. An unsecured border provides potential terrorists and their supporters an opportunity into enter the U.S. undetected. The federal government has not yet sufficiently staffed and equipped the Border Patrol to secure the Texas/Mexico border between the ports of entry. Border Security operations require substantial coordination, hard work and sacrifice by dedicated local and state law enforcement officers, Customs and Border Protection and other federal agencies, such as the U.S. Coast Guard. The Council found that an exceptional level of coordination and cooperation among the local, state, and federal law enforcement community is essential for success. The federal government has not sufficiently staffed and equipped the Office of Field Operations at the ports of entry to prevent smuggling at the ports of entry, nor have they provided for the secure and efficient movement of people and commodities to and from Mexico. Until the federal government is able to secure the border, the State of Texas has an obligation to work closely with its local and federal partners to acquire and maintain operational control of the Texas/Mexico border. The Texas Border Security Strategy established by Governor Perry in February 2006, has been successful in reducing crime and enhancing border security. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Border Security Council, 2008. 92p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 26, 2011 at: http://governor.state.tx.us/files/homeland/Border-Security-Report.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://governor.state.tx.us/files/homeland/Border-Security-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 121497 Keywords: Border Security (Texas/Mexico)CartelsDrug TraffickingIllegal AliensSmuggling |
Author: Papademetriou, Demetrios G. Title: A New Architecture for Border Management Summary: This report commissioned to inform the work of MPI’s Transatlantic Council on Migration for its meeting on “Restoring Trust in the Management of Migration and Borders” examines the emergence of a new border architecture resulting from the explosion in global travel and the dawning of the age of risk. This new border architecture must respond effectively to the seemingly competing demands of facilitating mobility while better managing the risks associated with cross-border travel (e.g. terrorism, the entry of unwanted migrants, and organized crime). The report examines the information-sharing agreements, technology innovations, and multilateral partnerships that have emerged as key components of the new architecture for border management, and discusses challenges and considerations for the future. Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2011. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 28, 2011 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/borderarchitecture.pdf Year: 2011 Country: International URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/borderarchitecture.pdf Shelf Number: 121571 Keywords: Border SecurityIllegal AliensImmigrationOrganized CrimeTerrorism |
Author: Padavan, Frank Title: The Golden Door: Illegal Immigration, Terrorism and the Underground Economy: With a Focus on the Counterfeit Goods Trade and Analysis of the 2000 Census Summary: In 1994, Senator Frank Padavan, then Chairman of the Senate Committee on Cities, released "Our Teeming Shore," a report reflecting extensive research and public hearings on "federal immigration policy and its impact on the City and State of New York." That report concluded that New York State and its localities were spending over $5.6 billion annually as a result of federal immigration policy: $2.1 billion in social service costs; $270 million for criminal justice and corrections; and $3.3 billion in elementary and secondary education expenditures, all unreimbursed by the federal government. As a result of Senator Padavan's landmark research -- New York State was among the first in the nation to document the impact of federal immigration policy at the state and local level -- the Senate Majority Task Force on Immigration was created. A second report, a year later, confirmed the findings of the first. In "The Golden Door: Illegal Immigration, Terrorism and The Underground Economy," Senator Padavan updates the topics discussed in the earlier reports, with a focus on the counterfeit goods trade, its link to terrorism, and its cost to taxpayers. Details: Albany, NY: New York State Senate Majority Task Force on Immigration, 2005. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 28, 2011 at: http://www.nysl.nysed.gov/scandoclinks/ocm64195701.htm Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: http://www.nysl.nysed.gov/scandoclinks/ocm64195701.htm Shelf Number: 121573 Keywords: Counterfeit GoodsIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrationImmigrantsImmigration PolicyTerrorism |
Author: Padavan, Frank Title: The Counterfeit Connection : The Counterfeit Goods Trade, Intellectual Property Theft and Terrorist Financing: With a Discussion of Illegal Immigration, Alien Smuggling and Human Trafficking Summary: This report focuses on the counterfeit goods trade and its connection to terrorism financing. The purpose of the report is to explore the connections between illegal immigration, including alien smuggling and human trafficking, and the counterfeit goods trade and terrorist financing. Details: Albany, NY: New York State Senate Majority Task Force on Immigration, 2005. 108p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 29, 2011 at: http://nysl.nysed.gov/uhtbin/cgisirsi/xK6obNlwCS/NYSL/62700081/9 Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: http://nysl.nysed.gov/uhtbin/cgisirsi/xK6obNlwCS/NYSL/62700081/9 Shelf Number: 121574 Keywords: Counterfeit GoodsHuman TraffickingIllegal AliensIllegal TradeImmigrationTerrorismTerrorist Financing |
Author: Parker, Alison Title: A Costly Move: Far and Frequent Transfers Impede Hearings for Immigrant Detainees in the United States Summary: Detained immigrants facing deportation in the United States, including legal permanent residents, refugees, and undocumented persons, are being transferred, often repeatedly, to remote detention centers by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Transfers separate detained immigrants from the attorneys and evidence they need to defend against deportation, which can violate their right to fair treatment in court, slow asylum or deportation proceedings, and prolong the time immigrants spend in detention. With close to 400,000 immigrants in detention each year, space in US detention centers, especially near cities where immigrants, their families, and attorneys live, has not kept pace. As a result, ICE has built a system of detention—relying on subcontracts with state jails and prisons—that cannot operate without transfers. A Costly Move shows that between 1998 and 2010, 1 million immigrants were transferred 2 million times. Forty-six percent of transferred detainees were moved two or more times: in one egregious case, a detainee was transferred 66 times. On average, each transferred detainee traveled 370 miles, with one frequent transfer pattern (from Pennsylvania to Texas) covering 1,642 miles. Such long-distance and repetitive transfers can render attorney-client relationships unworkable, separate immigrants from evidence they need in court, and make family visits so costly they rarely, if ever, occur. An agency charged with enforcing US laws should not establish a system of detention that is literally inoperable without widespread, multiple, and long-distance transfers. ICE would reduce the chaos and limit harmful human rights abuses if it worked to emulate best practices on inmate transfers set by state and federal prison systems. Transfers do not need to stop entirely in order for ICE to respect detainees’ rights; they merely need to be curtailed through the establishment of enforceable guidelines, regulations, and reasonable legislative restraints. Details: New York: Human Rights Watch, 2011. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 27, 2011 at: http://www.hrw.org/node/99660 Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.hrw.org/node/99660 Shelf Number: 121830 Keywords: Human RightsIllegal AliensIllegal ImmmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigrants (U.S.) |
Author: Collett, Elizabeth Title: Emerging Transatlantic Security Dilemmas in Border Management Summary: The sheer volume of global travel, which has risen exponentially since the 1960s, puts border management systems under constant pressure. Beyond that growth, border management systems have had to contend with additional risks associated with these movements. Mass-casualty terrorist attacks, rising illegal immigration, and human trafficking have exposed weaknesses in states’ ability to manage their borders effectively. This policy memo examines the infrastructure and policy developments – and challenges – that have occurred in recent years on both sides of the Atlantic, discussing the differing nature and prioritization of those policy challenges. Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2011. 11p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 12, 2011 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/securitydilemmas-2011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: International URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/securitydilemmas-2011.pdf Shelf Number: 122040 Keywords: Border PatrolBorder SecurityIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrationTerrorism |
Author: Chaudry, Ajay Title: Facing Our Future: Children in the Aftermath of Immigration Enforcement Summary: This report examines the consequences of parental arrest, detention, and deportation on 190 children in 85 families in six locations, providing in-depth details on parent-child separations, economic hardships, and children's well-being. The contentious immigration debates around the country mostly revolve around illegal immigration. Less visible have been the 5.5 million children with unauthorized parents, almost three-quarters of whom are U.S.-born citizens. Over several years, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) intensified enforcement activities through large-scale worksite arrests, home arrests, and arrests by local law enforcement. The report provides recommendations for stakeholders to mitigate the harmful effects of immigration enforcement on children. Details: Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2011. 96p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 13, 2011 at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412020_FacingOurFuture_final.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412020_FacingOurFuture_final.pdf Shelf Number: 122050 Keywords: Illegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant ChildrenImmigrant Detention (U.S.) |
Author: Bilbray, Brian Title: Broken Neighbor, Broken Border: A Field Investigation Report of the House Immigration Reform Caucus Summary: Since passage into law of the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 and the Secure Fence Act of 2006, illegal entries on the U.S. southern border are down by half. The degree to which these reforms have contributed to this success balanced against the decreased activity of economic illegal aliens due to recession is subject to honest debate. However there is no doubt by any law enforcement agency on the southern border that both reform bills have worked to increase security and reduce illegal entries into the United States, especially at ports of entry. However, the nature of illegal entries has become increasingly dangerous to the homeland security of our nation, based on the near collapse of civil authority in the northern states of Mexico. The Rule of Law in Mexico has degenerated to a point of near anarchy along our shared border. Violent and heavily armed Mexican drug cartel members, human traffickers, and Middle East terrorists are crossing at will, with Al-Qaeda affiliated Somalis the target of Department of Homeland Security alerts in the Houston area. A long-term deployment of a minimum 25,000 armed troops with enforcement power is necessary on our southern border to preserve U.S. sovereignty and the lives of American citizens from organized armed forces hostile to the United States. The southern border of the United States is still being successfully infiltrated by a half million illegal aliens annually, according to Department of Homeland Security statistics. While down from a high mark of over a million in 2006 due to increased manpower and resources of the U.S. Border Patrol and the recession, the nature of illegal crossings has grown far more sinister and threatening. The illegal entrants consist of not just “economic” violators, but also heavily armed drug cartel members and “OTMs” - other than Mexican illegal aliens - from diverse countries including Middle Eastern nations with terrorist factions currently at war with U.S. forces. Mexican drug cartel members now operating inside the United States as a result of these breaches are directly linked to over 28,000 violent murders and executions on the other side of the Rio Grande. According to virtually all law enforcement on the border, Texas and the other border states are in imminent danger of this level of violence exploding across the border into the United States. Kidnappings and murders by the cartels inside the U.S. are already occurring. Both U.S. Border Patrol officers and Texas law enforcement agencies are at present forced to back down from these heavily armed incursions, due to the overwhelming firepower and manpower of the drug cartels. U.S. private property owners on the border have been largely abandoned to defend themselves, and have begun to be murdered. The U.S. Border Patrol is operating under conditions set by the Administration that guarantee hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens will succeed in their effort to infiltrate the United States. The official position of the Administration, which has been forced on the U.S. Border Patrol, is that even after admitting to these conditions, the border is more secure than it has ever been, that U.S. national security needs are being met as well as they can be, and that efforts by the states and local law enforcement to combat this explosive situation beyond the efforts of the Administration should be legally stymied. Texas Sheriffs are now experiencing the first spillovers of the mass murders and executions that have effectively destroyed social order across the border. To place in perspective the degree of anarchy and violence, Mexico has experienced 28,000 murders since the drug wars began in 2006; by comparison, the United States has lost around 6,000 soldiers in both Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001. The U.S. justified going to war against Serbia in 1998 based on an estimated and highly debatable 10,000 civilian casualties in that civil war. Like that conflict, mass graves continue to be found in Mexico, including the most recent discovery of 72 murdered Central and South American immigrants just south of the Texas border. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. House of Representatives, House Immigration Reform Caucus, 2011. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 26, 2011 at: http://www.protectyourtexasborder.com/Portals/6/Documents/Broken%20Neighbor%20Broken%20Border.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.protectyourtexasborder.com/Portals/6/Documents/Broken%20Neighbor%20Broken%20Border.pdf Shelf Number: 122487 Keywords: Border Security (U.S.)HomicidesIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrationViolence |
Author: Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network Title: Calais, The Violence of the Border Summary: Having observed the migratory situation in Calais for many years prior to the destruction on 22 September 2009, the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network (EMHRN) in collaboration with the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the European Association for the Defense of Human Rights (AEDH) decided to send a fact-finding mission to Calais and the surrounding area in order to investigate impacts of the police clamp down on the situation of migrants and refugees rights in the region. The findings of the mission are that the destruction of “the Jungle” made the situation worse for the migrants, in terms of having their rights respected. In general, the closing down of unauthorised camps does not do away with people’s need to move. Instead, they worsen the human rights situation of those most in need of protection. Details: Copenhagen: Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network, 2011. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 3, 2011 at: http://www.euromedrights.org/en/publications-en/emhrn-publications/emhrn-puplications/9296.html Year: 2011 Country: France URL: http://www.euromedrights.org/en/publications-en/emhrn-publications/emhrn-puplications/9296.html Shelf Number: 122640 Keywords: Border SecurityHuman RightsIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsMigration (France) |
Author: Conley, Christopher J. Title: Interdicting Maritime Migrant Smuggling: Applying Some Concepts of Operational Art to Coast Guard Operations Summary: The issue of illegal human trafficking, smuggling, and migration in the maritime domain presents a challenge to the organizations charged with protecting the borders of the United States. As an agency responsible for enforcing laws on the high seas, the U.S. Coast Guard is the primary instrument for interdicting illegal maritime migration. Except in extreme circumstances of mass migration, the Coast Guard has relied on the principle of effective presence to accomplish its mission and done so with measurable success. However, with the growing transnational criminal nature of human trafficking and increased pressure on U.S. maritime borders due to tougher border enforcement, the Coast Guard should seek to expand its concept of operations for interdiction of human smuggling in the maritime domain. The Coast Guard could do this by inviting relevant agencies to participate in a Joint Interagency Task Force to bring a unified effort to counter maritime smuggling. Furthermore, the Coast Guard should apply the appropriate concepts of operational art consistent with joint doctrine in planning and executing its mission to ensure the most effective and efficient application of national resources. Details: Newport, RI: Joint Military Operations Department, Naval War College, 2008. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 7, 2011 at: http://dodreports.com/pdf/ada484333.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://dodreports.com/pdf/ada484333.pdf Shelf Number: 123003 Keywords: Border SecurityHuman SmugglingHuman TraffickingIllegal AliensMaritime CrimeMaritime SecurityMigrantsU.S. Coast Guard |
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: Snyman, Gina Title: Monitoring Immigration Detention in South Africa September 2010 Summary: LHR’s Detention Monitoring Programme has been monitoring the arrest, detention and deportation of foreign nationals at local detention centres, primarily the Lindela Holding Facility and the Musina Detention Centre (SMG), for the past decade. In certain instances, the organisation also intervenes in detentions occurring at police stations, prisons, or at the OR Tambo International Airport. The Detention Monitoring Programme operates mainly from LHR’s Johannesburg and Musina offices. LHR’s law clinics in Pretoria and Durban also assist asylum seekers who are detained at police stations or at the refugee reception offices (RROs). LHR is the only organisation that regularly visits Lindela and provides pro bono legal representation to detainees. Through these consultations, we are able to identify immigration trends and legal issues confronting detainees, as well as shifts in the policies of the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) and the South African Police Services (SAPS). Our consultations with detainees also provide us with information about conditions at the facility and the treatment of detainees — an important window into the detention experience given the lack of any independent monitoring. Details: Pretoria, South Africa: Lawyers for Human Rights, 2010. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 1, 2011 at: http://www.lhr.org.za/sites/lhr.org.za/files/LHR_2010_Detention_Report.pdf Year: 2010 Country: South Africa URL: http://www.lhr.org.za/sites/lhr.org.za/files/LHR_2010_Detention_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 123207 Keywords: Illegal AliensIllegal Immigrants (South Africa)Immigrant Detention |
Author: Weller, Steven Title: Uses of State Criminal Court Records in Immigration Proceedings Summary: This article examines the ways in which state criminal court records may be used in immigration court to determine whether a state criminal conviction falls within a category that can affect the immigration rights of a defendant. Details: Denver, CO: Center for Public Policy, 2011. 13p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 2, 2011 at: http://jec.unm.edu/manuals-resources/manuals/Criminal-Court-Records-in-Immigration-Proceedings-7.5.2011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://jec.unm.edu/manuals-resources/manuals/Criminal-Court-Records-in-Immigration-Proceedings-7.5.2011.pdf Shelf Number: 123217 Keywords: Court RecordsIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrants |
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: National Immigration Forum Title: The Math of Immigration Detention: Runaway Costs for Immigration Detention Do Not Add Up to Sensible Policies Summary: One symptom of our broken immigration system is the exorbitant spending wasted on the detention of immigrants. The vast majority of these immigrants, if ever Congress acted to reform our immigration system, would be encouraged to stay and continue contributing to our economy. Even for those who must eventually be removed, billions of dollars could be saved if the government properly allocated resources towards more humane and cost-effective alternative methods of monitoring. Physical detention, as costly as it is, should only be used in limited circumstances, such as for holding immigrants whose release would pose a serious danger to the community. For the majority of immigrants, the government could use less expensive alternatives to detention prior to removal. A cost-effective approach to monitoring immigrants who face removal is unlikely to be implemented as long as Congress continues to throw money at the detention operations of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), located in the Department of Homeland Security. For the Fiscal Year beginning October 1, 2011 (Fiscal Year 2012), the House of Representatives has approved a budget of $2.75 billion for Detention and Removal — more than $184 million more than the previous year and enough for ICE to keep 34,000 immigrants detained at any one time. The Obama Administration‘s most recent request to Congress for immigration detention alone amounts to $5.5 million per day spent on immigration detention (the House increased that amount). The current cost to detain an immigrant is approximately $166 per day at a capacity of 33,400 detention beds. Less wasteful alternatives to detention range in cost from as low as 30 cents to $14 a day. If only individuals convicted of serious crimes were detained and the less expensive alternative methods were used to monitor the rest of the detained population, taxpayers could save more than over $1.6 billion—over an 80% reduction in annual costs. The government should focus on expanding its alternatives to detention program and reforming its immigration laws. An examination of the numbers makes it clear — the dollars spent to detain immigrants do not add up to something that makes sense. Details: Washington, DC: National Immigration Forum, 2011. 10p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 23, 2011 at: http://www.immigrationforum.org/images/uploads/MathofImmigrationDetention.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.immigrationforum.org/images/uploads/MathofImmigrationDetention.pdf Shelf Number: 123441 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeIllegal AliensIllegal Immigrants (U.S.)Immigrant DetentionImmigration Enforcement |
Author: Heartland Alliance. National Immigrant Justice Center Title: Isolated in Detention: Limited Access to Legal Counsel in Immigration Detention Facilities Jeopardizes a Fair Day in Court Summary: U.S. law requires that individuals in immigration proceedings receive a “reasonable opportunity” to present their case in court. But the U.S. government routinely limits this right when it detains thousands of people in immigration detention facilities far from legal service providers, fails to adequately support programs to inform detainees of their rights, and restricts detainees’ phone contact with attorneys. Heartland Alliance’s National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) conducted a comprehensive national survey measuring access to counsel in detention facilities and found that the availability of affordable legal services for immigrant detainees is grossly inadequate. The geographic isolation of many detention facilities hinders detainees’ ability to obtain counsel. Policies that restrict detainees from contacting legal counsel by phone further isolate these men, women, and children. NIJC surveyed 150 of the estimated 300 immigration detention facilities in operation between August and December 2009. The survey sample accounted for 31,355 detainee beds, the vast majority of the 32,000 beds available to hold immigrants for the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). NIJC then interviewed as many legal aid organizations providing services for detained immigrants as it was able to locate. The scope of NIJC’s survey illustrates a systemic problem facing detainees trying to access counsel: the United States detains nearly 400,000 immigrants per year, yet there are only 102 non-governmental organizations providing legal services to detainees, and the vast majority of those organizations have fewer than five staff members dedicated to detention work. Details: Chicago: National Immigrant Justice Center, 2010. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 23, 2011 at: http://www.immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/Detention%20Isolation%20Report%20FULL%20REPORT%202010%2009%2023_0.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/Detention%20Isolation%20Report%20FULL%20REPORT%202010%2009%2023_0.pdf Shelf Number: 123443 Keywords: Illegal AliensIllegal Immigrants (U.S.)Immigrant DetentionImmigration |
