Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 12:36 am
Time: 12:36 am
Results for illegal immigrants (u.s.)
19 results foundAuthor: Fitz, Marshall Title: The Costs of Mass Deportation: Impractical, Expensive, and Ineffective Summary: This paper argues that mass deportation of undocumented immigrants is prohibitively expensive and will trigger profound collateral consequences. The report analyses publicly available data to assess the costs and steps required to carry out such a policy - from point of arrest through transportation out of the country. The report adopts conservative assumptions for key variables to ensure that the estimated program and spending requirements are realistic and not overstated. The findings show conclusively that a deportation-only immigration strategy would be extremely expensive. Details: Washington, DC: center for American Progress, 2010. 23p. Source: Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118347 Keywords: DeportationIllegal Immigrants (U.S.)Immigration Policy (U.S.) |
Author: Branche, Afton Title: The Cost of Failure: The Burden of Immigration Enforcement in America's Cities Summary: Faced with gaping budget shortfalls, communities across America are struggling to preserve core public services. Yet amidst cutbacks to education, street repairs, and even fire protection, one growing burden on our cities has gone largely unexamined: the local costs of enforcing the nation’s federal immigration laws. This paper explores the fiscal, administrative, public safety and civic costs that cities incur as they assume increased responsibility for immigration enforcement. We find that while the vast majority of Americans believe that the nation’s immigration system needs to be reformed, the current laws are being enforced more rigorously than ever – and our fiscally strapped cities are bearing too much of the cost. Drawing on the latest research in cities around the country, we examine three federal-local partnership programs that leverage urban communities and their resources in service of federal immigration enforcement goals—287(g), Secure Communities and the Criminal Alien Program. We find that these programs impose high costs on city budgets and local economies, prove counterproductive to protecting public safety, and draw support from a misguided understanding of the relationship between immigration and crime. KEY FINDINGS Local immigration enforcement is costly for city budgets and local economies. One joint federal-local enforcement program, 287(g), costs many local governments more than a million dollars in unreimbursed costs a year. Mecklenburg County, NC, spent an estimated $5.3 million to set up and operate the 287(g) program in its first year. According to the Government Accountability Office, 62 percent of local law enforcement agencies that participate in 287(g) receive no federal reimbursement for any costs associated with the program. The federal government reimburses cities for less than a quarter of city and county costs for jailing immigrants who have committed crimes, an expense incurred under all the federal-local enforcement programs. Immigrants produce 20 percent of the economic output in the nation’s largest metropolitan areas, according to the Fiscal Policy Institute. When immigration enforcement programs succeed in pushing local immigrant populations underground, local economies suffer: businesses close, jobs and tax revenue are lost. Local immigration enforcement is counterproductive to public safety. Enforcing civil immigration law diverts police time and resources away from criminal matters. In one extreme case, when Maricopa County, AZ began immigration enforcement, local deputies arrived late two-thirds of the time to the most serious emergency 911 calls. County detectives’ arrest rates for criminal investigations plummeted. Local immigration enforcement undermines police-community relationships in immigrant communities, deterring crime reporting. In Salt Lake City, UT, experts found that one in three city residents are unwilling to report drug-related crimes when local law enforcement has the power to detain based on immigration status. The growth of Secure Communities, a mandatory program for local governments, undermines successful community policing strategies including policies in which local authorities agree not to inquire about the immigration status of crime victims and suspects. Local immigration enforcement is misguided as a crime control strategy. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reportedly aims to target non-citizens who have committed serious crimes. Yet 57 percent of immigrants identified by the Criminal Alien Program and 65 percent of those identified by 287(g) in FY 2009 were never convicted of a crime. Since October 2008, Secure Communities has transferred over 52,000 non-criminal immigrants to ICE custody. Among the immigrants detained by local law enforcement who were convicted of crimes, many were charged with minor offenses. In Davidson County, TN, 75 percent of immigrants marked for deportation were picked up for traffic offenses. In Irving, TX, 98 percent of individuals held under immigration detainers were charged with misdemeanors. Proponents of local immigration enforcement make false connections between immigration and crime. According to decades of research, immigrants—including undocumented immigrants—don’t commit crimes at higher rates than U.S.