Author: Barry, Tom Title: Fallacies of High-Tech Fixes for Border Security Summary: In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, President George W. Bush created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The new department promised border security over traditional border-control operations. Rushing to secure the borders, the abundantly funded DHS nearly tripled the number of Border Patrol agents, fortified ports-of-entry, built a highly controversial border wall and quickly opted for several high-tech initiatives to patrol the border with virtual eyes. DHS rushed ahead with its two remote surveillance initiatives—the SBInet program (commonly known as the “virtual fence”) and the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) program—without having a detailed or focused border security strategy in place. Not only did this expedited border security lack a strategy, but it also lacked a foundation of successful experience in high-tech border control. Instead, it has been based more on dreams, hopes and fantasy—and on the widely shared, but faulty, assumption that technology provided by private contractors could meet the challenge of securing the country’s nearly 6,000 miles of land borders with remote surveillance systems. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the DHS agency in charge of border security, states it is committed to “a comprehensive and systemic upgrading of the technology used in controlling the border.” But the new agency lacks the oversight and management capacity, in-house technological expertise, and the necessary commitment to direct and operate its proposed high-tech solutions. CBP professes its commitment to protecting the homeland against the entry of “dangerous people and goods.” Yet it lacks a strategy that prioritizes actual threats. Its high-tech initiatives, like the entire Secure Border Initiative (SBI) endeavor, which encompasses the two main high-tech border security programs, are shockingly unfocused and nonstrategic. Even when the immensely expensive technological surveillance occasionally does work, CBP’s high-tech web catches only illegal border crossers looking for work or carrying backpacks of marijuana. These arrests and drug seizures are certainly not the reason the Department of Homeland Security was created and cannot justify the continuing depletion of the U.S. treasury in the unfocused post-September 11 quest for border security. Trying to stand by its promise to gain “operational control” over the land borders, DHS hurriedly turned to high-tech fixes for border security. But DHS’s hasty commitment to remote surveillance technology—such as virtual fences and drones—has been symptomatic of the new department’s apparent confidence that there would be unlimited funding for border security and that its operations would not be subject either to cost-benefit analysis or to evaluations of the impact on homeland security. Rather than being guided by threat assessments, they have been experiments in technological wish fulfillment. This International Policy Report examines the failed SBInet and UAV programs. Sidebars in the report examine the support of high-tech fixes for border security by liberal sectors and the role of congressional supporters of UAVs. A final section includes conclusions and recommendations. Details: Washington, DC: Center for International Policy, 2010. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: International Policy Report: Accessed November 29, 2011 at: http://www.ciponline.org/images/uploads/1004_TBP.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.ciponline.org/images/uploads/1004_TBP.pdf Shelf Number: 123487 Keywords: Border Security (U.S.)Homeland SecurityIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsIllegal Immigration |
Author: Meng, Grace Title: No Way to Live: Alabama’s Immigrant Law Summary: The sponsors of Alabama's new immigrant law, widely known as HB 56, intended to make life difficult for unauthorized immigrants in Alabama. As the bill’s co-sponsor State Rep. Mickey Hammon stated during debate, “[HB 56] attacks every aspect of an illegal alien’s life…This bill is designed to make it difficult for them to live here so they will deport themselves.” Although the law only went into effect on September 28, 2011, it has largely succeeded. No Way to Live is based interviews with 50 unauthorized immigrants as well as several dozen affected citizens, activists, and local government officials in Alabama. It documents the ways in which the Beason-Hammon Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act has radically transformed the lives of unauthorized immigrants in that state. Most of the people we interviewed have lived in the state for more than 10 years, and have deep ties to the state through US citizen family, work, and community. In the first two months the law was in effect, local officials have used it to deny unauthorized immigrants access to everyday necessities such as water and housing in violation of their basic rights. The law also denies all unauthorized immigrants fundamental rights protections that should apply to everyone, not just citizens, making them more susceptible to discriminatory harassment and abuse by local authorities and ordinary people. They live in a climate of fear and uncertainty, which has had a particularly severe impact on children, many of whom are US citizens. Under international law, governments are empowered to regulate immigration. However, no government at any level may enact a law that denies fundamental rights to people based on their status. The experience of Alabama’s unauthorized immigrants and their families underscores the urgent need for comprehensive federal immigration reform that is respectful of human rights, and for Alabama’s immediate repeal of the Beason- Hammon Act. Details: New York: Human Rights Watch, 2011. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 13, 2012 at: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us1211ForUpload_1.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us1211ForUpload_1.pdf Shelf Number: 123605 Keywords: Human RightsIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrationImmigrants (Alabama) |
Author: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime Title: Issue Paper: Smuggling of Migrants by Sea Summary: Smuggling of migrants is defined by Article 3 of the Migrant Smuggling Protocol supplementing the United Nations Transnational Organized Crime Convention (UNTOC), as “...the procurement, in order to obtain, directly or indirectly, a financial or other material benefit, of the illegal entry of a person into a state party of which the person is not a national.” The specific nature of the sea‐based component of the smuggling journey resulted in a dedicated section on the issue in the Migrant Smuggling Protocol. While smuggling by sea accounts only for a small portion of overall migrant smuggling around the world, the particular dangers of irregular travel at sea make it a priority for response; though more migrant smuggling occurs by air, more deaths occur by sea. The journey of the migrant smuggled by sea often starts a significant distance away from the coast of departure. Some journeys to the coast may take mere days, but others can take place over years during which the migrant must work en route to raise money for his passage. Arduous desert crossings and victimization by smugglers and other criminals en route mean that some do not survive overland journeys to the coast. Contrasted with these extreme experiences, economically empowered migrants can afford a higher level of smuggling service and may experience no particular hardship, simply travelling through various international airport hubs toward the coastal country from where their sea journey commences. The type and size of vessel used to smuggle migrants by sea depends on the time, place and financial capacity of migrants undertaking the smuggling journey. In some countries, boats of only a handful of passengers are commonly intercepted by authorities, while in others vessels of several hundred people have been used. While voyages may be comfortable when conditions at sea are mild and the vessel is equipped with adequate food, water and sanitation, the journey is a harrowing one for the majority of migrants who report rough conditions, terrible cold and scarce food and water. The nature of the crime and its relationship with smuggling of migrants by land and by air means that it is a successful crime type that yields high profits for smugglers with all the risks being borne by migrants. Indeed, migrant smuggling by sea can be understood as a criminal business, which is competitively run as such. Smuggling by sea is generally carried out by flexible criminal groups or individuals operating on the basis of repeated contractual arrangements, rather than by hierarchical organizations. There are two methods used when vessels approach coasts of destination. One aims to reach land by evading detection by authorities, the other sets out to be detected and intercepted or rescued by authorities in territorial waters of destination coastal countries. In both situations, detecting smuggling vessels at sea is a key challenge for coastal states which may have limited resources and large search and rescue areas of responsibility. Upon detecting vessels, the key challenge is to balance objectives with obligations at international law, including the Migrant Smuggling Protocol. Smugglers are generally well‐informed about states’ protection obligations and act to exploit them, instructing migrants what to do upon interception to increase their chances of gaining entry into and remaining in countries of destination. For instance, officials responsible for intercepting vessels at sea have been faced with situations of people sabotaging their own vessels to force authorities to carry out rescues. Suggestions made in respect of encountering migrant smuggling at sea include Page 8 of 71 increased support of coastal states through joint patrols and provision of resources, and increased compliance with international legal standards and obligations in carrying out interceptions of smuggling vessels at sea. While responding to the situation at hand and ensuring that persons on board are appropriately assisted, a key challenge is to seize evidentiary opportunities to investigate smuggling‐related crimes. The complex nature of migrant smuggling networks and their modus operandi means that smugglers cannot be identified purely by looking to smugglers who may be on board boats; the transnational criminal network itself must be traced from a smuggling vessel, back to the coast of embarkation, and from there back to countries of transit and origin. Suggestions made for improved investigation and prosecution of migrant smuggling by sea include harmonizing domestic legislation with the UNTOC and the Migrant Smuggling Protocol. Further it is suggested that sentences imposed for smuggling offences be publicized as a means of deterring would‐be smugglers. Capacity building measures are also suggested so as to increase identification of smugglers on vessels, and to better link sea‐based crimes with land‐based smugglers. Preventing migrant smuggling by sea requires states to balance their obligations in international law with their legitimate interests in protecting state sovereignty from violation by organized crime groups. But law enforcement efforts alone are not adequate to prevent migrant smuggling by sea; the Migrant Smuggling Protocol stresses that prevention efforts must address root causes that lead a person into the hands of smugglers in the first place. Suggestions made for preventing migrant smuggling at sea include raising awareness about the dangers of sea smuggling journeys and the criminality of smuggling. Suggestions are also made to raise awareness of those who influence political and policy decisions, so policies put in place protect state sovereignty, uphold international obligations, and are not vulnerable to exploitation by smugglers. Also emphasised is the responsibility of coastal states of departure to intercept smuggling vessels before they embark on sea journeys. Beyond this, comprehensive data collection, analysis and research are suggested to strengthen evidence‐based responses. Experts from countries of origin, transit and destination unanimously agree that the most essential ingredient for effective and comprehensive response to migrant smuggling by sea is strengthened international cooperation to remove areas of impunity for smugglers along smuggling routes. Suggestions made for cooperating in response to migrant smuggling at sea include aligning activities with the Migrant Smuggling Protocol and increasing the role of UNODC in facilitating cooperative response. The value of bilateral and regional cooperation arrangements is stressed, with emphasis on flexible cooperative networks for effective and efficient on‐the‐ground response. Regular coordination meetings and joint operations are suggested to improve strategic and operational interagency coordination, as is the empowerment of central designated authorities to address migrant smuggling by sea. In short, while it is difficult to make generalizations about migrant smuggling by sea, two key points hold true around the world. Firstly, migrant smuggling by sea is the most dangerous type of smuggling for the migrants concerned, making it a priority concern for State response. Secondly, efforts to combat smuggling of migrants will be unsuccessful unless cooperation is strengthened not only between countries of sea departure and arrival, but also among the countries of origin, transit and destination along the entire smuggling route. Details: Vienna: UNODC, 2011. 71p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 17, 2012 at: http://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/Migrant-Smuggling/Issue-Papers/Issue_Paper_-_Smuggling_of_Migrants_by_Sea.pdf Year: 2011 Country: International URL: http://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/Migrant-Smuggling/Issue-Papers/Issue_Paper_-_Smuggling_of_Migrants_by_Sea.pdf Shelf Number: 123647 Keywords: Human SmugglingHuman TraffickingIllegal AliensIllegal MigrantsMaritime Crime |
Author: McCutcheon, Chuck Title: Securing Our Borders: Doing What Works to Ensure Immigration Reform Is Complete and Comprehensive Summary: A new report from Center for American Progress investigates the failures of the Secure Border Initiative (SBI) program and has found that there are "salvageable" parts of former attempts at boarder security reform and lessons to be learned from past mistakes. This paper details their findings and emphasizes that future efforts "must be accompanied by the enactment of comprehensive immigration reform, which would create orderly migration channels and allow the border patrol to focus on smuggling and other criminal enterprises. By restoring order to our nation's chaotic and broken immigration system, DHS' operational control of the Mexican border will be enhanced." As part of the Center for American Progress' 'Doing What Works' project, this paper concludes that while SBI's performance has been dismal, an advanced technology program can reach SBI's key goals if multiple corrective measures are taken. By upgrading human resources and procurement practices, harnessing new technology, and setting up transparent, evidence-based operations, DHS can restore confidence in the overall SBI program and produce budget savings. The study proposes 10 reforms for SBI, in general, and a sharply re-defined technology component." SBI, established in 2005, is "a comprehensive, multi-year plan to help secure America's borders." Its mission "is to lead the operational requirements support and documentation as well as the acquisition efforts to develop, deploy, and integrate technology and tactical infrastructure in support of CBP's efforts to gain and maintain effect control of U.S. land border areas." More information on SBI can be found at the Customs and Borders Protection website. Details: Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, 2010. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 23, 2012 at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/04/pdf/dww_borders.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/04/pdf/dww_borders.pdf Shelf Number: 123743 Keywords: Border Control (United States)Border SecurityIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigration Reform |
Author: Bernsen, James A. Title: The Costs of Illegal Immigration to Texas Summary: Texas, which accounts for about half of the U.S. border with Mexico, has been particularly hard hit by the costs of illegal immigration. The state has seen an extraordinary growth in immigration over the last few decades. In 1970, there were only 310,000 foreign-born citizens in the state. By 1990, that number had increased 391 percent, to 1.5 million. The immigration rate since then has exploded. According to a 2004 U.S. Census Bureau estimate, the number of foreign born residents of Texas in that year was 3.45 million – 1,100 percent of the 1970 number. In 1970, the foreign-born population of Texas was three percent. In 1990, it was eight percent. In 2004, foreign-born residents represented 15.7 percent of all Texans. Although Texas has seen widespread migration from within the United States as well, this wave of external immigration comes with much more profound social – and fiscal – consequences. The majority of this increase comes from legal immigrants, but a large – and proportionately growing – percentage comes from illegal immigrants. Texas, according to the Census Bureau, is now home to 15 percent of all illegal immigrants in the United States. Since 1993, the population has doubled by conservative estimates. Some studies have estimated that the population has even tripled. Details: Austin, TX: Lone Star Foundation, 2006. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 10, 2012 at: http://www.lonestarreport.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=5Vg_zxX8oz8%3D&tabid=162&mid=687 Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://www.lonestarreport.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=5Vg_zxX8oz8%3D&tabid=162&mid=687 Shelf Number: 124036 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsIllegal Immigration |
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: Bryant, Phil Title: The Impact of Illegal Immigration on Mississippi: Costs and Population Trends Summary: The focus of this report is costs and population trends associated with illegal immigration in the State of Mississippi. The report attempts to differentiate between lawful immigrants who are here within the legal framework and process established by the U.S. federal government and illegal immigrants who have broken federal and state laws. The report provides limited regional and national background material and draws on national data sources where data collected by Mississippi State government is unavailable. Further, it contemplates recommendations for government data collection and changes to Mississippi law. Details: Jackson, MS: Office of the State Auditor, 2006. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Audit Report #102: Accessed February 13, 2012 at: http://www.osa.state.ms.us/documents/performance/illegal-immigration.pdf Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://www.osa.state.ms.us/documents/performance/illegal-immigration.pdf Shelf Number: 124116 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeIllegal AliensIllegal Immigrants (Mississippi) |
Author: Mastrobuoni, Giovanni Title: Migration Restrictions and Criminal Behavior: Evidence from a Natural Experiment Summary: We estimate the causal effect of immigrants' legal status on criminal behavior exploiting exogenous variation in migration restrictions across nationalities driven by the last round of the European Union enlargement. Unique individual-level data on a collective clemency bill enacted in Italy five months before the enlargement allow us to compare the post-release criminal record of inmates from new EU member countries with a control group of pardoned inmates from candidate EU member countries. Difference-in-differences in the probability of re-arrest between the two groups before and after the enlargement show that obtaining legal status lowers the recidivism of economically motivated offenders, but only in areas that provide relatively better labor market opportunities to legal immigrants. We provide a search-theoretic model of criminal behavior that is consistent with these results. Details: Moncaliere, Italy: Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, 2011. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: FEEM Working Paper No. 53.2011: Accessed March 21, 2012 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1891689 Year: 2011 Country: Europe URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1891689 Shelf Number: 124622 Keywords: Illegal AliensIllegal ImmigrationsImmigrants (Europe)Immigrants and CrimeImmigration |
Author: Martin, Jack Title: The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers Summary: This report estimates the annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level to be about $113 billion; nearly $29 billion at the federal level and $84 billion at the state and local level. The study also estimates tax collections from illegal alien workers, both those in the above-ground economy and those in the underground economy. Those receipts do not come close to the level of expenditures and, in any case, are misleading as an offset because over time unemployed and underemployed U.S. workers would replace illegal alien workers. With many state budgets in deficit, policymakers have an obligation to look for ways to reduce the fiscal burden of illegal migration. California, facing a budget deficit of $14.4 billion in 2010-2011, is hit with an estimated $21.8 billion in annual expenditures on illegal aliens. New York’s $6.8 billion deficit is smaller than its $9.5 billion in yearly illegal alien costs. The report examines the likely consequences if an amnesty for the illegal alien population were adopted similar to the one adopted in 1986. The report notes that while tax collections from the illegal alien population would likely increase only marginally, the new legal status would make them eligible for receiving Social Security retirement benefits that would further jeopardize the future of the already shaky system. An amnesty would also result in this large population of illegal aliens becoming eligible for numerous social assistance programs available for low-income populations for which they are not now eligible. The overall result would, therefore, be an accentuation of the already enormous fiscal burden. Details: Washington, DC: Federaion for American Immigration Reform, 2010. 98p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed March 21, 2012 at: http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/USCostStudy_2010.pdf?docID=4921 Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/USCostStudy_2010.pdf?docID=4921 Shelf Number: 124625 Keywords: Illegal AliensIllegal Immigrants (U.S.)Immigration |
Author: Freeman, Semuteh Title: Immigration Incarceration: The Expansion and Failed Reform of Immigration Detention in Essex County, NJ Summary: This report takes a hard look at the outcome of detention expansion and so-called “reform” of immigration detention in Essex County, New Jersey. Although immigration detention has always been justified as non-punitive, and the rhetoric from the Obama Administration has emphasized a reform of the civil immigration detention system, in recent years there has been an expansion of immigration detention even while detention facilities fail to meet the 2008 and 2011 Immigration and Customs Enforcement Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS). What is currently happening in Essex County is an example of what occurs when expansion of immigration detention fails to coincide with any meaningful review of the system currently in place. Every indicator of the conditions and treatment of immigrant detainees in Essex County shows a detention system that is failing to meet the bare minimum of humane treatment and due process. What’s more, the increase in the number of immigrants detained and the conditions of their detention are contrary to promises for reform and prosecutorial discretion at the national level, as well as assurances of oversight at the local level. After providing a history of the rise of immigration detention in Essex County, this report will delve into the experiences of detainees who are held in the two facilities—the privately owned and operated Delaney Hall and the Essex County Correctional Facility (hereafter “ECCF”). Part I of the report chronicles the expansion of detention in the United States, specifically the expansion of detention in Essex County, NJ, including information about the two immigration detention facilities in Essex County: Delaney Hall and ECCF. Part II will focus on who is being detained in Delaney Hall and ECCF. Part III will present information about the conditions in Delaney Hall and ECCF for immigrant detainees. Part IV concerns access to legal services and due process for immigrant detainees in Essex County. Details: New York: New York University School of Law, Immigrant Rights Clinic, 2012. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 29, 2012 at: http://afsc.org/sites/afsc.civicactions.net/files/documents/ImmigrationIncarceration2012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://afsc.org/sites/afsc.civicactions.net/files/documents/ImmigrationIncarceration2012.pdf Shelf Number: 124755 Keywords: Detention CentersIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant Detention (New Jersey, US)Immigration |
Author: Garcia, Angela S. Title: Life as an Undocumented Immigrant: How Restrictive Local Immigration Policies Affect Daily Life Summary: What happens to undocumented immigrants after the passage of anti-immigrant state laws such as Arizona’s S.B. 1070 and Alabama’s H.B. 56 or restrictive local ordinances such as those in Prince William County, Virginia, or Freemont, Nebraska? What is life like for unauthorized immigrants in these areas, and how do they mitigate the harshness of these ordinances? On the flip side, what happens to the larger communities—documented and not, immigrant and not—and how do these laws impact the ability of law enforcement professionals to keep our communities safe? Many studies have focused on the fiscal and economic ramifications of anti-immigrant legislation, but little work has been done on the harmful effects these laws have on everyday life in our communities. That is the focus of this report. This report presents one of the first studies of immigrants’ responses to local restrictions and enforcement. We demonstrate that exclusionary policies and ramped-up federal enforcement inhibit immigrant incorporation into their communities. Immigrants react to legal threats and hostile reception by going underground: They hold negative perceptions of local law enforcement, associate routine activities such as driving and walking with anxiety and the risk of deportation, and develop strategies of avoidance and fitting in to mitigate the discovery of their unauthorized status. Details: Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, 2012. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 2, 2012 at: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/03/pdf/life_as_undocumented.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/03/pdf/life_as_undocumented.pdf Shelf Number: 124790 Keywords: Illegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigration (U.S.) |