-born residents. The majority of communities have low or declining crime rates when they sign local immigration enforcement agreements. The proliferation of local 287(g) agreements is more closely linked to the rapid growth of a region’s immigrant population (including legal residents as well as unauthorized immigrants) and to its ideological bent than it is to rates of violent or property crime. The consequences of immigration policy decisions made—or avoided—at the federal level manifest on the ground in cities, where millions of immigrants and their families have settled. Effective immigration enforcement in cities will ultimately require a comprehensive reform of our immigration policy, including a more flexible visa program to encourage legal entry and a path to legal residence and citizenship status for currently undocumented immigrants. Federal policies that provide for the legalization and integration of immigrants and their families will help address the challenges faced by new destination cities confronting rapid demographic change. Without these and other immigration reforms, our expanding local enforcement system will continue to burden our cities and sweep up hundreds of thousands of non-criminal immigrants who are supporting urban economies by living, working and raising families. Details: Washington, DC: Drum Major Institute for Public Policy, 2011. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 24, 2011 at: http://www.drummajorinstitute.org/pdfs/DMI_Cost_of_Failure.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.drummajorinstitute.org/pdfs/DMI_Cost_of_Failure.pdf Shelf Number: 122897 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeIllegal Immigrants (U.S.)ImmigrationImmigration 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Mehlman-Orozco, K. Title: Smuggling and the Likelihood of Detention: An Exploratory Study of Undocumented Migrants in Northern Virginia Summary: Current political and security realties have focused attention on the mechanisms of undocumented migration at the US southern border. Although data show that the incidence of human smuggling has increased, it is unclear whether smuggled undocumented migrants evade detention more often than non-smuggled undocumented migrants. Do smuggled undocumented migrants evade detention more than undocumented migrants who cross without the help of smugglers? This study uses survey data collected from a convenience sample of day laborers in Northern Virginia to provide an exploratory answer to this question. Bivariate analyses of undocumented migrant entry and detention in the United States provides statistically significant evidence that smuggled undocumented migrants are less likely to be detained than undocumented migrants who traveled individually. This evidence suggests that smuggled undocumented migrants may be continuing to evade border security at a greater rate than individual migrants. Details: Alexandria, VA: Justitia Institute, 2012. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 13, 2013 at: http://www.justitiainstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/TJISmugglingReport.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.justitiainstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/TJISmugglingReport.pdf Shelf Number: 127597 Keywords: Border SecurityHuman SmugglingIllegal Immigrants (U.S.)Immigration |
Author: Caponi, Vincenzo Title: Empirical Characteristics of Legal and Illegal Immigrants in the U.S. Summary: We combine the New Immigrant Survey (NIS), which contains information on US legal immigrants, with the American Community Survey (ACS), which contains information on legal and illegal immigrants to the U.S. Using econometric methodology proposed by Lancaster and Imbens (1996) we compute the probability for each observation in the ACS data to refer to an illegal immigrant, conditional on observed characteristics. The results for illegal versus legal immigrants are novel, since no other work has quantified the characteristics of illegal immigrants from a random sample. We find that, compared to legal immigrants, illegal immigrants are more likely to be less educated, males, and married with their spouse not present. These results are heterogeneous across education categories, country of origin (Mexico) and whether professional occupations are included or not in the analysis. Forecasts for the distribution of legal and illegal characteristics match aggregate imputations by the Department of Homeland Security. We find that, while illegal immigrants suffer a wage penalty compared to legal immigrants, returns to higher education remain large and positive. Details: Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), 2013. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Discussion Paper No. 7304; Accessed April 4, 2013 at: http://ftp.iza.org/dp7304.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://ftp.iza.org/dp7304.pdf Shelf Number: 128258 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants (U.S.)Immigration |