Author: Camarota, Steven A. Title: A Shifting Tide: Recent Trends in the Illegal Immigrant Population Summary: Monthly Census Bureau data show that the number of less-educated young Hispanic immigrants in the country has declined significantly. The evidence indicates that the illegal population declined after July 2007 and then rebounded somewhat in the summer of 2008 before resuming its decline in the fall of 2008 and into the first quarter of 2009. Both increased immigration enforcement and the recession seem to explain this decline. There is evidence that the decline was caused by both fewer illegal immigrants coming and an increase in the number returning home. However, this pattern does not apply to the legal immigrant population, which has not fallen significantly. Among the findings: •Our best estimate is that the illegal population declined 13.7 percent (1.7 million) from a peak of 12.5 million in the summer of 2007 to 10.8 million in the first quarter of 2009. •If we compare the first quarter of 2007 to the first quarter of 2009, the implied decline is 1.3 million (10.9 percent). In just the last year the decline was 5.7 percent. •By design, these estimates produce results similar to those from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). DHS estimates of the illegal population show a 1.5 percent decline between January 1, 2007, and January 1, 2008. Our estimates show a 1.6 percent decline over the same time period. DHS has not yet estimated the illegal population for January 2009. •There is evidence that the number of new illegal immigrants arriving has fallen by about one-third in the last two years compared to earlier in this decade. •There is also evidence that the number of illegal immigrants returning home has more than doubled in the last two years compared to earlier in this decade. •While migration patterns have fundamentally changed, it must be remembered that the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants have not left the country, and tens of thousands of new illegal immigrants continue to settle in the country each year. •Our analysis shows that only the illegal immigrant population has declined. The legal immigrant population does not show the same decline. This is also true for Mexico, the top illegal-immigrant-sending country. •The fact that the legal immigrant population does not show the same decline is an indication that stepped up enforcement has played a role. •Another indication that enforcement has played a role in the decline is that the illegal immigrant population began falling before there was a significant rise in their unemployment rate. •While the decline began before unemployment among illegal immigrants rose, unemployment among illegal immigrants has increased dramatically and must now be playing a significant role in reducing their numbers. •There is evidence that the illegal population rose in the summer of 2007, while Congress was considering legalizing illegal immigrants. When that legislation failed to pass, the illegal population quickly began a dramatic fall. •There is no way to know if the current trend will continue. Given President Obama’s stated desire to legalize illegal immigrants and his backing away from enforcement efforts, it seems likely that when the economy recovers, the illegal population will resume its growth. Details: Washington, DC: Center for Immigration Studies, 2009. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Backgrounder: Accessed April 12, 2012 at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2009/shiftingtide.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.cis.org/articles/2009/shiftingtide.pdf Shelf Number: 120915 Keywords: Illegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigration (U.S.) |
Author: Isacson, Adam Title: Beyond the Border Buildup Security and Migrants Along the U.S.-Mexico Border Summary: Once relatively quiet and neglected, the U.S.-Mexico border zone is a very different place than it was twenty years ago, or even ten years ago. Today, border communities are separated by both security measures and security conditions. South of the borderline, a spiral of organized crime has made Mexico’s northern states one of the world’s most violent regions. North of the borderline, a “war on drugs,” a “war on terror,” and rising anti-immigrant sentiment have encouraged a flurry of fence-building and a multiplied presence of guards, spies, and soldiers. Together, both sides comprise one of the world’s principal corridors for the transshipment of illegal drugs and weapons. The population most affected by this sharp change in threats, vigilance, and attitudes is the hundreds of thousands of undocumented people who seek every year to migrate into the United States. Some come because of the promise of economic opportunity, or the lack of it in their countries of origin, mostly Mexico and Central America. Some come to escape violence or poor governance. A growing proportion comes to be reunited with loved ones already in the United States. The number of migrants is less than it used to be, for reasons that this report will explore. But after the changes of the past several years, migrants face a much greater risk of being kidnapped and extorted by criminals and corrupt officials in Mexico; finding themselves mired in the U.S. criminal justice system; or even dying in a desert wilderness. This report is the product of a yearlong study of border security policy and its impact on the migrant population. On the U.S. side, we visited three border regions and carried out extensive research in Washington. In Mexico, we conducted surveys of migrants, and met with Mexican officials and representatives of civil society and migrant shelters. Details: Washington, DC: Washington Office on Latin America, 2012. 62p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 2, 2012 at: http://justf.org/files/pubs/120419_WOLA_Beyond.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://justf.org/files/pubs/120419_WOLA_Beyond.pdf Shelf Number: 125124 Keywords: Border SecurityDrug TraffickingIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsIllegal MigrationOrganized Crime |
Author: Pinheiro, Erika D. Title: 287(G) and Public Safety: Determining the Effects of Local Immigration Enforcement on Crime Summary: Agreements between Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and local law enforcement under Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) allow city, county, state, and correctional police officers to investigate and enforce federal immigration laws. The stated objective of the 287(g) program is to fight against serious crime committed by removable aliens to improve our national security and enhance safety in local communities. This study analyzes the effect of 287(g) programs on violent and property crime, using data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reports and the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey. 287(g) agreements empowering correctional officers to enforce immigration law reduce violent crime and property crime. City-level 287(g) agreements substantially increase property crime, cancelling out the effects of Correctional 287(g) agreements. The effect of county-level agreements is unclear, but there are some indications that they also increase property and violent crime. State-level 287(g) agreements have no effect on either violent or property crime. African American populations are associated with higher crime rates in jurisdictions with any type of 287(g) agreement. Recent immigrants displace African Americans from the local labor force. 287(g) programs are implemented in response to rising immigrant populations, but impose substantial costs on implementing jurisdictions for detention, overtime, litigation based on unconstitutional racial profiling, and foster care for youth whose parents are deported. Jurisdictions divert resources away from local law enforcement priorities and reduce public services, which may help explain the increase in crime amongst African American communities. Criminality amongst youth with immigrant parents also increases when some 287(g) programs are adopted, and the programs hamper collaboration between immigrant communities and local law enforcement. City, County, and State-level 287(g) agreements have either no effect or deleterious effects on public safety and should be eliminated. Correctional 287(g) programs should be limited to immigrants already convicted, indicted, or arrested based on reasonable cause to alleviate constitutional concerns. Greater federal oversight and guidance is needed to prevent waste and abuse, and further research is needed to analyze differential crime reporting amongst populations, allegations of racial profiling, and whether Correctional 287(g) programs reduce or displace criminal activity. Details: Washington, DC: Georgetown Public Policy Institute, Georgetown University, 2009. 75p. Source: Internet Resource: Master's Thesis: Accessed May 3, 2012 at: http://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/553869/pinheiroErika.pdf?sequence=1 Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/553869/pinheiroErika.pdf?sequence=1 Shelf Number: 125131 Keywords: Illegal AliensImmigrants and Crime (U.S.)Immigration |
Author: Winter, Brian Title: Brazil's 'Gringo' Problem: Its Borders Summary: For the first 500 years of Brazil's history, pretty much anything that wanted to cross its borders could do so in relative peace, whether cattle, Indians or intrepid explorers. That era is now drawing to a close. Brazil's economic rise is forcing it to deal with a problem it long regarded as the sole concern of rich countries like the United States: the need to secure its borders and slow down a flood of drugs, illegal immigrants and other contraband. Brazil's prosperity has created a new consumer class of tens of millions of people who happen to live right next to the world's three biggest producers of cocaine: Colombia, Bolivia and Peru. Brazil is now the world's No. 2 cocaine consumer, behind only the United States, according to U.S. government data. It is also a booming consumer of marijuana, ecstasy, and other narcotics. Details: New York: Thomson Reuters, 2012. 7p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 4, 2012 at: http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/12/04/BrazilBorders.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Brazil URL: http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/12/04/BrazilBorders.pdf Shelf Number: 125150 Keywords: Border SecurityCocaineDrug SmugglingDrug TraffickingIllegal AliensIllegal Immigrants (Brazil)Immigration |
Author: Toyota, Mika Title: Securitizing Border-Crossing: The Case of Marginalized Stateless Minorities in the Thai-Burma Borderlands Summary: This paper examines the securization process of unauthorized migration in Thailand, in particular how the cross-border flows of marginalized minorities came to be seen as a threat to Thai national identity by the state. The paper aims to present a case of societal security by highlighting the importance of national identity. It explores the reasons for portraying cross-border mobility of border minorities as threats to the integrity of the Thai state. The paper illustrates the importance of ethnocized discourses on national identity by broadening the traditional security studies' framework on states and political-military competition at the borderlands Details: Singapore: Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, 2006. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper: Accessed May 4, 2012 at: http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Digital-Library/Publications/Detail/?ots591=0c54e3b3-1e9c-be1e-2c24-a6a8c7060233&lng=en&id=27045 Year: 2006 Country: Burma URL: http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Digital-Library/Publications/Detail/?ots591=0c54e3b3-1e9c-be1e-2c24-a6a8c7060233&lng=en&id=27045 Shelf Number: 125153 Keywords: Border Security (Thailand, Burma)Illegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigration |
Author: Waslin, Michele Title: The Secure Communities Program: Unanswered Questions and Continuing Concerns Summary: The Secure Communities program, which launched in March 2008, has become a centerpiece of immigration enforcement efforts by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Its rapid expansion coupled with serious concerns about the design, goals, and implementation of the program has resulted in a great deal of controversy. Under Secure Communities, participating jurisdictions submit arrestees’ fingerprints not only to criminal databases, but to immigration databases as well, allowing ICE access to information on individuals held in jails. While state and local law‐enforcement officers are not directly enforcing federal immigration law or making arrests for immigration violations, the transmission of fingerprints allows ICE to tap into information about detainees and make determinations about additional ICE enforcement action. While some may claim that Secure Communities is an improvement over other federal‐local partnerships—such as the 287(g) program, which deputizes state and local police officers to enforce immigration laws through agreements with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—the Secure Communities program still faces many of the same criticisms. A Task Force appointed by DHS to make recommendations regarding the program concluded that Secure Communities is fundamentally flawed. While roughly half of the Task Force members favored a suspension or termination of the program and half believed the program must be continued while reforms are being made, all Task Force members agreed that the program must be reformed. This paper describes the Secure Communities program, identifies concerns about the program’s design and implementation, and makes recommendations for the future of the program. Details: Washington, DC: Immigration Policy Center, American Immigration Council, 2011. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: http://www.aijustice.org/resources/advocacy/S-COMM_Special_Report_by_Immigration_Policy_Center.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.aijustice.org/resources/advocacy/S-COMM_Special_Report_by_Immigration_Policy_Center.pdf Shelf Number: 125167 Keywords: Illegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigration (U.S.) |
Author: Hanson, Gordon H. Title: The Economic Logic of Illegal Immigration Summary: Illegal immigration is a source of mounting concern for politicians in the United States. In the past ten years, the U.S. population of illegal immigrants has risen from five million to nearly twelve million, prompting angry charges that the country has lost control over its borders. Congress approved measures last year that have significantly tightened enforcement along the U.S.-Mexico border in an effort to stop the flow of unauthorized migrants, and it is expected to make another effort this year at the first comprehensive reform of immigration laws in more than twenty years. Legal immigrants, who account for two-thirds of all foreign-born residents in the United States and 50 to 70 percent of net new immigrant arrivals, are less subject to public scrutiny. There is a widely held belief that legal immigration is largely good for the country and illegal immigration is largely bad. Despite intense differences of opinion in Congress, there is a strong consensus that if the United States could simply reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country, either by converting them into legal residents or deterring them at the border, U.S. economic welfare would be enhanced. Is there any evidence to support these prevailing views? In terms of the economic benefits and costs, is legal immigration really better than illegal immigration? What should the United States as a country hope to achieve economically through its immigration policies? Are the types of legislative proposals that Congress is considering consistent with these goals? This Council Special Report addresses the economic logic of the current high levels of illegal immigration. The aim is not to provide a comprehensive review of all the issues involved in immigration, particularly those related to homeland security. Rather, it is to examine the costs, benefits, incentives, and disincentives of illegal immigration within the boundaries of economic analysis. From a purely economic perspective, the optimal immigration policy would admit individuals whose skills are in shortest supply and whose tax contributions, net of the cost of public services they receive, are as large as possible. Admitting immigrants in scarce occupations would yield the greatest increase in U.S. incomes, regardless of the skill level of those immigrants. In the United States, scarce workers would include not only highly educated individuals, such as the software programmers and engineers employed by rapidly expanding technology industries, but also low-skilled workers in construction, food preparation, and cleaning services, for which the supply of U.S. native labor has been falling. In either case, the national labor market for these workers is tight, in the sense that U.S. wages for these occupations are high relative to wages abroad. Of course, the aggregate economic consequences of immigration policy do not account for other important considerations, including the impact of immigration on national security, civil rights, or political life. Illegal immigration has obvious flaws. Continuing high levels of illegal immigration may undermine the rule of law and weaken the ability of the U.S. government to enforce labor-market regulations. There is an understandable concern that massive illegal entry from Mexico heightens U.S. exposure to international terrorism, although no terrorist activity to date has been tied to individuals who snuck across the U.S.-Mexico border. Large inflows of illegal aliens also relax the commitment of employers to U.S. labor-market institutions and create a population of workers with limited upward mobility and an uncertain place in U.S. society. These are obviously valid complaints that deserve a hearing in the debate on immigration policy reform. However, within this debate we hear relatively little about the actual magnitude of the costs and benefits associated with illegal immigration and how they compare to those for legal inflows. This analysis concludes that there is little evidence that legal immigration is economically preferable to illegal immigration. In fact, illegal immigration responds to market forces in ways that legal immigration does not. Illegal migrants tend to arrive in larger numbers when the U.S. economy is booming (relative to Mexico and the Central American countries that are the source of most illegal immigration to the United States) and move to regions where job growth is strong. Legal immigration, in contrast, is subject to arbitrary selection criteria and bureaucratic delays, which tend to disassociate legal inflows from U.S. labor-market conditions. Over the last half-century, there appears to be little or no response of legal immigration to the U.S. unemployment rate. Two-thirds of legal permanent immigrants are admitted on the basis of having relatives in the United States. Only by chance will the skills of these individuals match those most in demand by U.S. industries. While the majority of temporary legal immigrants come to the country at the invitation of a U.S. employer, the process of obtaining a visa is often arduous and slow. Once here, temporary legal workers cannot easily move between jobs, limiting their benefit to the U.S. economy. Details: Washington, DC: Council on Foreign Relations, 2007. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Council Special Report No. 26; Accessed May 8, 2012 at: http://www.cfr.org/immigration/economic-logic-illegal-immigration/p12969 Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://www.cfr.org/immigration/economic-logic-illegal-immigration/p12969 Shelf Number: 125171 Keywords: EconomicsIllegal AliensIllegal Immigrations (U.S.)Immigration |
Author: Police Executive Research Forum Title: Voices From Across the Country: Local Law Enforcement Officials Discuss The Challenges of Immigration Enforcement Summary: In recent years, local police and sheriffs’ departments increasingly have found themselves drawn into a debate about how to enforce federal immigration laws. In many jurisdictions, local law enforcement agencies are being pressured to take significantly larger roles in what has traditionally been considered a federal government responsibility, for the simple reason that the nation’s immigration laws are federal laws. The pressure on local police and sheriffs’ departments to become more involved in immigration enforcement is not a simple matter for them. Active involvement in immigration enforcement can divert local law enforcement agencies from their primary mission of investigating and preventing crime, and can make it difficult for local police to maintain close relationships with their communities. The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) has been researching this issue since 2007, when it convened an executive session with police chiefs and sheriffs to identify the major challenges facing local law enforcement agencies. PERF has conducted other initiatives exploring the role of local law enforcement and public expectations about what that role should be, and the challenges confronting chiefs and agencies as they strike a balance among often-conflicting demands. To some extent, today’s immigration issues are the same controversies that were discussed five years ago at PERF’s first immigration conference: the extent to which illegal immigrants commit crimes in local communities, and the extent to which they are targeted for victimization; whether local immigration enforcement actions make immigrants less likely to report crimes; whether police should check the immigration status of minor offenders; and so on. However, many new issues have arisen since 2007, particularly in the area of the federal government’s initiatives to foster greater involvement of local law enforcement agencies in immigration enforcement. For example, the 287(g) program, which was implemented in 2002, allows local agencies to receive training from the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency so that local police officers can perform immigration enforcement functions. In 2009, ICE reformed the program in order to provide greater accountability and oversight, and to increase the focus on immigrants who have violated criminal laws. The program currently is operational in 69 law enforcement agencies in 24 states, according to ICE. In an effort to impose greater consistency and accountability in cooperative efforts with state and local law enforcement, ICE in 2008 launched Secure Communities. This program allows ICE to obtain directly from the Federal Bureau of Investigation fingerprints and other information about persons arrested at the local level, to determine whether they may be in the United States illegally and subject to immigration enforcement actions. Secure Communities has proved very controversial. While local and state law enforcement officials have expressed general support for the original intent of the program, many others have raised concerns that Secure Communities was promoted as an effort to deport illegal immigrants who have committed serious crimes, but in practice has also resulted in deportations of traffic violators and other minor offenders, and thus has created mistrust of local law enforcement. PERF took a role in exploring these issues in June 2011, when the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) convened a Task Force on Secure Communities to examine the uncertainties and confusion that came to characterize the program. PERF President and Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey served on this 14-member task force, along with three other PERF members, Las Vegas Sheriff Douglas Gillespie, Dallas County Sheriff Lupe Valdez, and Tucson Police Chief Roberto Villasenor; and PERF Executive Director Chuck Wexler served as Chairman. The Task Force issued a report containing recommendations to clarify the purpose of Secure Communities and to modify some of its policies and procedures in response to concerns by state and local governments. The intensity of the immigration issue has not diminished over time, as evidenced by recent developments in Arizona, Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia, and other states and localities. Frustrated by Congress’s failure to pass comprehensive national immigration reform legislation, these states and municipalities have passed controversial laws that impose additional immigration-related responsibilities on state and local law enforcement agencies. The Obama Administration has challenged several of these laws in federal courts, arguing that the federal government has the Constitutional authority to regulate immigration, not the states. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to consider the Constitutionality of Arizona’s law, in a case that could have implications for other states that have passed similar laws. So, while states and localities continue to pass laws that impose additional immigration-related responsibilities on state and local law enforcement agencies, and while DHS continues to rely on programs to foster cooperation between ICE and state and local law enforcement agencies, the fact remains that immigration continues to be an unsettled issue that affects law enforcement agencies across the country. Details: Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum, 2012. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 8, 2012 at: http://policeforum.org/library/immigration/VoicesfromAcrosstheCountryonImmigrationEnforcement.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://policeforum.org/library/immigration/VoicesfromAcrosstheCountryonImmigrationEnforcement.pdf Shelf Number: 125172 Keywords: Illegal AliensIllegal Immigration (U.S.)ImmigrantsLaw Enforcement and ImmigrationPolicing and Immigration Law |
Author: Hagen, Courtney Title: Bias in the Federal Judicial System: Do Sentencing Disparities Exist in the Southwest Border Region of the United States? Summary: Despite falling crime rates in recent years, political arguments have been made that illegal immigrants entering the country are contributing to increased crime along the Southwest Border region of the United States. Given existing literature that demonstrates bias in the judicial system, particularly regarding sentencing disparities based upon demographic characteristics, I intend to examine the potential effects of such policies, practices, and rhetoric in creating sentencing disparities in the Southwest Border. Specifically, I test the hypothesis that Hispanics and/or illegal immigrants receive longer sentences than other ethnic groups and U.S. citizens for similar crimes committed in the Southwest Border. Additionally, I test whether these disparities are greater in the Southwest Border than in the rest of the country. Using sentencing data provided by the United States Sentencing Commission for the years 2000 through 2008, I study the effects of ethnicity and citizenship while controlling for crime type and geographic region, and include control variables for additional demographic characteristics, prior criminal history, and other "legalistic" attributes. My hypothesis is inconsistently supported; certain crimes exhibited sentencing bias for Hispanics and/or illegal immigrants, while others did not. Moreover, no strong pattern emerged to identify which crimes would produce bias. The inconsistent and often suspect results suggest the absence of important data, likely attributable to a "deportation effect" which is not fully documented and therefore is not available for inclusion in tests regarding sentencing disparities for illegal immigrants and/or Hispanics. Details: Washington, DC: Georgetown University, 2011. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: Master's Thesis: Accessed May 8, 2012 at: http://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/553752 Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/553752 Shelf Number: 125179 Keywords: HispanicsIllegal AliensIllegal Immigrants (U.S.)Immigrants and CrimeSentencing Disparities |
Author: Rytina, Nancy Title: Apprehensions by the U.S. Border Patrol: 2005 - 2008 Summary: Statistics on apprehensions represent one of the few indicators available regarding illegal entry or presence in the United States. This Office of Immigration Statistics Fact Sheet provides information on recent trends in U.S. Border Patrol apprehensions and the gender, age, country of origin, and geographic location of persons apprehended during 2005 through 2008. Databeginning in 2005 were obtained from the Enforcement Case Tracking System (ENFORCE) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). For prior years, data were obtained from the Performance Analysis System (PAS) of DHS. Details: Washington, DC: Office of Immigration Statistics, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2009. 2p. Source: Fact Sheet: Internet Resource: Accessed May 8, 2012 at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_apprehensions_fs_2005-2008.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_apprehensions_fs_2005-2008.pdf Shelf Number: 125208 Keywords: ArrestsBorder PatrolCrime TrendsDemographic TrendsIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrationImmigrants |
Author: Jimenez, Maria Title: Humanitarian Crisis: Migrant Deaths at the U.S. – Mexico Border Summary: TAmerican Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial Counties (ACLU) and Mexico’s National Commission of Human Rights have been resolute in the protection and defense of the fundamental human rights of international migrants. Of all entitlements, the right to life is perhaps the most important. It is essential to the exercise of every other basic freedom and civil liberty. Under international law, the right to life has to be guaranteed at all times and under all circumstances. This right is violated not only when a life is deprived due to the arbitrary actions of a State, but also when actions are not taken to protect life. In enacting border and immigration policies, nations have the sovereign prerogative to protect their territorial integrity and defend their citizenry. That power, however, is restricted and constrained by international obligations to respect fundamental human rights. Unfortunately, these restraints have not precluded the U.S. government from deploying deadly border enforcement policies and practices that, by design and by default, lead to at least one death every day of a migrant crossing the border. This report is the sounding of an alarm for a humanitarian crisis that has led to the death of more than 5,000 human beings. It is part of a larger effort of human rights organizations throughout the border region to call attention to the most significant, ongoing violations of human rights occurring today. The report analyzes border security policies and practices that have contributed to the suffering and death of unauthorized border crossers. It reviews the impact of migrant fatalities and injuries to individuals, families and communities. It examines government and civil society responses to preserve and protect human life moving through hostile terrain and severe climates. It explores relevant international human rights laws and principles. Finally, the report offers recommendations to end this humanitarian crisis. Details: San Diego: American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego & Imperial Counties and Mexico's National Commission of Human Rights, 2009. 76p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 10, 2012 at: http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/immigrants/humanitariancrisisreport.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/immigrants/humanitariancrisisreport.pdf Shelf Number: 125239 Keywords: Border SecurityHuman RightsIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigration PoliciesMigrant Deaths |
Author: Morral, Andrew R. Title: Measuring Illegal Border Crossing Between Ports of Entry: An Assessment of Four Promising Methods Summary: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is responsible for controlling the flow of goods and people across the U.S. border, a difficult task that raises challenging resource management questions about how best to minimize illicit flows across the border while facilitating legitimate ones. Commonly reported border control measures, such as numbers of illegal migrants apprehended or miles of border under effective control, bear only an indirect and uncertain relationship to the border control mission, making them unreliable management tools. Fundamental to the question of border control effectiveness is the proportion of illicit border crossings that are prevented through either deterrence or apprehension. Estimating these proportions requires knowing the total flow of illicit goods or border crossings, but compelling methods for producing such estimates do not yet exist. This short paper describes four innovative approaches to estimating the total flow of illicit border crossings between ports of entry. Each is sufficiently promising to warrant further attention for purposes of supporting reliable, valid, and timely measures of illicit cross-border flow. Successfully implementing each of these approaches will require methodological development and analysis to identify barriers or constraints to using the approach, the cost of data collection, and the amount of error that can be expected in the resulting estimates. Details: Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2011. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed May 17, 2012 at: http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/OP328.html Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/OP328.html Shelf Number: 125322 Keywords: Border Security (U.S.)Illegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigration |
Author: Corlett, D. Title: Captured Childhood: Introducing a New Model to Ensure the Rights and Liberty of Refugee, Asylum Seeker and Irregular Migrant Children Affected by Immigration Detention Summary: This document explores the treatment of migrant, refugee, and asylum seeking children in detention facilities around the world. It presents the Child-sensitive Community Assessment and Placement model to help countries improve preventative measures against child detention and details good practice examples. This model is a 5-step process to avoid the detention of refugee, asylum seeker and irregular migrant children. It concludes with recommendations which promote the strengthening of community support and protection of migrant children on both national and international levels. Details: Melbourne: International Detention Coalition, 2012. 114p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 29, 2012 at: http://www.ipjj.org/fileadmin/data/documents/strategies_planning/IDC_CapturedChildhoodImmigrationDetention_2012_EN.pdf Year: 2012 Country: International URL: http://www.ipjj.org/fileadmin/data/documents/strategies_planning/IDC_CapturedChildhoodImmigrationDetention_2012_EN.pdf Shelf Number: 125438 Keywords: Illegal AliensImmigrant ChildrenImmigrant Detention |
Author: Rutgers School of Law–Newark Immigrant Rights Clinic (IRC) Title: Freed but not Free: A Report Examining the Current Use of Alternatives to Immigration Detention Summary: In May 2011, the White House released a report entitled, “Building a 21st Century Immigration System.”1 In recognition of the need to balance the valuable economic contributions made by immigrants with the need to secure the nation’s borders, the Obama Administration detailed its “blueprint” to remedy issues related to unlawful immigration as well as to strengthen the economy.2 The document also included other proposals for change, such as creating a more humane immigration system, providing clearer compliance guidance, and improving the immigration court system.3 Among its many outlined solutions, the Obama Administration made clear its desire to remedy critical detention issues, including expanding the capacity of alternative to detention (ATD) programs.4 As the use of ATD programs increases, the need to examine such programs to ensure they are being carried out fairly and effectively also becomes greater. As set forth in further detail in the report, immigration detention is costly, and it is unnecessary except in rare cases. For this reason, many advocates have called for an increase in alternatives to detention. Despite the proven effectiveness of many alternatives to detention, as this report makes clear, the capacity of the current ATD system is insufficient. At present, many individuals who are released from detention are placed on an Order of Release on Recognizance (ROR) or an Order of Supervision (OSUP), under which participants are required to check in periodically with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), among other requirements. Some of those individuals are subject to the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP), which includes an electronic monitoring component and is administered by a private company. This report attempts to examine the use, enforcement, restrictions, and human impact of the existing ATD programs in New Jersey and nationally. For the thousands of individuals that ICE places on supervisory programs—many of whom have been determined to be neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community—ATD programs can be both liberating and debilitating. This report highlights the economic, psychological, emotional, and physical toll faced by individuals under ATD programs and proposes some recommendations for reform. Details: Newark, NJ: Rutgers School of Law-Newark, Immigrant Rights Clinic; Philadelphia: American Friends Service Committee, 2012. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 5, 2012 at: http://www.law.newark.rutgers.edu/files/FreedbutnotFree.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.law.newark.rutgers.edu/files/FreedbutnotFree.pdf Shelf Number: 125470 Keywords: Alternative to IncarcerationIllegal AliensImmigrant Detention (U.S.)Immigrants |
Author: Rabin, Nina Title: Unseen Prisoners: A Report on Women in Immigration Detention Facilities in Arizona Summary: Roughly three hundred women are currently detained in immigration detention facilities in Arizona. Large scale detention of immigrants is a relatively recent phenomenon, and detention of women in significant numbers is even more recent. Women have only been detained in immigration detention facilities in the state since 2001. They have been placed in facilities that largely house other populations, either male immigration detainees or people serving criminal sentences of either sex. There is little public information about or awareness of immigration detention facilities, and in light of the small numbers of women and their recent addition, even less information or awareness about their treatment. The University of Arizona’s Southwest Institute for Research on Women (SIROW), with support from the Bacon Immigration Law and Policy Program of the James E. Rogers College of Law, undertook this report in order to fill this information gap and determine the extent to which immigration detention facilities in Arizona are responsive to the needs of women detainees. Over a twelve month period from September 2007 through August 2008, SIROW researchers and law students conducted interviews with over forty people who have knowledge about the facilities, including currently and previously detained women, family members of detainees, and attorneys and social service providers who have worked with women in immigration detention facilities. The three facilities that currently house women immigration detainees in Arizona are in Florence and Eloy, two small remote desert towns a significant distance from the Tucson and Phoenix metropolitan areas. The government agency in charge of the detention and removal of immigrants, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), contracts with the private for-profit prison company Corrections Corporation of America to run two of the three facilities. The third facility is a county jail in Florence in which ICE contracts for bed space for immigration detainees. Based on its research, this report identifies the following key concerns about the conditions of confinement for women in these three immigration detention facilities. Details: Tucson: University of Arizona, Southwest Institute for Research on Women, College of Social and Behavioral Sciences Bacon Immigration Law and Policy Program, James E. Rogers College of Law, 2009. 88p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 17, 2012 at: http://www.law.arizona.edu/depts/bacon_program/pdf/Unseen_Prisoners.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.law.arizona.edu/depts/bacon_program/pdf/Unseen_Prisoners.pdf Shelf Number: 113773 Keywords: Female InmatesIllegal AliensIllegal Immigrants, FemaleImmigrant Detention (Arizona) |
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: National Immigration Forum Title: Immigrants Behind Bars: How, Why, and How Much? Summary: States across the U.S. are facing large budget deficits leading to significant reductions in local programs and services, including cuts to police and Sheriff's departments. But in spite of shrinking resources, many local law enforcement agencies assist in enforcement of federal immigration law, including helping with the identification and detention of immigrants believed—sometimes wrongly—to be subject to deportation. The following backgrounder provides explanations of the ways that immigrants end up in local custody and are held there on the basis of their immigration status. It also explores the associated fiscal costs of increased detention to states and counties. In recent years police have increasingly been drawn into immigration enforcement operations, and as a result, local jails are holding increased numbers of immigrants, even those not facing criminal charges. Detaining immigrants in state or local custody creates additional costs and burdens on local law enforcement agencies, and the unnecessary and prolonged detention of immigrants costs local budgets millions of taxpayer dollars per year. The enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws has historically been a federal duty. However, throughout the last decade, the distinction between federal immigration enforcement and state and local criminal law enforcement has been eroding. Since its creation in 2003, the Department of Homeland Security has pursued broad expansions of local involvement with federal authorities in enforcement of federal immigration laws. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the Department of Homeland Security’s primary interior immigration enforcement bureau and the manager of the largest detention system in the country. ICE has aggressively sought both formal and informal relationships with state and local law enforcement agencies. This collaboration broadens ICE’s ability to identify, apprehend, and detain immigrants around the country. Notably, ICE’s efforts are not limited to undocumented immigrants. All non-citizens who may possibly be subject to deportation are under ICE’s jurisdiction, even if they have been permanent residents of the United States for decades. In 2007, ICE grouped its major programs for apprehending non-citizens identified or arrested by local law enforcement under an umbrella called “Agreements of Cooperation in Communities to Enhance Safety and Security” (ICE ACCESS). ICE ACCESS encompasses 14 different programs that connect ICE agents to state and local law enforcement agencies and operations. Three ICE ACCESS programs engender particularly broad-ranging consequences for immigrants who interact with the criminal justice system: the Criminal Alien Program (CAP), Secure Communities, and the 287(g) program. All of these programs are designed to help ICE identify immigrants who come into contact with the criminal justice system. The increased collaboration between DHS and local law enforcement agencies has resulted in greater numbers of non-citizens being held in local jails for prolonged periods of time, at great expense. When jails go beyond handling regular local criminal matters to holding civil detainees for federal agencies, many additional bodies of law and logistical requirements come into play. Questions of custody and responsibility now involve both federal and state agencies, and inmates may be juggling both criminal and civil proceedings involving different legal rights. The result has been widespread confusion and frequent civil rights violations. Immigrants who come into contact with police may end up in the local jail, being held for ICE, without even being suspected of or charged with a crime. Non-citizens involved in the criminal justice process spend more time behind bars than citizens facing similar charges. And non-citizen inmates due to be released from local custody are unlawfully detained on a regular basis. Imprisoning people is a very expensive endeavor, and the impact of this unnecessary and excessive detention amounts to millions of dollars per year for local budgets. This paper seeks to identify the ways, legal and illegal, that immigrants end up in local custody, and the associated costs to states and counties. Details: Washington, DC: National Immigration Forum, 2011. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 25, 2012 at: http://www.immigrationforum.org/images/uploads/2011/Immigrants_in_Local_Jails.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.immigrationforum.org/images/uploads/2011/Immigrants_in_Local_Jails.pdf Shelf Number: 125767 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant Detention (U.S.) |
Author: Novick, Sheldon M. Title: Americans Without Papers, State Immigrant 'Attrition' Laws, and the Fourteenth Amendment Summary: State immigration laws aim at the removal of a class of persons, undocumented aliens, through “attrition by enforcement.” Sponsors of the attrition laws claim federal authorization for their efforts, which otherwise may violate the Fourteenth Amendment and federal civil rights laws. The ultimate basis of the claim does not rest on the Constitution, but on a doctrine constructed in the nineteenth century, in the Chinese Exclusion Cases, contemporary with Plessy v. Ferguson. The Supreme Court then accepted a claim that Congress and the President had extra-constitutional power to expel a class of unwanted “aliens,” defined by their race. Congress in 1996 renewed the claim of power to deport even documented immigrants and naturalized citizens, and attempted to authorize state governments to share in the deportation power. State immigrant “attrition by enforcement” laws are the result. In Arizona v. United States, the S.B. 1070 case, the Supreme Court held that portions of the statute, a model for other state immigrant attrition laws, were not authorized but instead were preempted. The remaining state “attrition” schemes are still to be tested against the civil rights laws, however. The Court in modern times has greatly circumscribed the supposed, unlimited power to deport aliens claimed in the Chinese Exclusion Cases, and one hopes Congress and the courts will abandon the dubious doctrines announced in those opinions and do away with “Juan Crow.” Details: South Royalton, VT: Vermont Law School, 2011. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Vermont Law School Research Paper No. 23-12: Accessed August 6, 2012 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2117436 Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2117436 Shelf Number: 125863 Keywords: Illegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigration Laws |
Author: Rios, Viridiana Title: Unexpected Consequences of Mexico’s Drug War for US National Security: More Mexican Immigrants Summary: Mexican immigration figures have reached its lowest point since 2000. Yet, even if as a whole the US is receiving less Mexican migrants, the opposite is true for cities at the border. In this paper, I present evidence to show that this sui generis migration pattern cannot be understood using traditional explanations of migration dynamics. Instead, Mexicans are migrating because of security issues, fearing drugrelated violence and extortion, which has spiked since 2008. I estimate that a total of 264,693 have migrated fearing organized crime activities. By doing so, I combine the literature of migration dynamics with the one of violence and crime, pointing towards ways in which non-state actors shape actions of state members. Details: Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 2012. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Paper presented at Violence, Drugs and Governance: Mexican Security in Comparative Perspective Conference, Stanford University. October 3-4, 2011 (Palo Alto, CA): Working Paper 2012-002, Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University, Accessed August 6, 2012 at: http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/Rios2012_SecurityIssuesAndImmigration3.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/Rios2012_SecurityIssuesAndImmigration3.pdf Shelf Number: 125871 Keywords: Drug ViolenceIllegal AliensIllegal Immigration (Mexico, U.S.)ImmigrationWar on Drugs |
Author: Gilman, Denise Title: Realizing Liberty: The Use of International Human Rights Law to Realign Immigration Detention in the United States Summary: This article takes a comprehensive look at the extensive U.S. immigration detention system from a human rights perspective. The article represents a first effort to synthesize and present recently-developed international human rights standards and apply those rules to the U.S. immigration detention system. It engages in an in-depth analysis to identify the changes necessary to realign U.S. law and scale back immigration detention in accord with international human rights law. The article proposes that U.S. courts should effect those changes through the interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions in light of the international human rights law standards. This use of the human rights standards is appropriate, because the standards represent binding obligations for the United States as a matter of international law and closely track U.S. constitutional law principles relating to civil detention in contexts less contentious than immigration. The article demonstrates how the application of international human rights law standards can bring rationality and humanity to U.S. immigration detention by revitalizing the right to liberty, which constitutes a core conception in both international human rights law and U.S. constitutional law. Details: Austin, TX: University of Texas School of Law, 2012. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 25, 2012 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144812 Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144812 Shelf Number: 126451 Keywords: Human RightsIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigration (U.S.) |
Author: Marsh, Kevin Title: An Economic Analysis of Alternatives to Long-Term Detention Summary: The objective of this research was to determine the cost savings associated with the timely release of migrants pending removal who are currently detained for long periods only to be released back into the community. The UK Border Agency (UKBA) recommends that detention only be used for the shortest period necessary, pending resolution of immigration cases, i.e. removal or the determination of outstanding appeals (Home Office, 2011a). However, in practice, a significant number of individuals are held in detention for long periods before, ultimately, being released back into the community without resolution of their cases (Home Office, 2011b). Around 26,000 migrants enter detention per year. It is estimated that nearly 11 per cent of individuals entering detention spend greater than 3 months in detention, and 2 per cent spend greater than a year (Home Office, 2011b). Almost 40 per cent of detainees who spend more than 3 months in detention are eventually released into the community with their case still outstanding (Home Office, 2011b). The UKBA currently carries out a risk assessment of ex-offenders prior to the decision to detain (UKBA, 2011a). The scope of this risk assessment could be extended in order to identify those individuals who cannot be deported within a reasonable and lawful period of detention, and who will, therefore, eventually be released back into the community. Early identification and timely release of these individuals would save the cost of their protracted and fruitless detention. This more efficient use of detention space would mean that the same numbers of removals could be achieved using a reduced number of detention spaces. The analysis summarised in this report estimates that an improved risk assessment could result in cost savings of £377.4 million over a 5-year time period. This estimate comprises: £344.8 million in detention cost savings over 5 years. £37.5 million in avoided unlawful detention payments over 5 years. Minus £5.0 million in the extra cost of Section 4 support, including housing and living costs, for the additional time that migrants spend in the community. When analysing the savings over time, it is estimated that improved risk assessment could result in cost savings of £71.5 million, £81.2 million, £78.1 million, £74.9 million, and £71.6 million in each of the next 5 years, respectively. This amounts to average savings of £75.5 million per year, which could result in cost savings of £377.4 million over a 5 year time period. To contextualise these savings, it costs roughly £20 million per year to run a detention centre (UKBA, 2011b, Home Office, 2011b). Based on these costs, the analysis indicates that, by providing timely release for migrants, the UKBA could save the equivalent of the cost of running at least three detention centres over the next 5 years. A proportion of the expected savings could be reinvested in more intensive community-based support, which can be expected to generate increased rates of case resolution and voluntary return. For example, in Australia, migrants who would in the past have been detained are provided with case management support to resolve their immigration cases. The evidence from Australia suggests that case management is effective in increasing uptake of voluntary return. Currently in the UK, interventions are being piloted that replicate elements of Australian case management, although they have not been used as alternatives to detention. The analysis suggests that providing case management in the UK to all the migrants who would be released promptly in the above analysis would cost around £164.2 million, about 44 per cent of the savings made as a result of avoided detention. However, as voluntary returns are far cheaper than enforced removals, this could lead to further savings as well as increased overall numbers of returns. Details: London: Matrix Evidence, 2012. 26p, Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 26, 2012 at:http://detentionaction.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Matrix-Detention-Action-Economic-Analysis-0912.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://detentionaction.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Matrix-Detention-Action-Economic-Analysis-0912.pdf Shelf Number: 126465 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice (U.K.)EconomicsIllegal AliensImmigrant DetentionImmigrants |
Author: Graybill, Lisa Title: Border Patrol Agents as Interpreters Along the Northern Border: Unwise Policy, Illegal Practice Summary: Advocates along the Northern Border report a recent, sharp increase in the use of U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) agents to provide interpretation services to state and local law enforcement officers and emergency responders. This most often occurs when an officer or responder encounters an individual who does not speak English and proactively reaches out to USBP for assistance. But it has also occurred when USBP agents respond to an incident report in lieu of, or in addition to, local law enforcement officers. In other cases, USBP agents have reportedly begun responding to 911 emergency assistance calls, especially if the caller is known or perceived not to speak English. Much of this activity appears to have been precipitated by the fact that the U.S.-Canada border has undergone a dramatic transformation, including an influx of newly assigned USBP agents. Immigrants, their advocates, and community members are reporting—and official statistics confirm—that there are simply too many USBP agents on the ground, apparently with too much time on their hands, who lack adherence to stated priorities. This special report by Lisa Graybill for the Immigration Policy Center lays out the problems with border patrol agents serving as translators and make recommendations intended to promote Title VI compliance, maintain the integrity of the USBP mission on the Northern Border, and protect the rights of immigrants and their families who call the Northern Border home. Details: Washington, DC: American Immigration Council, Immigration Policy Center, 2012. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 26, 2012 at: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/borderpatrolagentsasinterpreters.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/borderpatrolagentsasinterpreters.pdf Shelf Number: 126466 Keywords: Border Control Agents (U.S.)Border SecurityIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrationLanguage BarriersUse of Interpreters |