Author: Capps, Randy Title: A Demographic, Socioeconomic, and Health Coverage Profile of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States Summary: This issue brief provides all kinds of useful and interesting data about unauthorized immigrants currently living in the U.S. The final section of the brief lays out some of the policy implications of the data they have compiled, both in terms of immigration reform and implementation of the Affordable Care Act. For example, under the immigration reform bill that is currently under consideration in the Senate, unauthorized immigrants who are granted registered provisional status (which would permit them to reside and work here legally) would be ineligible for Medicaid or most other federal benefits. MPI’s data suggests that 71% of unauthorized immigrants (47% of children) are uninsured, and the vast majority of them have incomes that fall below the federal poverty level. So it appear that many RPI status holders would struggle to obtain medical insurance under the Senate bill. Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2013. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: Issue Brief No. 5: Accessed June 3, 2013 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/CIRbrief-Profile-Unauthorized.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/CIRbrief-Profile-Unauthorized.pdf Shelf Number: 128924 Keywords: Health CareIllegal Immigrants (U.S.)Immigration |
Author: Martinez, Daniel E. Title: A Continued Humanitarian Crisis at the Border: Undocumented Border Crosser Deaths Recorded by the Pima County Office of the Medical Examiner, 1990-2012 Summary: This report analyzes the numeric trends and demographic characteristics of the deaths of undocumented border crossers in the area covered by the Pima County Office of the Medical Examiner which is located in the city of Tucson, Arizona. This office provides medico-legal death investigation for the western two-thirds of the Tucson Sector’s southern border with Mexico (Anderson 2008) and has been the office responsible for the examination of over 95% of all migrant remains discovered in Arizona since 2003 (Coalición de Derechos Humanos 2013). The data for this report come from the Pima County Office of the Medical Examiner. Details: Tucson, AZ: The Binational Migration Institute, The University of Arizona, 2013. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 6, 2013 at: http://bmi.arizona.edu/sites/default/files/border_deaths_final_web.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://bmi.arizona.edu/sites/default/files/border_deaths_final_web.pdf Shelf Number: 128974 Keywords: Border SecurityIllegal Immigrants (U.S.)Immigration PoliciesMigrant DeathsUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: American Immigration Council Title: The Growth of the U.S. Deportation Machine: More Immigrants are being "Removed" from the United States than Ever Before Summary: Despite some highly public claims to the contrary, there has been no waning of immigration enforcement in the United States. In fact, the U.S. deportation machine has grown larger in recent years, indiscriminately consuming criminals and non-criminals alike, be they unauthorized immigrants or long-time legal permanent residents (LPRs). Deportations under the Obama administration alone are now approaching the two-million mark. But the deportation frenzy began long before this milestone. The federal government has, for nearly two decades, been pursuing an enforcement-first approach to immigration control that favors mandatory detention and deportation over the traditional discretion of a judge to consider the unique circumstances of every case. The end result has been a relentless campaign of imprisonment and expulsion aimed at noncitizens - a campaign authorized by Congress and implemented by the executive branch. While this campaign precedes the Obama administration by many years, it has grown immensely during his tenure in the White House. In part, this is the result of laws which have put the expansion of deportations on automatic. But the continued growth of deportations also reflects the policy choices of the Obama administration. Rather than putting the brakes on this non-stop drive to deport more and more people, the administration chose to add fuel to the fire. Details: Washington, DC: American Immigration Council, Immigration Policy Center, 2014. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 2, 2014 at: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/deportation_machine_march_2014_final.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/deportation_machine_march_2014_final.pdf Shelf Number: 133554 Keywords: DeportationsIllegal Immigrants (U.S.)Immigrant DetentionImmigration PolicyImmigration Reform |
Author: Pew Research Center Title: More Prioritize Border Security in Immigration Debate. How to Accommodate Undocumented Central American Children in the U.S.? Summary: How to Accommodate Undocumented Central American Children in the U.S.? The national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted August 20-24 among 1,501 adults, finds that 33% say the priority should be on better border security and tougher enforcement of immigration laws, while 23% prioritize creating a way for people in the U.S. illegally to become citizens if they meet certain conditions. About four-in-ten (41%) say both should be given equal priority. Details: Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, 2014. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 6, 2014 at: http://www.people-press.org/files/2014/09/9-3-14-Immigration-Release.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.people-press.org/files/2014/09/9-3-14-Immigration-Release.pdf Shelf Number: 133567 Keywords: Border SecurityIllegal Immigrants (U.S.)Immigration PolicyImmigration ReformMigrantsUndocumented Children |
Author: Rosenblum, Marc R. Title: Deportation and Discretion: Reviewing the Record and Options for Change Summary: Since Congress revamped the immigration enforcement system in 1996, the United States has formally deported ("removed") more than 4.6 million noncitizens, with about 3.7 million of these occurring since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2003. While the administrations of both George W. Bush and Barack Obama have actively increased formal removals and the criminal prosecution of immigration violations, the Obama administration in particular has undertaken a series of measures to focus enforcement efforts on certain high-priority cases. The result has been an increase of removals within the interior of noncitizens convicted of crimes, with criminal removals accounting for 80 percent of interior removals during FY 2011-13. Another result of this focus has been a steep rise in border removals, which represented 70 percent of all removals in FY 2013. This report provides analysis of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) database of all formal removals for fiscal 2003-2013 in which the agency played a role, as well as those carried out solely by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The report offers a profile of deportees and examines how removal trends changed during and between the Bush and Obama administrations as well as how closely the deportations adhere to current DHS enforcement priorities. It also outlines some of the scenarios for executive action said to be under consideration by the Obama administration, examining how potential changes to enforcement policy could affect the number of deportations. The report's key findings include: - The largest category of convictions for criminal deportees was immigration crimes, accounting for 18 percent of criminal removals between FY 2003-13 (279,000 out of 1.5 million cases). The three next largest crime categories were FBI Part 1 crimes (a definition that includes homicide, aggravated assault and burglary, 15 percent of criminal removals during the period), FBI Part 2 crimes identified by MPI as violent offenses (14 percent) and FBI Part 2 crimes identified by MPI as nonviolent offenses (14 percent). - In the FY 2003-13 period, 95 percent of all DHS removals fell into one or more of the current enforcement priority categories, which reflect long-standing and broadly defined goals for DHS and previously the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) - There would have been about 191,000 fewer deportations over this period had DHS exercised discretion by foregoing removal for all cases not falling into the designated enforcement priorities - Interior removals of noncriminals fell sharply under the Obama administration, from 77,000 (43 percent) in FY 2009 to 17,000 (13 percent) in FY 2013. - Ninety-one percent of all removals during FY 2003-13 were from Mexico or the Northern Triangle countries of Central America (El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras). By comparison, about 73 percent of all unauthorized immigrants are from Mexico or Central America. - Deportations disproportionately affect men, who make up 91 percent of those removed even as they account for 53 percent of the overall unauthorized population. At a pivotal moment in the U.S. immigration debate, characterized by deadlock and crisis, this analysis contributes to the debates by addressing key questions surrounding immigration enforcement since 2003, namely: who is being removed, where are noncitizens being apprehended and how are they being removed, how are DHS's current enforcement priorities reflected in enforcement outcomes, and how might changes to DHS's priorities affect future deportations? Details: Washington, DC: Immigration Policy Institute, 2014. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed October 16, 2014 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/deportation-and-discretion-reviewing-record-and-options-change Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/deportation-and-discretion-reviewing-record-and-options-change Shelf Number: 133956 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants (U.S.)Immigrant DeportationImmigration EnforcementImmigration Policy |