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: Buentello, Tara Title: Operation Streamline: Drowning Justice and Draining Dollars along the Rio Grande Summary: Operation Streamline, a policy begun in 2005 by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in conjunction with the Department of Justice (DOJ), mandates that nearly all undocumented immigrants apprehended near the southern border in designated areas be detained and prosecuted through the federal criminal justice system, a dramatic departure from previous practices when most immigration cases were handled exclusively within the civil immigration system. According to the Department of Homeland Security’s Operation Streamline press release: “Those aliens who are not released due to humanitarian reasons will face prosecution for illegal entry. The maximum penalty for violation of this law is 180 days incarceration. While the alien is undergoing criminal proceedings, the individual will also be processed for removal from the United States.” Operation Streamline’s key component is that it mandates that immigrants crossing the border in designated areas be arrested, detained while awaiting trial, prosecuted with a misdemeanor or felony charge, incarcerated in the federal justice system, and finally deported. On December 16, 2005, The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) launched Operation Streamline along a section of the Texas-Mexico border near Del Rio, Texas, spanning a total of 210 miles. Operation Streamline has spread to other areas along the U.S.-Mexico border, including much of Arizona and Texas. Operation Streamline has exposed undocumented immigrants crossing the southern border to unprecedented rates of incarceration; overburdened the federal criminal justice system in the districts where it has been implemented; and added enormous costs to the American taxpayer while providing a boon to the for-profit private prison industry. The extent of the program is so sweeping that by 2009, 54% of all federal prosecutions nationwide were for immigration offenses. The effect is more pronounced in border districts. In April 2010, prosecutions of 1325 and 1326 alone accounted for 84% of all prosecutions in the Southern District of Texas, which includes Houston. Since Operation Streamline began in 2005, there has been a 136% in prosecutions for unauthorized entry and an 85% increase in prosecutions for unauthorized re-entry in the Western and Southern Districts of Texas. More than 135,000 migrants have been criminally prosecuted in these two border districts since 2005 under the two sections of the federal code that make unauthorized entry and re-entry a crime. Operation Streamline has funneled more than $1.2 billion into the largely for-profit detention system in Texas, driving the expansion of private prisons along the border. Operation Streamline has significantly increased the caseload of public defenders and federal judges while radically increasing the number of individuals incarcerated for petty immigration violations in for-profit private prisons and county jails throughout Texas. Data in this report show an increase in criminal prosecutions of undocumented border-crossers even as the estimated number of migrants to the United States has dropped. In 2009, two border districts in Texas prosecuted 46,470 immigrants, representing approximately 186 entry and re-entry prosecutions a day for federal courts along the border. Proponents of Operation Streamline argue that it has deterred illegal entry. However, research conducted amongst migrants in the United States indicates that the decreased migration has largely been caused by the economic downturn, while the ironic impact of beefed-up border enforcement has been to deter migrants from returning to their countries of origin during the recession. Operation Streamline: Drowning Justice and Draining Dollars along the Rio Grande presents facts, figures, and testimony highlighting the human and financial costs Operation Streamline exacts on migrants, the federal judiciary, and the detention system in Texas. The recommends report recommends the repeal of Operation Streamline. Successor policies to Operation Streamline addressing undocumented border crossers should return jurisdiction over immigration violations to civil immigration authorities, reduce the use of detention for border crossing violations, and promote and promote a pathway for legal and reasonable means for immigrants to obtain legal status in the United States. Details: Charlotte, NC: Grassroots Leadership, 2010. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Green Paper: Accessed October 1, 2012 at: Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 126536 Keywords: Border SecurityCosts of Criminal JusticeHomeland SecurityIllegal AliensIllegal Immigrants (U.S.)Immigrant DetentionImmigration Policy |
Author: Robertson, Alistair Graham Title: Operation Streamline: Costs and Consequences Summary: In 2005, the Del Rio sector of the Border Patrol, an agency within the federal Department of Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection, faced a peculiar issue. With civil detention facilities at capacity and voluntary return to Mexico available only to Mexican citizens, non-Mexican migrants were given a notice to appear in front of an immigration judge and released in the United States.” In 2004, Border Patrol apprehended approximately 10,000 non-Mexican migrants in the Del Rio sector; just one year later, the figure spiked to 15,000. The solution to this enforcement issue, Border Patrol decided, was to circumvent the civil immigration system by turning non-Mexican migrants over for criminal prosecution, a practice until then relegated almost exclusively to cases of violent criminal history or numerous reentries. Upon considering the proposition, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas responded with one caveat: in order to avoid an equal protection violation, the courts would have to criminally prosecute all migrants within a designated area, not just those from countries other than Mexico. With the signature of Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, it was decided to do just that. Starting in December of 2005, “Operation Streamline” required all undocumented border-crossers in the Eagle Pass area of the Del Rio Border Patrol sector to be funneled into the criminal justice system and charged with unlawful entry or re-entry (8 U.S.C. § 1325 or 1326). Those charged with improper entry usually face a sentence of up to 180 days, and a judge may impose a sentence of over ten years dependent upon criminal history. Re-entry offenders also face tough sentences, including a felony charge that places up to a ten-year bar on legal immigration. The Department of Homeland Security since has drastically expanded the criminal referral model through similar programs in the Yuma sector in 2006, the Laredo sector in 2007, and the Tucson sector in 2008. By 2010, every U.S.-Mexico border sector except California had implemented a “zero-tolerance” program of some sort, the whole of which are commonly referred to by the moniker of the original program— Operation Streamline. Depending upon the sector, the degree of implementation may vary significantly. For example, according to Federal Public Defenders in the Yuma and Del Rio sectors, Border Patrol refers nearly 100% of apprehended immigrants in those areas for criminal prosecution. In the Tucson sector, where greater migrant volume renders such high referral rates logistically unfeasible, the percentage on immigrants “Streamlined” may be closer to 10%, or about 70 of the 800 migrants apprehended each day. The resulting prisoner volume has led the Bureau of Prisons in the Department of Justice to depend upon private prison corporations like Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and GEO Group. Through increased facility use and contracts for other services, CCA and GEO have enjoyed a combined $780 million increase in annual federal revenues since 2005. In FY2011, the federal government paid immense sums of taxpayer money to private prison companies, $744 million and $640 million to CCA and GEO Group, respectively. Much of this revenue derives from contracts for Criminal Alien Requirement (CAR) prisons, where federal immigrant prisoners are segregated in privately owned, privately operated prisons contracted by the Bureau of Prisons. The terms of CAR contracts include incentives (and sometimes guarantees) to fill facilities near capacity with immigrant prisoners. Each year, these companies dedicate millions of dollars to lobbying and campaign contributions. The federal dollars behind immigrant incarceration come at a significant cost to the taxpayer, climbing in 2011 to an estimated $1.02 billion annually. Before the announcement of Operation Streamline in 2005, the federal government annually committed about 58% of that total, or $591 million toward incarcerating immigrants. In 1994, the amount was about $72 million, 7% of its current level. Recent budget proposals indicate that federal spending on 2 Operation Streamline: Costs and Consquences prosecution and incarceration will likely increase, as Congress recently stated an ambition to “expand Operation Streamline to additional Border Patrol sectors” alongside a record-setting DHS budget request of $45.2 billion. The sheer volume of immigration cases has also severely burdened the courts in border districts, which have been forced to handle a near 350% increase of petty immigration cases from 12,411 in 2002 to 55,604 in 2010. In Tucson, courts may see as many as 200 immigrants lined up for prosecution in a single morning. To handle the expanded caseload, the Department of Justice has pursued a combination of resource-intensive options, including privately contracting with defense attorneys, deputizing Border Patrol agents as special Assistant U.S. Attorneys, and bringing several magistrate judges out of retirement. Furthermore, Operation Streamline strips Assistant U.S. Attorneys of the power to prosecute the crimes they deem pressing. Immigration cases made up 36% of all criminal prosecutions nationwide in 2011, surpassing drug and fraud prosecutions combined. Details: Charlotte, NC: Grassroots Leadership, 2012. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed october 1, 2012 at: http://www.grassrootsleadership.org/files/GRL_Sept2012_Report%20final.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.grassrootsleadership.org/files/GRL_Sept2012_Report%20final.pdf Shelf Number: 126537 Keywords: Border SecurityCosts of Criminal JusticeHomeland SecurityIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigrationOperation Streamline (U.S.)Private Prisons |
Author: Lydgate, Joanna Title: Assembly-Line Justice: A Review of Operation Streamline Summary: The current administration is committed to combating the drug and weapon trafficking and human smuggling at the root of violence along the U.S.-Mexico border. But a Bush-era immigration enforcement program called Operation Streamline threatens to undermine that effort. Operation Streamline requires the federal criminal prosecution and imprisonment of all unlawful border crossers. The program, which mainly targets migrant workers with no criminal history, has caused skyrocketing caseloads in many federal district courts along the border. This Warren Institute study demonstrates that Operation Streamline diverts crucial law enforcement resources away from fighting violent crime along the border, fails to effectively reduce undocumented immigration, and violates the U.S. Constitution. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) began implementing Operation Streamline along the U.S.-Mexico border in 2005. The program has fundamentally transformed DHS’s border enforcement practices. Before Operation Streamline began, DHS Border Patrol agents voluntarily returned first-time border crossers to their home countries or detained them and formally removed them from the United States through the civil immigration system. The U.S. Attorney’s Office reserved criminal prosecution for migrants with criminal records and for those who made repeated attempts to cross the border. Operation Streamline removed that prosecutorial discretion, requiring the criminal prosecution of all undocumented border crossers, regardless of their history. Operation Streamline has generated unprecedented caseloads in eight of the eleven federal district courts along the border, straining the resources of judges, U.S. attorneys, defense attorneys, U.S. Marshals, and court personnel. The program’s voluminous prosecutions have forced many courts to cut procedural corners. Magistrate judges conduct en masse hearings, during which as many as 80 defendants plead guilty at a time, depriving migrants of due process. Indeed, in December 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that Operation Streamline’s en masse plea hearings in Tucson, Arizona violate federal law. By focusing court and law enforcement resources on the prosecution of first-time entrants, Operation Streamline also diverts attention away from fighting drug smuggling, human trafficking, and other crimes that create border violence. To examine Operation Streamline’s effects, the Warren Institute observed Operation Streamline court proceedings and conducted interviews with judges, U.S. attorneys, defense attorneys, Border Patrol representatives, and immigration lawyers in four border cities in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. This report outlines the Warren Institute’s findings. It concludes that Operation Streamline is not an effective means of improving border security or reducing undocumented immigration. Furthermore, Operation Streamline has unacceptable consequences for the agencies tasked with implementing the program, for the migrants it targets, and for the rule of law in this country. The administration should therefore eliminate Operation Streamline and restore U.S. attorneys’ discretion to prosecute serious crimes along the border. If the administration seeks to punish first-time border crossers, it need look no further than the civil system. Details: Berkeley, CA: Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Race, Ethnicity & Diversity, University of California, Berkeley Law School, 2010. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Brief: Accessed October 1, 2012 at: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Operation_Streamline_Policy_Brief.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Operation_Streamline_Policy_Brief.pdf Shelf Number: 126538 Keywords: Border SecurityHomeland SecurityIllegal AliensIllegal Immigrants (U.S.)Immigrant DetentionImmigration PolicyOperation StreamlinePrison Prisons |
Author: Heartland Alliance National Immigrant Justice Center Title: Invisible in Isolation: The Use of Segregation and Solitary Confinement in Immigration Detention Summary: Immigrants in detention facilities around the United States often are subjected to punitive and long-term solitary confinement and denied meaningful avenues of appeal, according to an investigation by Heartland Alliance's National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) and Physicians for Human Rights (PHR). The two human rights groups surveyed conditions in more than a dozen detention centers and county jails that contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The result is the first comprehensive examination of the effects of solitary confinement on immigration detainees. While the harm caused by solitary confinement to inmates in prisons and jails has been well documented, Invisible in Isolation: The Use of Segregation and Solitary Confinement in Immigration Detention shows that solitary confinement of immigrants in detention is often arbitrarily applied, inadequately monitored, harmful to their health, and a violation of their due process rights. NIJC and PHR uncovered numerous cases in which detention facilities placed mentally ill immigrants in solitary confinement rather than treating them, or separated sexual minorities against their wishes from the general inmate population. Many immigration detainees in solitary confinement had strict limits placed on such “privileges” as outdoor recreation, reading material, and even access to legal counsel. Overall, investigators found, ICE has failed to hold detention centers and jails accountable for their abusive use of solitary confinement. In the report, NIJC and PHR call on ICE and Congress to end solitary confinement in immigration detention, severely limit other forms of segregation, and implement stricter oversight of the detention system. Details: Chicago: Heartland Alliance National Immigrant Justice Center; Cambridge, MA: Physicians for Human Rights, 2012. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed october 3, 2012 at: http://www.immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/Invisible%20in%20Isolation-The%20Use%20of%20Segregation%20and%20Solitary%20Confinement%20in%20Immigration%20Detention.September%202012_5.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/Invisible%20in%20Isolation-The%20Use%20of%20Segregation%20and%20Solitary%20Confinement%20in%20Immigration%20Detention.September%202012_5.pdf Shelf Number: 126547 Keywords: Human RightsIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant Detention (U.S.)Solitary Confinement |
Author: Heartland Alliance National Immigrant Justice Center Title: Not Too Late for Reform: A Call for President Obama to Close Failed Immigration Detention Facilities, Halt Costly Privatization & Restore Basic Human Rights Summary: The report details ongoing abuses at county jails holding immigrants in the Midwest and calls on the Obama administration to end the expansion and privatization of the abusive immigration detention system. The report focuses on three county jails — Jefferson County Jail and Tri-County Detention Center in Illinois and Boone County Jail in Kentucky — where the deplorable conditions of confinement are typical of immigration detention facilities across the United States. Details: Chicago: Heartland Alliance’s National Immigrant Justice Center and the Midwest Coalition for Human Rights, 2011. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 3, 2012 at: http://www.immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/NIJC-MCHR%20Not%20Too%20Late%20for%20Reform%20Report%202011%20FINAL.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/NIJC-MCHR%20Not%20Too%20Late%20for%20Reform%20Report%202011%20FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 126548 Keywords: Human RightsIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionPrivate Prisons |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons Title: Expectations: Criteria for Assessing the Conditions for and Treatment of Immigration Detainees Summary: This is the third edition of our Expectations for immigration detention– the criteria we use during our inspections to assess the treatment and conditions of those held in immigration removal centres, short-term holding facilities, family detention and under escort, both within the UK and overseas. These Expectations were drawn up after extensive consultation and are based on and referenced against international human rights standards. They are part of the process by which UK fulfils its obligations as a signatory to the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT). They reflect that immigration detainees are not held because they have been charged or convicted with a criminal offence and their detention has not been authorised through any judicial process. These changes are part of a systematic revision of our expectations for all the establishments we inspect to ensure they focus squarely on the outcomes for those held, rather than simply checking process and procedure. However, we recognise that the administrative nature of this type of detention means that procedural safeguards and processes have a particular importance, and our inspections will continue to examine and report on their implementation. Expectations are brigaded under four healthy prison tests – safety, respect, activities and preparation for release. These reflect the tests we apply in all our inspections, adjusted to reflect the nature of immigration detention. Each expectation is underpinned by a series of ‘indicators’, which describe the evidence that will normally indicate to inspectors whether the outcome is likely to have been achieved or not. Expectations describe the standards of treatment and conditions we expect an establishment to achieve. Indicators suggest evidence that may indicate whether the expectations have been achieved. The list of indicators is not exhaustive and these do not exclude an establishment demonstrating the expectation has been met in other ways. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2012. 142p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 24, 2012 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/about/hmipris/immigration-expectations.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/about/hmipris/immigration-expectations.pdf Shelf Number: 126791 Keywords: Illegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant Detention (U.K.) |
Author: Epstein, Ruthie Title: Jails and Jumpsuits. Transforming the U.S. Immigration Detention System—A Two-Year Review Summary: Two years ago, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) committed to transform the U.S. immigration detention system by shifting it away from its longtime reliance on jails and jail-like facilities, to facilities with conditions more appropriate for the detention of civil immigration law detainees. At the time of these commitments, in announcements in August and October of 2009, DHS and ICE recognized that detention beds were in facilities that were “largely designed for penal, not civil, detention.” In fact, many criminal correctional facilities actually offer less restrictive conditions than those typically found in immigration detention facilities, and corrections experts have confirmed that less restrictive conditions can help ensure safety in a secure facility. DHS and ICE have consistently affirmed intentions to carry out the planned reforms in a budget-neutral way. Yet two years later, the overwhelming majority of detained asylum seekers and other civil immigration law detainees are still held in jails or jail-like facilities—almost 400,000 detainees each year, at a cost of over $2 billion. At these facilities, asylum seekers and other immigrants wear prison uniforms and are typically locked in one large room for up to 23 hours a day; they have limited or essentially no outdoor access, and visit with family only through Plexiglas barriers, and sometimes only via video, even when visitors are in the same building. Over the last two years, ICE has begun to use, or has acknowledged plans to use, five new facilities that would contain in total 3,485 detention beds in less penal conditions. These conditions would include increased outdoor access, contact visitation with families, and “non-institutional” (though still uniform) clothing for some detainees. These facilities are designed as templates for a more appropriate approach to immigration detention. If they open as designed and as scheduled, 14 percent of ICE’s detained asylum seeker and immigrant population would be housed in these less-penal conditions— meaning that 86 percent of ICE detainees would still be held in jails and jail-like facilities. Official standards detailing core requirements for the environment and conditions of a civil detention system—covering matters such as dress, movement within facilities, extended outdoor access, and contact visitation with family—have not been developed or implemented. ICE has also taken important steps to improve other aspects of the immigration detention system—such as creating a system to allow families and counsel to learn the name of the facility where an immigration detainee is held, issuing new guidance on parole assessments for detained arriving asylum seekers, and training new ICE monitors to report back to headquarters on compliance with standards in the field. However, this report focuses primarily on the agency’s progress on its commitment to “literally overhaul the system”—to transition the immigration detention system away from its jail-oriented approach to a system with conditions more appropriate for civil immigration detainees. While ICE did indicate that the shift would take place “in three to five years,” two years in, there is still a long way to go. Jails and jail-like facilities have been found to be inappropriate and unnecessarily costly for asylum seekers and other civil immigration detainees by the U.S. government itself, as well as by bipartisan groups and international human rights bodies. In a major 2005 study requested by Congress, the bipartisan U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) and its expert on prison systems observed that most of the facilities used by DHS to detain asylum seekers and other immigrants “in most critical respects…are structured and operated much like standardized correctional facilities,” resembling “in every essential respect, conventional jails.” The Council on Foreign Relations bipartisan task force on immigration policy, co-chaired by Jeb Bush and Thomas McLarty, concurred in July 2009 that “[i]n many cases asylum seekers are forced to wear prison uniforms [and] held in jails and jail-like facilities.” The bipartisan Constitution Project’s Liberty and Security Committee similarly concluded in December 2009 that “[d]espite the nominally ‘civil’—as opposed to ‘criminal’—nature of their alleged offenses, non-citizens are often held in state and local jails.” In 2009, DHS’s own Special Advisor—who has run two state prison systems and currently serves as Commissioner of Correction in New York City—concluded in a report prepared for DHS and ICE that: With only a few exceptions, the facilities that ICE uses to detain aliens were built, and operate, as jails and prisons to confine pre-trial and sentenced felons. ICE relies primarily on correctional incarceration standards designed for pre-trial felons and on correctional principles of care, custody, and control. These standards impose more restrictions and carry more costs than are necessary to effectively manage the majority of the detained population. The use of immigration detention facilities that are penal in nature is inconsistent with U.S. commitments under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its Protocol, as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants have both expressed concern, in reports issued in 2010 and 2008, respectively, about the punitive and jail-like conditions used by the U.S. government in its immigration detention system. Even with more appropriate detention conditions, however, detention can still be—and is—penal in nature when the detention itself runs afoul of other human rights protections—for example, when detention is not necessary, reasonable, or proportionate, or is unnecessarily prolonged. In this report, Human Rights First focuses its review on the progress of DHS and ICE in transforming the U.S. immigration detention system away from its reliance on jails and jail-like facilities to a system with conditions more appropriate for civil immigration law detainees. In the course of our assessment, we visited 17 ICEauthorized detention facilities that together held more than 10,000 of the 33,400 total ICE beds; interviewed government officials, legal service providers, and former immigration detainees; and reviewed existing government data on the U.S. immigration detention system. We also interviewed a range of former prison wardens, corrections officials, and other experts on correctional systems. Details: New York: Human Rights First, 2011. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 9, 2012 at: http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/HRF-Jails-and-Jumpsuits-report.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/HRF-Jails-and-Jumpsuits-report.pdf Shelf Number: 126908 Keywords: Illegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant Detention (U.S.)Immigration |