Author: Hoekstra, Mark Title: Illegal Immigration, State Law, and Deterrence Summary: A critical immigration policy question is whether state and federal policy can deter undocumented workers from entering the U.S. We examine whether Arizona SB 1070, arguably the most restrictive and controversial state immigration law ever passed, deterred entry into Arizona. We do so by exploiting a unique data set from a survey of undocumented workers passing through Mexican border towns on their way to the U.S. Results indicate the bill's passage reduced the flow of undocumented immigrants into Arizona by 30 to 70 percent, suggesting that undocumented workers from Mexico are responsive to changes in state immigration policy. In contrast, we find no evidence that the law induced undocumented immigrants already in Arizona to return to Mexico. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2014. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working Paper No. 20801: Accessed January 31, 2015 at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w20801 Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w20801 Shelf Number: 134510 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants (U.S.)ImmigrationImmigration EnforcementImmigration PolicyUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: Siskin, Alison Title: Alien Removals and Returns: Overview and Trends Summary: The ability to remove foreign nationals (aliens) who violate U.S. immigration law is central to the immigration enforcement system. Some lawful migrants violate the terms of their admittance, and some aliens enter the United States illegally, despite U.S. immigration laws and enforcement. In 2012, there were an estimated 11.4 million resident unauthorized aliens; estimates of other removable aliens, such as lawful permanent residents who commit crimes, are elusive. With total repatriations of over 600,000 people in FY2013-including about 440,000 formal removals-the removal and return of such aliens have become important policy issues for Congress, and key issues in recent debates about immigration reform. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides broad authority to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to remove certain foreign nationals from the United States, including unauthorized aliens (i.e., foreign nationals who enter without inspection, aliens who enter with fraudulent documents, and aliens who enter legally but overstay the terms of their temporary visas) and lawfully present foreign nationals who commit certain acts that make them removable. Any foreign national found to be inadmissible or deportable under the grounds specified in the INA may be ordered removed. The INA describes procedures for making and reviewing such a determination, and specifies conditions under which certain grounds of removal may be waived. DHS officials may exercise certain forms of discretion in pursuing removal orders, and certain removable aliens may be eligible for permanent or temporary relief from removal. Certain grounds for removal (e.g., criminal grounds, terrorist grounds) render foreign nationals ineligible for most forms of relief and may make them eligible for more streamlined (expedited) removal processes. The "standard" removal process is a civil judicial proceeding in which an immigration judge from DOJ's Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) determines whether an alien is removable. Immigration judges may grant certain forms of relief during the removal process (e.g., asylum, cancellation of removal), and the judge's removal decisions are subject to administrative and judicial review. The INA also describes different types of streamlined removal procedures, which generally include more-limited opportunities for relief and grounds for review. In addition, two alternative forms of removal exempt aliens from certain penalties associated with formal removal: voluntary departure (return) and withdrawal of petition for admission. These are often called "returns." Following an order of removal, an alien is inadmissible for a minimum of five years after the date of the removal, and therefore is generally ineligible to return to the United States during this time period. The period of inadmissibility is determined by the reason for and type of removal. For example, a foreign national ordered removed based on removal proceedings initiated upon the foreign national's arrival is inadmissible for five years, while a foreign national ordered removed after being apprehended within the United States is inadmissible for 10 years. The length of inadmissibility increases to 20 years for an alien's second or subsequent removal order, and is indefinite for a foreign national convicted of an aggravated felony. Absent additional factors, unlawful presence in the United States is a civil violation, not a criminal offense, and removal and its associated administrative processes are civil proceedings. As such, aliens in removal proceedings generally have no right to counsel (though they may be represented by counsel at their own expense). In addition, because removal is not considered punishment by the courts, Congress may impose immigration consequences retroactively. There were a record number of removals between FY2009 and FY2013, including 438,421 removals in FY2013. Approximately 71% of the foreign nationals removed were from Mexico. However, during the same time period the number of returns (most of which occur at the Southwest border) decreased to a low of 178,371 in FY2013-the fewest returns since 1968. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Services, 2015. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: CRS Report No. R43892: Accessed February 16, 2015 at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43892.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43892.pdf Shelf Number: 134629 Keywords: DeportationIllegal Immigrants (U.S.)ImmigrationUndocumented Immigrants |