Author: LeVoy, Michele Title: Ten Ways to Protect Undocumented Migrant Workers Summary: Every day hundreds of thousands of undocumented workers labor in different sectors of the economy in Europe. Undocumented workers often work and live in inhumane conditions, earning very little or no pay at all, and are insufficiently protected by legislation. Facing exploitation and abuse, many undocumented workers believe that they have no other option than to accept this situation. Fearing that they may be deported if they speak out, an overwhelming number suffer in silence. Meanwhile some economic sectors in the European Union are to a considerable extent dependent upon undocumented workers, who make up a substantial part of their workforce. This dependence may be hidden, not just by migrants’ silence, but by sub-contracting chains and employers’ complicity. PICUM, the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants, has collected detailed information obtained from NGOs, trade unions and other actors working with and advocating for undocumented workers, both in Europe and in the United States. The first section of this paper presents a summary of ten actions that contribute to the aim of respecting the dignity of undocumented migrants as humans and as workers. The second section of this paper presents ten policy recommendations that should be taken into account by policy makers. The employment and the exploitation of thousands of undocumented migrant workers in Europe is a symptom of the shortcomings of social, employment and migration policies. Tackling the roots of the problem of the exploitation of undocumented workers therefore constitutes a major challenge, requiring concerted efforts in all of these fields. Details: Brussels: PICUM, 2005. 119p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 23, 2012 at: http://picum.org/picum.org/uploads/publication/Ten%20Ways%20to%20Protect%20Undocumented%20Migrant%20Workers%20EN.pdf Year: 2005 Country: International URL: http://picum.org/picum.org/uploads/publication/Ten%20Ways%20to%20Protect%20Undocumented%20Migrant%20Workers%20EN.pdf Shelf Number: 151470 Keywords: Illegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrantsMigrant WorkersUndocumented Workers |
Author: Gastaldo, Denise Title: Entangled in a Web of Exploitation and Solidarity: Latin American Undocumented Workers in the Greater Toronto Area Summary: This e-book describes key findings of a three-year research project on the health consequences of undocumented work in the largest urban area in Canada – the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). This report has been written to reach a general audience and includes several features of workers’ trajectories because most aspects of people’s health are socially constructed through everyday life. In doing so, we hope to contribute to a social dialogue informed by research findings, that moves beyond moral arguments regarding “deserving and undeserving migrants” which frequently characterize discussions on migration issues. We propose that the experiences of undocumented workers in Canada are embedded in a complex web or matrix of simultaneously oppressive and supportive structures that transcend the sphere of home, work, and community. Several international and national players are intertwined in this web which ultimately functions to create a flexible and cheap workforce for Canadian businesses and constrains workers’ physical, economic and personal mobility once in Canada, with severe consequences for their health and well-being. We explore this central concept through four interrelated chapters and conclude with key messages to stimulate dialogue among a range of stakeholders. In Chapter 1, we explore the reasons why people migrate to Canada, the conditions that make such journeys possible, and the material and subjective reasons for why they stay, despite having limited legal and social protections. We also illustrate the complex pathways in which people fall out of status, and examine the manner in which undocumented migration, as a global phenomenon, is simultaneously created and maintained by global and national level policies, macro-economic and labour market trends and personal level interests that are deeply entrenched in dominant structures of power. In Chapter 2, we untangle the ways in which undocumented migrants report going about their lives in Canada and link their everyday life circumstances to their precarious employment relations and working conditions. We advance the notion of the existence of a web of solidarity and exploitation to characterize the daily life of workers and the challenges they face as they try to resettle and obtain work in a new land. In Chapter 3, we discuss the “tactics” they employ for coping and resisting exploitative conditions, and for functional aspects of their lives such as keeping a job and staying busy. We explore the role of workers’ individual agency and the much related role of hope and spirituality in the coping process. Finally, in chapter 4, we discuss some of the impacts of lack of status of citizenship. We examine the impact of fear on mental health and the production of institutional and interpersonal forms of social exclusion that exacerbate poor health among this population. We also explore the linkages between the types of jobs held by these workers and their health needs, including emergency care and long term health. We explore workers’ experiences of (in) access and to health and social services and critique the role of citizenship in the provision of rights and entitlements. Details: Toronto: University of Toronto, 2012. 160p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 23, 2012 at: http://www.migrationhealth.ca/sites/default/files/Entangled_in_a_web_of_exploitation_and_solidarity_LQ.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Canada URL: http://www.migrationhealth.ca/sites/default/files/Entangled_in_a_web_of_exploitation_and_solidarity_LQ.pdf Shelf Number: 126982 Keywords: Health CareIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant ExploitationUndocumented Workers (Toronto, Canada) |
Author: Cole, Alexandra (Sachi) Title: Prisoners of Profit: Immigrants and Detention in Georgia Summary: As the number of immigrants detained annually approaches half a million, the prison-like conditions of immigration detention facilities and the substandard treatment afforded to the detainees are an area of increasing concern. Georgia is home to four immigration detention facilities: Stewart Detention Center (Stewart), North Georgia Detention Center (NGDC), Irwin County Detention Center (Irwin), and Atlanta City Detention Center (ACDC). Stewart is the largest detention facility in the U.S. It has become common practice for ICE to contract with private companies to operate detention facilities; indeed, private companies run three of the four detention facilities in Georgia documented in this report. Corrections Corporation of America, the largest private prison company in the U.S., whose annual revenue in 2010 was $1.7 billion, runs two of those facilities. Although it has been claimed that privatization of detention facilities is cost-effective, this proposition has been cast into serious doubt. What has been confirmed is the systemic violation of immigrant detainees’ civil and human rights while detained in substandard prison-like conditions ill suited for civil detainees. The ACLU of Georgia has documented the current landscape of immigration detention in Georgia. The following methods were used for documentation: · Interviews with 68 detainees from all four detention facilities · Interviews with detainees’ family members · Interviews with immigration attorneys · Detention center tours · Reviews of responses from officials · Review of grievances filed by detainees Findings from these diverse sources raise serious concerns about violations of detainees’ due process rights, inadequate living conditions, inadequate medical and mental health care, and abuse of power by those in charge. Details: Atlanta: ACLU of Georgia, 2012. 184p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 26, 2012 at: http://www.acluga.org/download_file/view_inline/42/260/ Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.acluga.org/download_file/view_inline/42/260/ Shelf Number: 127005 Keywords: Illegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigrants (Georgia, U.S.)Private PrisonsPrivatization |
Author: Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service Title: Unlocking Liberty: A Way Forward for U.S. Immigration Detention Policy Summary: In a country that honors due process, and during a time when most are calling for reduced federal spending, locking people up should be the exception to the rule. Yet immigrant detention is the fastest growing, least scrutinized form of incarceration in the United States. On any given day, the U.S. government imprisons more than 33,000 immigrants—many of whom are refugees or survivors of torture or human trafficking—in a vast national network of about 250 federal, private, state, and local jails. The cost to U.S. taxpayers is $122 per detainee per day. These figures, however, fail to account for the human costs. It is well documented that detention has negative long-term consequences for immigrants’ mental and physical health and negatively impacts their ability to integrate into society upon release. All of these costs must necessarily be borne by the public for those granted relief in their removal cases and permitted to stay in the United States. In contrast, alternatives to detention (ATDs) are cheaper—they cost only $22 or less per person per day—and are more humane. An effective use of a broad continuum of alternatives to detention would allow the federal government to meet its responsibility to enforce compliance with U.S. immigration laws, meet its humanitarian obligations, and significantly reduce the financial burden to U.S. taxpayers. Alternatives that utilize case management for those released from custody have a number of benefits: • respect for and fulfillment of human rights, • higher rates of compliance and appearance, • reduced costs, • improved integration outcomes for individuals granted relief from removal, and • improved client health and welfare. The record is clear. Since the 1980s, projects operated by nonprofit organizations in the United States and abroad that have provided tailored supervision, case management, and social services have consistently produced high appearance rates for much less money than detention. Recognizing the successes of these models, Congress provided U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an arm of the Department of Homeland Security, with funding to initiate a holistic alternative for noncitizens who did not need to be detained. Unfortunately, the U.S. government’s approach has focused on security at the expense of other goals, casting shadows on the program’s operations. Unlocking Liberty: A Way Forward for U.S. Immigration Detention Policy, reviews the U.S. government’s attempts to implement ATD programs and reveals five overarching structural challenges that must be overcome: • an overreliance on detention as an approach to immigration enforcement, • the lack of individualized risk assessments to determine who needs to be detained or otherwise supervised to ensure appearance and removal, • absence of necessary data indicators and the mechanisms to collect and report those indicators to evaluate the use of detention and alternatives, • absence of a robust case management system with referrals to appropriate social services, and • insufficient access to legal and social services. To better control the immigrant removal process, reduce costs, and meet human rights obligations under domestic and international law, three critical reforms are needed to U.S. immigration enforcement policies: an individualized assessment and process to challenge all custody decisions, robust case management tailored to individual needs, and access to legal and support services. Details: Baltimore, MD: Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, 2012. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 26, 2012 at: http://www.lirs.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/RPTUNLOCKINGLIBERTY.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.lirs.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/RPTUNLOCKINGLIBERTY.pdf Shelf Number: 127006 Keywords: Illegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigrants (U.S.) |
Author: Amnesty International Title: Jailed Without Justice: Immigration Detention in the USA Summary: Migration is a fact of life. Some people move to new countries to improve their economic situation or to pursue their education. Others leave their countries to escape armed conflict or violations of their human rights, such as torture, persecution, or extreme poverty. Many move for a combination of reasons. Governments have the right to exercise authority over their borders; however, they also have obligations under international law to protect the human rights of migrants, no matter what prompted an individual to leave his or her home country. This report focuses on the human rights violations associated with the dramatic increase in the use of detention by the United States as an immigration enforcement mechanism. In just over a decade, immigration detention has tripled. In 1996, immigration authorities had a daily detention capacity of less than 10,000. Today more than 30,000 immigrants are detained each day, and this number is likely to increase even further in 2009. More than 300,000 men, women and children are detained by US immigration authorities each year. They include asylum seekers, torture survivors, victims of human traffi cking, longtime lawful permanent residents, and the parents of US citizen children. The use of detention as a tool to combat unauthorized migration falls short of international human rights law, which contains a clear presumption against detention. Everyone has the right to liberty, freedom of movement, and the right not to be arbitrarily detained. The dramatic increase in the use of immigration detention has forced US immigration authorities to contract with approximately 350 state and county criminal jails across the country to house individuals pending deportation proceedings. Approximately 67 percent of immigration detainees are held in these facilities, while the remaining individuals are held in facilities operated by immigration authorities and private contractors. The average cost of detaining a migrant is $95 per person, per day. Alternatives to detention, which generally involve some form of reporting, are significantly cheaper, with some programs costing as little as $12 per day. These alternatives to detention have been shown to be effective with an estimated 91 percent appearance rate before the immigration courts. Despite the effectiveness of these less expensive and less restrictive alternatives to detention in ensuring compliance with immigration procedures, the use of immigration detention continues to rise at the expense of the United States’ human rights obligations. Details: New York: Amnesty International USA, 2009. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 27, 2012 at: http://www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/JailedWithoutJustice.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/JailedWithoutJustice.pdf Shelf Number: 127012 Keywords: Alternative to DetentionIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant Detention (U.S.)Immigration |
Author: Amnesty International Title: In Hostile Terrain: Human Rights Violations in Immigration Enforcement in the US Southwest Summary: The report examines the human rights violations associated with immigration enforcement at the border and in the interior of the United States. While the development and implementation of immigration policies are a matter for individual governments, such policies must be compatible with international human rights law and standards. All immigrants, irrespective of their legal status, have human rights. This report shows that the USA is failing in its obligations under international law to ensure these rights. Among its findings are: • Recent immigration policy in certain border areas has pushed undocumented immigrants into using dangerous routes through the US desert; hundreds of people die each year as a result. • Immigration enforcement in the USA is a federal responsibility. Federal immigration officials are increasingly working in collaboration with state and local law enforcement agencies but improper oversight of state and local law enforcement has led to increased racial profiling. • Increasingly, state laws and local policies are creating barriers to immigrants accessing their basic human rights, including rights to education and essential health care services. While these laws are targeting non-citizens, these policies are also impacting US citizen children. • Recent legislation enacted or proposed in several states targets immigrant communities and places them, Indigenous communities and other minority communities at risk of discrimination. • Immigrant communities also face a range of barriers to justice when they are victims of crime such as human trafficking, domestic violence or bias crimes. The implementation of immigration enforcement measures along the border has also impacted the rights of Indigenous communities, whose traditional lands lie on both sides of the US-Mexico border. Details: New York: Amnesty International USA, 2012. 88p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 28, 2012 at: http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/reports/usa-in-hostile-terrain-human-rights-violations-in-immigration-enforcement-in-the-us-southwest Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/reports/usa-in-hostile-terrain-human-rights-violations-in-immigration-enforcement-in-the-us-southwest Shelf Number: 127021 Keywords: Border SecurityHuman RightsIllegal AliensIllegal Immigrants (U.S.)ImmigrationImmigration Enforcement |
Author: Coolman, Alex Title: No Refuge Here: A First Look at Sexual Abuse in Immigration Detention Summary: This report calls attention to the problem of sexual abuse in immigration detention centers in the United States, focusing on three central issues: (1) the considerable and troubling reported record of sexual abuse of detainees, (2) the lack of substantive policies and procedures in place to address such abuse, and (3) immigration officials' refusal to allow independent monitoring of conditions for detainees. Through this report, Stop Prisoner Rape (SPR) calls on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to implement more detailed and comprehensive standards for the prevention and treatment of sexual assault in facilities that hold immigration detainees. No systematic research has ever been undertaken to examine sexual abuse in immigration detention centers, and no statistics about its frequency have been collected. Compiled in these pages, however, are accounts that attest to ongoing abuse, including cases in which detainees have been raped, sexually assaulted, forced to trade sex for favors, and sexually harassed. SPR reviews the most well known of these cases, and discusses a number of additional abusive situations discovered through contacts with detainees and with other nonprofit agencies. Second, this report documents SPR's efforts to speak directly with detainees about their experiences and the distressing stonewalling from immigration officials that was the response to these efforts. This is followed by an in-depth analysis of the ICE's policy on the handling of detainees. The analysis concludes that there are serious shortcomings in the agency's approach to sexual assault and sexual misconduct. SPR suggests specific policy changes that can help the ICE create safer, more humane facilities for detainees. Throughout the report, presented as case studies, are the stories of individual detainees' encounters with forms of sexual violence. SPR hopes that this publication will serve as a first step toward acknowledging and addressing sexual abuse in immigration detention, a problem that, whatever its scope, shatters the lives of those who endure it. Details: Los Angeles, CA: Stop Prisoner Rape, 2004. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 28, 2012 at: http://www.justdetention.org/pdf/norefugehere.pdf Year: 2004 Country: United States URL: http://www.justdetention.org/pdf/norefugehere.pdf Shelf Number: 127025 Keywords: Illegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionPrison Rape (U.S.)Sexual Abuse |
Author: Whitfield, Nathan S. Title: Traveling the Terror Highway: Infiltration of Terror Operatives across the U.S.-Mexico Border Summary: Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, border security and immigration have received increased attention. Public and political scrutiny have elevated and changed the priority of border security and immigration enforcement; from migrant workers seeking employment to counter-terrorism. However, the question remains: if United States law enforcement and security agencies are unable to stop the smuggling of drugs and illegal migrants across the southwestern border between the U.S. and Mexico, is it possible to prevent terrorists from gaining unauthorized and unaccountable entry into the heartland of the U.S.? A corollary question is: given attempts to restructure the immigration enforcement policy and infrastructure to deter illegal entry of terrorists, will it still be possible and lucrative for terrorists to attempt to illegally cross the U.S.-Mexico border? This research seeks to explore existing conditions that may facilitate or increase the likelihood that terrorists would seek to infiltrate personnel across the U.S.-Mexico border. Details: Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School, 2011. 125p. Source: Internet Resource: Thesis: Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 127037 Keywords: Border SecurityIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigration (U.S. - Mexico)TerrorismTerrorists |
Author: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Evaluation and Inspections Division Title: Management of Immigration Cases and Appeals by the Executive Office for Immigration Review Summary: The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted a review to examine the Department of Justice’s (Department) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) processing and management of immigration cases and appeals involving foreign-born individuals (aliens) charged with violating immigration laws. Among other duties, EOIR courts are responsible for determining whether aliens charged by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with immigration violations should be ordered removed from the United States or be granted relief from removal, which would allow them to remain in this country. The OIG found that immigration court performance reports are incomplete and overstate the actual accomplishments of these courts. These flaws in EOIR’s performance reporting preclude the Department from accurately assessing the courts’ progress in processing immigration cases or identifying needed improvements. For example, administrative events such as changes of venue and transfers are reported as completions even though the immigration courts have made no decisions on whether to remove aliens from the United States. As a result, a case may be “completed” multiple times. In our sample of 1,785 closed cases, 484 administrative events were counted as completions by EOIR. Reporting these administrative actions as completions overstates the accomplishments of the immigration courts. Similarly, those same administrative events result in a case being reported as a “receipt” when the case is opened at the receiving court. As a result, the same case may be reported as a “receipt” multiple times, thereby overstating the total number of cases opened by the immigration courts during a particular period. Further, for those cases where EOIR has put in place a timeliness goal for handling a case, EOIR does not report the total time it takes to complete the case. Instead, EOIR tracks case processing time by court. As a result, a case with a timeliness goal of 60 days that spent 50 days at one court and was then transferred to another court, where it spent another 50 days, would be reported by EOIR as two cases that were each completed within the 60-day timeliness goal. In actuality, there was only one case, and that case took EOIR 100 days to reach a decision on whether the alien should be removed, thereby exceeding the 60-day goal. This practice makes it appear that more cases meet the completion goals than actually do. Additionally, in January 2010, EOIR abandoned completion goals for cases involving non-detained aliens who do not file asylum applications, which make up about 46 percent of the courts’ completions. EOIR made this decision to prioritize and focus on the completion of detained cases, in which aliens are deprived of their liberty and housed at taxpayer expense. While the OIG recognizes the importance of the timely completion of cases involving detained aliens, EOIR also should have goals for the timely processing of non-detained cases. Despite overstating case receipts and completions, EOIR’s immigration court data still showed that it was not able to process the volume of work. From FY 2006 through FY 2010, the overall efficiency of the courts did not improve even though there was an increase in the number of judges. In 4 of those 5 years, the number of proceedings received was greater than the number of proceedings completed. As a result, the number of pending cases increased. Our analysis of a sample of closed cases showed that cases involving non-detained aliens and those with applications for relief from removal can take long periods to complete. This results in crowded court calendars and delayed processing of new cases. For example, cases for non-detained aliens took on average 17½ months to adjudicate, with some cases taking more than 5 years to complete. In addition to the volume of new cases, the number and length of continuances immigration judges granted was a significant contributing factor to case processing times. In the 1,785 closed cases we examined, 953 cases (53 percent) had one or more continuances. Each of these cases averaged four continuances. The average amount of time granted for each continuance was 92 days (about 3 months), which results in an average of 368 days for continuances per case. In contrast, the EOIR’s Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) completed more appeals of immigration court decisions than it received from FY 2006 through FY 2010. Appeals involving non-detained aliens, however, still took long periods to complete. In our sample, the BIA averaged more than 16 months to render decisions on cases involving non-detained aliens, as compared to 3½ months for cases involving detained aliens. However, EOIR’s performance reporting does not reflect the actual length of time to review and decide those appeals because EOIR does not count processing time for one- and three-member reviews from the date the appeal was filed. Rather, EOIR begins the counting process once certain work is completed by the BIA and/or its staff. As a result, EOIR’s performance reporting data underreports actual processing time, which undermines EOIR’s ability to identify appeal processing problems and take corrective actions. In this report, we make nine recommendations to help EOIR improve its case processing and provide accurate and complete information on case completions. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Evaluation and Inspections Division, 2012. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed Dec. 1, 2012 at: http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/2012/e1301.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/2012/e1301.pdf Shelf Number: 127090 Keywords: Illegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigrantsImmigration (U.S.)Immigration Courts |
Author: Nowrasteh, Alex Title: The Economic Case against Arizona’s Immigration Laws Summary: Arizona’s immigration laws have hurt its economy. The 2007 Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA) attempts to force unauthorized immigrants out of the workplace with employee regulations and employer sanctions. The 2010 Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (SB 1070) complements LAWA by granting local police new legal tools to enforce Arizona’s immigration laws outside of the workplace. LAWA’s mandate of E-Verify, a federal electronic employee verification system, and the “business death penalty,” which revokes business licenses for businesses that repeatedly hire unauthorized workers, raise the costs of hiring all employees and create regulatory uncertainty for employers. As a result, employers scale back legal hiring, move out of Arizona, or turn to the informal economy to eliminate a paper trail. SB 1070’s enforcement policies outside of the workplace drove many unauthorized immigrants from the state, lowered the state’s population, hobbled the labor market, accelerated residential property price declines, and exacerbated the Great Recession in Arizona. LAWA, E-Verify, and the business death penalty are constitutional and are unlikely to be overturned; however the Supreme Court recently found that some sections of SB 1070 were preempted by federal power. States now considering Arizona-style immigration laws should realize that the laws also cause significant economic harm. States bear much of the cost of unauthorized immigration, but in Arizona’s rush to find a state solution, it damaged its own economy. Details: Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 2012. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Analysis No. 709: Accessed December 1, 2012 at: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA709.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA709.pdf Shelf Number: 127093 Keywords: Economic AnalysisIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsIllegal ImmigrationImmigrantsImmigration Laws (Arizona, U.S.) |
Author: Meissner, Doris Title: Immigration Enforcement in the United States: The Rise of a Formidable Machinery Summary: The US government spends more on federal immigration enforcement than on all other principal federal criminal law enforcement agencies combined, and has allocated nearly $187 billion for immigration enforcement since 1986. Deportations have reached record highs, border apprehensions 40-year lows, and more noncitizens than ever before are in immigration detention. The report traces the evolution of the immigration enforcement system, particularly in the post-9/11 era, in terms of budgets, personnel, enforcement actions, and technology – analyzing how individual programs and policies have resulted in a complex, interconnected, cross-agency system. Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2013. 182p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 17, 2013 at: http://carnegie.org/fileadmin/Media/Image_Galleries/immigration_enforcement_in__us_MPI_report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://carnegie.org/fileadmin/Media/Image_Galleries/immigration_enforcement_in__us_MPI_report.pdf Shelf Number: 127284 Keywords: Border SecurityCosts of Criminal JusticeIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigration (U.S.)Immigration Enforcement |
Author: Great Britain. HM Inspectorate of Prisons Title: The Effectiveness and Impact of Immigration Detention Casework: A Joint Thematic Review Summary: On any given day during the first quarter of 2012, around 3,500 people were detained under immigration powers, either in immigration removal centres or prisons. More than 40 people held in immigration centres had been held for over two years. While the courts have held that detention with a view to removal is only lawful if there is a realistic prospect of this occurring within a reasonable period, there is no statutory time limit on how long someone can be detained. A consistent finding of previous HMIP inspection reports and research is that detainees experience heightened levels of anxiety and distress as a result of their uncertain futures. Each individual detained costs nearly £40,000 a year. Against this background our respective inspectorates worked together on this, the first thematic inspection conducted jointly by HM Inspectorate of Prisons and the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI). Inspectors from both organisations examined in detail the quality and effectiveness of immigration casework and the human experiences that lay beneath the files and targets. In total, 81 detainees were interviewed, and their case files assessed. They included people held under immigration powers for both under and over six months to obtain a representative sample of cases. The most prominent themes to emerge from the interviews with detainees were physical and mental health problems, lack of contact with families, and the stress of long-term detention in the context of difficulties faced in accessing good quality legal services. An examination of case files helped us to understand the reasons for initial and continued detention. In most cases we examined, the decision to detain was defensible and properly evidenced, and most were progressed diligently and in line with legal and policy guidelines. However, given the importance of the decision to remove a person’s liberty, we were concerned to find that in a quarter of the cases we reviewed, insufficient progress had been made with the person’s case. Most of our sample comprised ex-prisoners. Of these, we identified a number of instances where more could have been done to resolve their cases before the end of their custodial sentences. This is particularly disappointing given the ICIBI’s finding in its report on the United Kingdom Border Agency (UKBA)’s handling of foreign national prisoners, that delays in decision making were potentially resulting in individuals being detained for longer than necessary.1 In some cases, we also found that decisions to detain a person, or to maintain their detention, had not been made with reference to all relevant factors. In addition, monthly progress reports to detainees in some cases repeated information previously provided, rather than giving a meaningful update on what, if any, progress had occurred. Detainees experienced considerable difficulties in obtaining good quality legal advice and many had not applied for bail to an immigration judge. Decisions to detain ex-prisoners were made at lower management level, while decisions to release had to be authorised by a member of the UKBA board. We remain concerned that UKBA has not implemented the recommendation in the ICIBI’s report on foreign national prisoners that it should change the level of authorisation required to release such individuals in line with its own policy, which presumes release at the end of their custodial sentences. We were also disturbed to find cases where there was a failure to consider evidence of posttraumatic stress and mental disorder in case reviews. This is in the context of recent judgments against UKBA establishing that four people suffering from mental illnesses were unlawfully detained and subject to inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. There was little evidence of the effectiveness of Detention Centre Rule 35 procedures, which are supposed to provide safeguards for vulnerable detainees, including those who have experienced torture and have mental illnesses. In one case a torture survivor was detained without it being at all clear what the exceptional circumstances were that led to his detention. We identified a similar case involving a victim of trafficking. Despite much effort at improving the system, we believe that further work is required. It is questionable whether the length of detention in some cases was necessary or proportionate to the legitimate aim of maintaining immigration control. The evidence of poor casework needs to be addressed at every level; casework must be appropriately skilled and resourced, and subject to more effective quality assurance. Although all immigration detainees have a right to apply for bail to the courts, there is currently no routine independent system of reviewing cases that can identify and correct what we found during this thematic inspection. We have therefore recommended that an independent panel should be established to review the cases of all individuals who are held for lengthy periods. Where the panel recommends release, UKBA would be required to review the case and publish its response. We believe this would motivate change in the system, and ensure that some of the shortcomings that we have identified here are addressed. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Prisons and Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, 2012. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 17, 2013 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmipris/thematic-reports-and-research-publications/immigration-detention-casework-2012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmipris/thematic-reports-and-research-publications/immigration-detention-casework-2012.pdf Shelf Number: 127287 Keywords: Illegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant Detention (U.K.)Immigration |
Author: Appleseed Title: Forcing Our Blues into Gray Areas: Local Police and Federal Immigration Enforcement. A Legal Guide for Advocates Revised and Updated Summary: The laws governing the proper role of the local police in stopping, arresting, questioning, and detaining individuals in an effort to enforce federal immigration law are far from settled, and the policy debate is moving quickly. For decades, as a result of policy directives issued by the federal government itself, it was understood that state and local police could not stop, arrest, or detain individuals for civil violations of the immigration law, such as being present in the United States without authorization. However, in recent years, the Department of Justice and some members of Congress have encouraged an expanded role for state and local police in immigration enforcement. One arm of the Department of Justice, the Office of Legal Counsel, even went so far as to opine that local police have “inherent authority” to enforce immigration laws – a position that is far from clearly supported by then-existing or present case law. In fact, the Department of Justice kept its newfound position secret from the public and refused to release the memo detailing it until required to do so by court order. This dramatic shift by some at the federal level has continued. Federal officials have increased the frequency of raids on immigrants, creating tension between local officials and the communities they seek to protect. However, in recognition of the fact that adopting local immigration enforcement policies is misguided and would actually make it more difficult to fight terrorism and crime, an increasing number of police departments, local governments, and others oppose initiatives to either mandate or encourage local police to intervene in federal immigration enforcement efforts. “Forcing Our Blues Into Gray Areas: Local Police and Federal Immigration Enforcement” contains legal and practical guidelines to combat local anti-immigrant ordinances. It also describes troubling legal and political efforts to involve local police in federal immigration matters, which leads to improper enforcement and a diversion of local safety resources. Details: Washington, DC: Appleseed, 2008. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 24, 2013 at: http://www.waappleseed.org/media/Forcing_Our_Blues_Into_Gray_Areas2008.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://www.waappleseed.org/media/Forcing_Our_Blues_Into_Gray_Areas2008.pdf Shelf Number: 127382 Keywords: Illegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrantsImmigration Enforcement (U.S.) |
Author: Manuel, Kate M. Title: Prosecutorial Discretion in Immigration Enforcement: Legal Issues Summary: The term prosecutorial discretion is commonly used to describe the wide latitude that prosecutors have in determining when, whom, how, and even whether to prosecute apparent violations of the law. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and, later, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its components have historically described themselves as exercising prosecutorial discretion in immigration enforcement. Some commentators have recently challenged this characterization on the grounds that DHS enforces primarily civil violations, and some of its components cannot be said to engage in "law enforcement," as that term is conventionally understood. However, even agencies that do not prosecute or engage in law enforcement have been recognized as having discretion (sometimes referred to as enforcement discretion) in determining whether to enforce particular violations. Federal regulation of immigration is commonly said to arise from various powers enumerated in the Constitution (e.g., naturalization, commerce), as well as the federal government's inherent power to control and conduct foreign relations. Some, although not all, of these powers belong exclusively to Congress, and courts have sometimes described Congress as having "plenary power" over immigration. However, few courts or commentators have addressed the separation of powers between Congress and the President in the field of immigration, and the executive has sometimes been said to share plenary power over immigration with Congress as one of the "political branches." Moreover, the authority to exercise prosecutorial or enforcement discretion has traditionally been understood to arise from the Constitution, not from any congressional delegation of power. Certain decisions have been widely recognized as within the prosecutorial discretion of immigration officers. These include deciding whether to initiate removal proceedings and what charges to lodge against the respondent; canceling a Notice to Appear or other charging document before jurisdiction vests with an immigration judge; granting deferred action or extended voluntary departure to an alien otherwise subject to removal (deportation); appealing particular decisions or orders; and imposing fines for particular offenses, among other things. Enforcement priorities and resources, as well as humanitarian concerns, have typically played a role in determining whether to exercise discretion in individual cases. For example, the George W. Bush Administration temporarily suspended employer sanctions in areas affected by Hurricane Katrina, and the Obama Administration recently began granting deferred action to certain unauthorized aliens brought to the United States as children. While the executive branch's prosecutorial or enforcement discretion is broad, it is not unfettered, and particular exercises of discretion could potentially be checked by the Constitution, statute, or agency directives. Selective prosecution, or prosecution based on race, religion, or the exercise of constitutional rights, is prohibited, although aliens generally cannot assert selective prosecution as a defense to removal. A policy of non-enforcement that amounts to an abdication of an agency's statutory responsibilities could potentially be said to violate the Take Care Clause. However, standing to challenge alleged violations of the Take Care Clause may be limited, and no court appears to have invalidated a policy of non-enforcement founded upon prosecutorial discretion on the grounds that the policy violated the Take Care Clause. Non-enforcement of particular laws could also potentially be challenged under the Administrative Procedure Act if a statute provides specific guidelines for the agency to follow in exercising its enforcement powers. In addition, an agency could potentially be found to have constrained its own discretion, as some courts found that the INS had done in the 1970s with its operating instruction on deferred action. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2013. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: CRS7-5700: Accessed January 24, 2013 at: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42924.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42924.pdf Shelf Number: 127386 Keywords: Illegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigration Enforcement (U.S.)Prosecutional Discretion |
Author: Hanson, Gordon H. Title: The Economics and Policy of Illegal Immigration in the United States Summary: Policymakers across the political spectrum share a belief that high levels of illegal immigration are an indictment of the current immigration policy regime. An estimated 12 million unauthorized immigrants live in the United States, and the past decade saw an average of 500,000 illegal entrants per year. Until recently, the presence of unauthorized immigrants was unofficially tolerated. But since 2001, policymakers have poured huge resources into securing US borders, ports, and airports; and since 2006, a growing range of policies has targeted unauthorized immigrants within the country and their employers. Notwithstanding these efforts, no agreement has materialized on a system to replace the status quo and, in particular, to divert illegal flows to legal ones. Policy inaction is a result not only of a partisan divide in Washington, but also of the underlying economic reality that despite its faults, illegal immigration has been hugely beneficial to many US employers, often providing benefits that the current legal immigration system does not. Unauthorized immigrants provide a ready source of manpower in agriculture, construction, food processing, building cleaning and maintenance, and other low-end jobs, at a time when the share of low-skilled native-born individuals in the US labor force has fallen dramatically. Not only do unauthorized immigrants provide an important source of low-skilled labor, they also respond to market conditions in ways that legal immigration presently cannot, making them particularly appealing to US employers. Illegal inflows broadly track economic performance, rising during periods of expansion and stalling during downturns (including the present one). By contrast, legal flows for low-skilled workers are both very small and relatively unresponsive to economic conditions. Green cards are almost entirely unavailable to low-skilled workers; while the two main low-skilled temporary visa programs (H-2A and H-2B) vary little over the economic cycle and in any case represent scarcely 1 percent of the current unauthorized population, making them an inconsequential component of domestic low-skilled employment. Despite all this, illegal immigration’s overall impact on the US economy is small. Low-skilled native workers who compete with unauthorized immigrants are the clearest losers. US employers, on the other hand, gain from lower labor costs and the ability to use their land, capital, and technology more productively. The stakes are highest for the unauthorized immigrants themselves, who see very substantial income gains after migrating. If we exclude these immigrants from the calculus, however (as domestic policymakers are naturally inclined to do), the small net gain that remains after subtracting US workers’ losses from US employers’ gains is tiny. And if we account for the small fiscal burden that unauthorized immigrants impose, the overall economic benefit is close enough to zero to be essentially a wash. Where does this leave policymakers? Any new reform effort will have to take a stand on preventing versus facilitating inflows of low-skilled foreign labor. Legislation is expected to embrace aspects of two different strategies: enforcement strategies designed to prevent illegal immigration, and accommodation strategies designed to divert illegal flows through legal channels using legalization and expanded legal options for future prospective migrants. Since US spending on enforcement activities is already very high, sizeable increases in enforcement resources could easily cost far more than the tax savings they generated from reduced illegal presence in the United States. Because the net impact of illegal immigration on the US economy does not appear to be very large, one would be hard pressed to justify a substantial increase in spending on border and interior enforcement, at least in terms of its aggregate economic return. A more constructive immigration policy would aim to generate maximum productivity gains to the US economy while limiting the fiscal cost and keeping enforcement spending contained. Effectively, this means converting existing inflows of illegal immigrants into legal flows. It does not have to mean increasing the total number of low-skilled foreign workers in the labor force. Policies designed to achieve this would: • provide sufficient legal channels of entry to low-skilled workers by expanding legal options for immigration while maintaining reasonable enforcement of immigration laws; • allow inflows to fluctuate with the economy; • create incentives for both employers and immigrants to play by the rules by ensuring meaningful enforcement at US worksites and rewarding workers for their compliance by giving them the chance to seek legal permanent residence; and • mitigate the fiscal impact of low-skilled immigration by charging a fee for legal entry or taxing employers. Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2009. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 5, 2013 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/hanson-dec09.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/hanson-dec09.pdf Shelf Number: 127480 Keywords: Illegal AliensIllegal Immigrants (U.S.)ImmigrationImmigration Policy |
Author: Wasem, Ruth Ellen Title: Unauthorized Aliens Residing in the United States: Estimates Since 1986 Summary: Estimates derived from the March Supplement of the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS) indicate that the unauthorized resident alien population (commonly referred to as illegal aliens) rose from 3.2 million in 1986 to 12.4 million in 2007, before leveling off at 11.1 million in 2011. The estimated number of unauthorized aliens had dropped to 1.9 million in 1988 following passage of a 1986 law that legalized several million unauthorized aliens. Jeffrey Passel, a demographer with the Pew Hispanic Research Center, has been involved in making these estimations since he worked at the U.S. Bureau of the Census in the 1980s. Similarly, the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) reported an estimated 11.5 million unauthorized alien residents as of January 2011, up from 8.5 million in January 2000. The OIS estimated that the unauthorized resident alien population in the United States increased by 37% over the period 2000 to 2008, before leveling off since 2009. The OIS estimated that 6.8 million of the unauthorized alien residents in 2011 were from Mexico. About 33% of unauthorized residents in 2011 were estimated to have entered the United States since 2000, but the rate of illegal entry appears to be slowing. The OIS based its estimates on data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. Although increased border security, a record number of alien removals, and high unemployment, among other factors, have depressed the levels of illegal migration in recent years, the number of unauthorized aliens residing in the United States remains sizeable. Research suggests that various factors have contributed to the ebb and flow of unauthorized resident aliens, and that the increase is often attributed to the “push-pull” of prosperity-fueled job opportunities in the United States in contrast to limited job opportunities in the sending countries. Accordingly, the economic recession that began in December 2007 may have curbed the migration of unauthorized aliens, particularly because sectors that traditionally rely on unauthorized aliens, such as construction, services, and hospitality, have been especially hard hit. Some researchers also suggest that the increased size of the unauthorized resident population during the late 1990s and early 2000s is an inadvertent consequence of border enforcement and immigration control policies. They posit that strengthened border security curbed the fluid movement of seasonal workers. This interpretation, generally referred to as a caging effect, argues that these policies raised the stakes in crossing the border illegally and created an incentive for those who succeed in entering the United States to stay. More recently, some maintain that strengthened border security measures, such as “enforcement with consequences,” coordinated efforts with Mexico to reduce illegal migrant recidivism, and increased border patrol agents, may be part of a constellation of factors holding down the flow. The current system of legal immigration is cited as another factor contributing to unauthorized migration. The statutory ceilings that limit the type and number of immigrant visas issued each year create long waits for visas. According to this interpretation, many foreign nationals who have family in the United States resort to illegal avenues in frustration over the delays. Some researchers speculate that record number of alien removals (e.g., reaching almost 400,000 annually since FY2009) may cause a chilling effect on family members weighing unauthorized residence. Some observers point to more elusive factors when assessing the ebb and flow of unauthorized resident aliens—such as shifts in immigration enforcement priorities away from illegal entry to removing suspected terrorists and criminal aliens, or well-publicized discussions of possible “amnesty” legislation. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Services, 2012. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: RL33874: Accessed February 13, 2013 at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33874.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33874.pdf Shelf Number: 127607 Keywords: Border SecurityIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigration Policies (U.S.) |
Author: Australian Lawyers for Human Rights Title: People Smugglers: Saviours or Criminals? A report on 16 convicted people smugglers in Australia between 2001 - 2006 Summary: With the emergence of the 24 hour news cycle, Australian political debate has been reduced, more than ever before, to a series of catch phrases and oversimplifications. One such example is the slogan ‘stop the boats’. Such techniques fail to communicate the complexity of important issues and tend to create false generalisations in areas of debate that require a more balanced approach. The title of this report draws on a clear conflict in perceptions of people smugglers: not all people smugglers can be considered saviours, nor can they all be criminals. What is required is a balanced approach that appreciates the individual circumstances of each case. This report responds to exaggerations and generalisations that surround the debate on people smugglers, by providing guidance through research into 16 convicted people smugglers in Australia between 2001 to 2006, and an analysis of the portrayal of people smugglers in Australian political rhetoric and the Australian media. This report contains seven parts. Part One introduces the reader to ‘people smuggling’, looking at legal and political definitions. Part Two considers some historical examples of ‘people smuggling’ under Australian law. Part Three provides an analysis of the causes of people smuggling, for both passengers and smugglers. Part Four explores the trends in people smuggling in the Australian context. Part Five contains the main research component of this report: an analysis of 16 convicted people smugglers in Australia between 2001-2006. Part Six compares the portrayal of people smugglers in the Australian media, and in political rhetoric to the results that were obtained in Part Five. Part Seven provides some conclusions on the issues surrounding people smugglers in Australia. Details: Sydney: Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, 2010. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 22, 2013 at: www.alhr.asn.au Year: 2010 Country: Australia URL: Shelf Number: 127709 Keywords: Asylum SeekersHuman Smuggling (Australia)Illegal AliensIllegal Immigrants |
Author: National Research Council: Carriquiry, Alicia Title: Options for Estimating Illegal Entries at the U.S.-Mexico Border Summary: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is responsible for securing and managing the nation’s borders. Over the past decade, DHS has dramatically stepped up its enforcement efforts at the U.S.–Mexico border, increasing the number of U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) agents, expanding the deployment of technological assets, and implementing a variety of “consequence programs” intended to deter illegal immigration. During this same period, there has also been a sharp decline in the number of unauthorized migrants apprehended at the border. Trends in total apprehensions do not, however, by themselves speak to the effectiveness of DHS’s investments in immigration enforcement. In particular, to evaluate whether heightened enforcement efforts have contributed to reducing the flow of undocumented migrants, it is critical to estimate the number of border-crossing attempts during the same period for which apprehensions data are available. With these issues in mind, DHS charged the National Research Council (NRC) with providing guidance on the use of surveys and other methodologies to estimate the number of unauthorized crossings at the U.S.–Mexico border, preferably by geographic region and on a quarterly basis. The NRC appointed the Panel on Survey Options for Estimating the Flow of Unauthorized Crossings at the U.S.–Mexican Border to carry out this task. A better understanding of the magnitude, timing, and location of these flows will help DHS to better evaluate the effectiveness of its enforcement efforts and to more efficiently allocate its resources along the border. This study focuses on Mexican migrants since Mexican nationals account for the vast majority (around 90 percent) of attempted unauthorized border crossings across the U.S.–Mexico border. A discussion of the use of surveys and statistical methods to measure unauthorized border flows needs to be set in the context of border enforcement and the migration process, both current and past. The migration process is highly complex, and it is influenced by a variety of factors such as the economic, social, and environmental conditions in sending and destination areas; immigration policies; and interior and border enforcement. Furthermore, migrants and their smugglers have adapted, and can continue to adapt, to changes in resources and strategies on the U.S. side of the border, and enforcement efforts in one geographic area can have spillover effects into another. This situation argues for a broader conception of the border, not segmented into ports of entry and sectors between the ports of entry. The migration process is also dynamic and evolving, and survey designs and modeling approaches that may be well suited for capturing certain aspects of migration flows today may not be able to do so with the same reliability in the future. Thus, flexibility of design and continuous evaluation of how DHS is implementing border metrics will be of the utmost relevance. Within this context, one can assess the usefulness of different types of data to capture information on migration flows. There are a number of major surveys in the United States and Mexico that collect some information about migration and border crossing. On the U.S. side, the American Community Survey (ACS) and Current Population Survey (CPS) each target U.S. households. On the Mexican side, the “long questionnaire” of the Mexican Census of Housing and Population (administered to a 10 percent sample of the population in Mexico), the National Survey of Occupation and Employment (ENOE), the National Survey of Population Dynamics (ENADID), and the longitudinal Mexican Family Life Survey (MxFLS) target households at a national level. None of these surveys was specifically designed to study migration. The Mexican Migration Project (MMP) and Mexican Migration Field Research Program (MMFRP), in contrast, focus on studying migration, although the surveys are not based on probability sampling. The Survey of Migration at the Northern Border (EMIF-N), which has a probability sample conceptual basis, targets migrants passing through northern border cities of Mexico. Details: Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2013. 146p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 18, 2013 at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13498 Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13498 Shelf Number: 128011 Keywords: Border ControlBorder SecurityHomeland SecurityIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigration (U.S.) |
Author: Center for Victims of Torture Title: Tortured and Detained: Survivor Stories of U.S. Immigration Detention Summary: This report focuses on the personal and psychological aspects of the detention experience, from apprehension to release, and seeks to offer insights - through first-hand accounts to the extent possible - into what asylum seekers and survivors of torture are seeing, thinking, and feeling as they arrive in the United States, a perceived destination of "safety," and subsequently endure shock and confusion at being arrested and detained. This report does not attempt to provide a comprehensive assessment of the current state of the U.S. immigration detention system. The recommendations contained at the end focus on meeting the unique needs of survivors of torture but most would benefit the U.S. immigration detention system more broadly. The profiles in this report are comprised of selfreported information from the 22 individuals we interviewed in June and July of 2013, though the accounts described here are all consistent with secondary research into U.S. immigration laws, procedures, and practices. The challenges interviewees reported are, likewise, consistent with other in-depth reports of the U.S. immigration detention system. Secondary research into trauma and its effects as well as interviews with clinicians from CVT provided additional perspectives into the particular impact detention has on survivors of torture. All participants consented to having their stories included in this report and used for public purposes. However, to protect individual identities we have changed all names and chose not to include any information that would make the individual easily identifiable. Details: St. Paul, MN: Center for Victims of Torture, 2013. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 13, 2013 at: http://www.cvt.org/sites/cvt.org/files/Report_TorturedAndDetained_Nov2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.cvt.org/sites/cvt.org/files/Report_TorturedAndDetained_Nov2013.pdf Shelf Number: 131653 Keywords: Illegal Aliens Illegal ImmigrantsImmigrant Detention (U.S.)Torture |
Author: Flynn, Michael Title: How and Why Immigration Detention Crossed the Globe Summary: Today in countries across the globe, immigration-related detention has become an established policy apparatus that counts on dedicated facilities and burgeoning institutional bureaucracies. Before the decade of the 1980s, however, detention appears to have been largely an ad hoc tool, employed mainly by wealthy states in exigent circumstances. This paper details the history of key policy events that led to the diffusion of detention practices during the last 30 years and assesses some of the motives that appear to have encouraged this phenomenon. The paper also endeavors to place the United States at the center of this story because its policy decisions were instrumental in initiating the process of policy innovation, imitation, and - in many cases - imposition that has helped give rise to today's global immigration detention phenomenon. More broadly, in telling this story, this paper seeks to flesh out some of the larger policy implications of beyond-the-borders immigration control regimes. Just as offshore interdiction and detention schemes raise important questions about custody, accountability, and sovereignty, they should also spur questions over where responsibility for the wellbeing of migrants begins and ends. As this paper demonstrates, when it comes to immigration detention, all the answers cannot be found just at home. Details: Geneva, Switzerland: Global Detention Project, Programme for the Study of Global Migration, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, 2014. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Global Detention Project Working Paper No. 8: Accessed May 3, 2014 at: http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/fileadmin/publications/Flynn_diffusion_WorkingPaper_v2.pdf Year: 2014 Country: International URL: http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/fileadmin/publications/Flynn_diffusion_WorkingPaper_v2.pdf Shelf Number: 132215 Keywords: Illegal Aliens Immigrant Detention Immigrants ImmigrationImmigration EnforcementImmigration PolicyUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: Manuel, Kate M. Title: Immigration Detainers: Legal Issues Summary: An "immigration detainer" is a document by which U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) advises other law enforcement agencies of its interest in individual aliens whom these agencies are detaining. ICE and its predecessor, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), have used detainers as one means of obtaining custody of aliens for removal proceedings since at least 1950. However, the nationwide implementation of the Secure Communities program between 2008 and 2013 has prompted numerous questions about detainers. This program relies upon information sharing between various levels and agencies of government to identify potentially removable aliens. Detainers may then be issued for these aliens. Prior to 1986, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) did not explicitly address detainers, and the INS appears to have issued detainers pursuant to its "general authority" to guard U.S. borders and boundaries against the illegal entry of aliens, among other things. However, in 1986, Congress amended the INA to address the issuance of detainers for aliens arrested for controlled substance offenses. After the 1986 amendments, INS promulgated two regulations, one addressing the issuance of detainers for controlled substance offenses and the other addressing detainers for other offenses. These regulations were merged in 1997 and currently address various topics, including who may issue detainers and the temporary detention of aliens by other law enforcement agencies. There is also a standard detainer form (Form I-247) that allows ICE to indicate that it has taken actions that could lead to the alien's removal, and request that another agency take actions that could facilitate such removal (e.g., notify ICE before the alien's release). Some commentators and advocates for immigrants' rights have asserted that, because the INA addresses only detainers for controlled substance offenses, ICE's detainer regulations and practices are beyond its statutory authority insofar as detainers are used for other offenses. A federal district court in California found otherwise in its 2009 decision in Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County v. County of Sonoma. However, subsequent litigation has raised the issue anew in other jurisdictions. Some have also suggested that a federal regulation - which provides that law enforcement agencies receiving immigration detainers "shall maintain custody of the alien for a period [generally] not to exceed 48 hours" - means that states and localities are required to hold aliens for ICE. Prior versions of Form I-247 may also have been construed as requiring compliance with detainers. However, in its recent decision in Galarza v. Szalczyk, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected this view. Instead, it adopted the same interpretation of the regulation that DHS has advanced, construing it as prescribing the maximum period of any detention pursuant to a detainer, rather than mandating detention. However, district courts in other jurisdictions have indicated that they view the regulation as requiring states and localities to hold aliens for ICE. In addition, questions have been raised about who has custody of aliens subject to detainers, and whether the detainer practices of state, local, and/or federal governments impinge upon aliens' constitutional rights. Answers to these questions may depend upon the facts and circumstances of particular cases. For example, courts have found that the filing of a detainer, in itself, does not result in an alien being in federal custody, although aliens could be found to be in federal custody if they are subject to final orders of removal. Similarly, courts may be less likely to find that the issuance of a particular detainer violates an alien's constitutional rights if a warrant of arrest in removal proceedings is attached to the detainer, than if the alien is held after he or she would have been released because ICE has reason to believe he or she is removable. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2014. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: R42690: Accessed May 15, 2014 at: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42690.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42690.pdf Shelf Number: 132374 Keywords: Illegal AliensImmigrant DetentionImmigrants and CrimeImmigrationUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: Manuel, Kate M. Title: Unaccompanied Alien Children - Legal Issues: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions Summary: Recent reports about the increasing number of alien minors apprehended at the U.S. border without a parent or legal guardian have prompted numerous questions about so-called unaccompanied alien children (UACs). Some of these questions pertain to the numbers of children involved, their reasons for coming to the United States, and current and potential responses of the federal government and other entities to their arrival. Other questions concern the interpretation and interplay of various federal statutes and regulations, administrative and judicial decisions, and settlement agreements pertaining to alien minors. This report addresses the latter questions, providing general and relatively brief answers to 14 frequently asked questions regarding UACs. Some of the questions and answers in the report provide basic definitions and background information relevant to discussions of UACs, such as the legal definition of unaccompanied alien child; the difference between being a UAC and having Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) status; the terms and enforcement of the Flores settlement agreement; and why UACs encountered at a port of entry-as some recent arrivals have been-are not turned away on the grounds that they are inadmissible. Other questions and answers explore which federal agencies have primary responsibility for maintaining custody of alien children without immigration status; removal proceedings against such children; the release of alien minors from federal custody; the "best interest of the child" standard; and whether UACs could obtain asylum due to gang violence in their home countries. Yet other questions and answers address whether UACs have a right to counsel at the government's expense; their ability under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations to have consular officials of their home country notified of their detention; and whether UACs are eligible for inclusion in the Obama Administration's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2014. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: R43623: Accessed August 11, 2014 at: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43623.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43623.pdf Shelf Number: 132989 Keywords: Border SecurityIllegal Aliens Illegal ImmigrantsUndocumented AliensUndocumented Children (U.S.) |
Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Immigration Detention: Additional Actions Needed to Strengthen Management and Oversight of Facility Costs and Standards Summary: Within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) uses two different methods to collect and assess data on detention costs; however, these methods do not provide ICE with complete data for managing detention costs across facilities and facility types. One method uses the agency's financial management system to estimate total detention costs per detainee per day for the purposes of developing ICE's annual detention budget request. However, ICE identified errors in the entry of data into this system and limitations in the system make it difficult for ICE to accurately record expenditures for individual facilities. ICE's other method involves the manual tracking of monthly costs by individual facilities for the purposes of reviewing data on individual facility costs. However, this method does not include data on all costs for individual facilities, such as for medical care and transportation, and such costs are not standardized within or across facility types. Thus, ICE does not have complete data for tracking and managing detention costs across facilities and facility types. ICE has taken some steps to strengthen its financial management system, such as implementing manual work-arounds to, among other things, better link financial transactions to individual facilities. However, ICE has not assessed the extent to which these manual work-arounds position ICE to better track and manage costs across facilities or facility types and the extent to which additional controls are needed to address limitations in its methods for collecting and assessing detention costs, in accordance with federal internal control standards. Conducting these assessments could better position ICE to have more reliable data for tracking and managing costs across facility types. GAO's analysis of ICE facility data showed that ICE primarily used three sets of detention standards, with the most recent and rigorous standards applied to 25 facilities housing about 54 percent of ICE's average daily population (ADP) as of January 2014. ICE plans to expand the use of these standards to 61 facilities housing 89 percent of total ADP by the end of fiscal year 2014; however, transition to these standards has been delayed by cost issues and contract negotiations and ICE does not have documentation for reasons why some facilities cannot be transitioned to the most recent standards in accordance with internal control standards. Documenting such reasons could provide an institutional record and help increase transparency and accountability in ICE's management of detention facilities. GAO's analysis of ICE facility oversight programs showed that ICE applied more oversight mechanisms at facilities housing the majority of the ADP in fiscal year 2013. For example, 94 percent of detainees were housed in facilities that received an annual inspection. GAO's analysis of ICE's inspection reports showed that inspection results differed for 29 of 35 facilities inspected by both ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and Office of Detention Oversight (ODO) in fiscal year 2013. ICE officials stated that ODO and ERO have not discussed differences in inspection results and whether oversight mechanisms are functioning as intended. Assessing the reasons why inspection results differ, in accordance with internal control standards, could help ICE better ensure that inspection mechanisms are working as intended. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2014. 73p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-15-153: Accessed October 11, 2014 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/666467.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/666467.pdf Shelf Number: 133931 Keywords: Illegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant Detention (U.S.)ImmigrantsImmigrationImmigration Policy |
Author: Police Executive Research Forum Title: Responding to Migrant Deaths Along the Southwest Border: Lessons from the Field Summary: The United States is grappling with a migration crisis. Since the late 1990s, migrants from Mexico and Central America have been dying by the thousands as they cross into the United States through the unforgiving deserts and scrubland of the Southwest United States. Agencies along the U.S.-Mexico border have been stretched thin as they have tried to save migrants in distress and, when those efforts fail, identify the deceased and return their remains to their loved ones. In 2013, with support from the Ford Foundation, the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) began to explore the issue of migrant deaths along the Southwestern border and identify strategies to reduce these fatalities. PERF staff members travelled to Mexico City and South Texas to meet with practitioners and conducted in-depth interviews of experts and stakeholders from nonprofit organizations, local and federal law enforcement agencies, medical examiners’ offices, and universities. After gathering input from these representatives, PERF held an unprecedented, multi-state, multi-agency meeting in Washington, D.C. on June 1, 2016 to discuss interdisciplinary partnership-building and strategies to reduce migrant deaths and improve processes for identifying and repatriating migrants’ remains. This report is the result of PERF’s efforts. It highlights the factors that contribute to the migrant deaths crisis; identifies the key stakeholders in the field and the resources that they represent; examines the partnership-building efforts that are already in place along the border to increase successful rescues of migrants in distress and improve identifications of those who perish; and presents new opportunities for collaboration and information-sharing moving forward. This report serves as a chronicle of the efforts of practitioners in the field, highlights the crisis of migrant deaths in the Southwest, and proposes short-term and long-term solutions for practitioners and policy-makers. It is important to recognize that the migrant deaths crisis is a large-scale humanitarian issue. More than 6,500 migrants have died along the U.S-Mexican border since 1998, and that number is almost certainly an underestimate of the scale of the tragedy. While this report provides guidance on how to reduce these deaths now, in the current legal environment, the real solution lies in comprehensive immigration reform legislation that will provide new pathways to legal immigration and reduce incentives for attempting dangerous illegal border crossings. Details: Washington, DC: PERF, 2016. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 14, 2016 at: http://www.policeforum.org/assets/respondingmigrantdeaths.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.policeforum.org/assets/respondingmigrantdeaths.pdf Shelf Number: 146666 Keywords: Border SecurityHuman RightsIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigration PoliciesMigrant Deaths |
Author: Caicedo, David A. Title: Alien, Illegal, Undocumented: Labeling, Context, and Worldview in the Immigration Debate and in the Lives of Undocumented Youth Summary: A key element of investigating attitudes towards unauthorized immigrants in the United States has been political orientation, yet few studies have examined the influence of such orientation on labels relevant to the immigration debate. The current dissertation project examined these attitudes among young adults using survey, focus group, and interview methodologies. Level of agreement on various statements regarding unauthorized immigrants was examined in Study I, definitions given for the labels 'illegal' and 'undocumented' were explored in Study II, and the lived experience of undocumented youth in two community colleges was investigated in Study III. It was hypothesized that: I) attitudes concerning unauthorized immigrants are a function of present social labels, regardless of political orientation; II) social label definitions reflect distinct cognitive processes; and III) the lived experiences of undocumented students reflect the respective social environments of an urban and suburban community college. Participants in Study I were 744 (463 urban/272 suburban) young adults, all who were recruited from "New York Community College" (NYCC, urban) and "New Jersey Community College" (NJCC, suburban); participants in Study II were 14 (8 NYCC, 6 NJCC) young adults; and participants in Study III were 7 (4 NYCC, 3 NJCC) young adults. Participants in Study I were asked to complete an attitude on unauthorized immigrants scale, followed by the General System Justification scale, and finally a self-reported social label exposure measure. Participants in Study II were asked to generate definitions for the labels 'illegal' and 'undocumented'. Participants in Study III were asked about their life experiences as undocumented young adults in either NY or NJ. Contrary to hypothesis I, statistical analysis demonstrated that the priming of social labels did not account for attitudes, but it was rather the participants’ college that reflected divergent attitudes. Moreover, urban college students reported seeing and hearing the term ‘undocumented’ more often from others, while suburban college students reported seeing and hearing the terms 'illegal' and 'alien' more. Values analysis in Study II demonstrated a pattern of dichotomous and legal-centered thinking with the 'illegal' definitions, while situational and circumstantial thinking was present with the 'undocumented' definitions. Values analysis in Study III reflected a pattern of shared and unshared beliefs and principles regarding themselves, others, and the future centered on "growing up undocumented" in NY and NJ. Specifically, regardless of location, students who reported being undocumented held values concerning perseverance and the need to hide their status but also to be understood by others; while depending on location, values either reflected the importance of improving one's family condition, or one’s own personal trajectory. Findings are discussed in the context of the U.S. immigration debate discourse. Implications for understanding how the presence of others and social labels influence sociopolitical attitudes, as well as how social environment directly impacts psychological development in undocumented youth, are considered. Details: New York: City University of New York, 2016. 170p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed March 20, 2017 at: http://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1794&context=gc_etds Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1794&context=gc_etds Shelf Number: 144520 Keywords: Illegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrationMigrantsUndocumented ImmigrantsUndocumented PersonsUndocumented Youth |