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 immigrant deportation
16 results foundAuthor: 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: University of Miami School of Law, Immigration Clinic Title: Aftershocks: The Human Impact of U.S. Deportations to Post-Earthquake Haiti Summary: Haiti still reels from the devastating effects of the January 12, 2010 earthquake that killed up to 300,000 people, rendered one in seven Haitians homeless, and wreaked $9 billion of damage in a country whose 2009 GDP was only $7 billion. The United States recognized the enormity of the crisis and granted Temporary Protected Status to eligible Haitians. Excluded from protection are individuals with certain criminal convictions (one felony or two misdemeanors). Over the past five years, the United States has forcibly returned approximately 1,500 men and women, including those with only minor criminal records, mothers and fathers of U.S. citizen children, people with severe medical and mental health conditions, and others. The result has been utterly devastating to deportees in Haiti and the families they leave behind in the United States. This report details the experiences of deportees - who sometimes refer to themselves as "strangers in a strange land" - and their U.S.-based family members. The report argues that the United States violates the fundamental human rights of Haitian nationals and their family members when it deports them to post-earthquake Haiti without due consideration of the deportees' individual circumstances and the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Haiti. Details: Miami: University of Miami School of law, Immigration Clinic, 2015. 92p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 19, 2015 at: http://www.law.miami.edu/clinics/pdf/2015/haiti-report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Haiti URL: http://www.law.miami.edu/clinics/pdf/2015/haiti-report.pdf Shelf Number: 134647 Keywords: Immigrant DeportationImmigrants (U.S.)Immigrants and CrimeImmigration |
Author: Cantor, Guillermo Title: Detained, Deceived, and Deported: Experiences of Recently Deported Central American Families Summary: Over the last few years, the escalation of violence in Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala (collectively known as the Northern Triangle of Central America) has reached dramatic levels. Thousands of women and their children have fled and arrived in the United States with the hope of finding protection. But for many of them, their attempts to escape merely resulted in detention, deportation, and extremely difficult reintegration in Central America. In fact, for some, the conditions they face upon being repatriated are worse than those they tried to escape in the first place. Between February and May, 2016, the American Immigration Council interviewed eight individuals who were deported (or whose partners were deported) from the United States after being detained in family detention facilities, during which time they came into contact with the CARA Pro Bono Project. These women (or in two of the cases, their partners) shared their experiences - both describing what has happened to them and their children since returning to their country and recounting the detention and deportation process from the United States. First-hand accounts from Central American women and their family members interviewed for this project reveal the dangerous and bleak circumstances of life these women and their children faced upon return to their home countries, as well as serious problems in the deportation process. The testimonies describe how women are living in hiding, fear for their own and their children's lives, have minimal protection options, and suffer the consequences of state weakness and inability to ensure their safety in the Northern Triangle. The stories presented in this report are those of a fraction of the women and children who navigate a formidable emigration-detention-deportation process in their pursuit of safety. The process and systems through which they passed only contribute to the trauma, violence, and desolation that many Central American families already endured in their home country. Details: Washington, DC: American Immigration Council, 2016. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 18, 2016 at: http://immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/detained_deceived_deported_experiences_of_recently_deported_central_american_families.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/detained_deceived_deported_experiences_of_recently_deported_central_american_families.pdf Shelf Number: 139086 Keywords: Immigrant DeportationImmigrant DetentionImmigrationUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: Southern Poverty Law Center Title: Shadow Prisons: Immigrant Detention in the South Summary: Just days after winning election, President-elect Donald Trump announced that he intends to round up and deport up to 3 million immigrants. Such a plan, if carried out immediately, would require a massive – and costly – expansion of America's prison and detention infrastructure at a time when politicians and policymakers across the ideological spectrum are working to reduce the nation’s prison population, the world's largest. And it would likely be a major boost to the fortunes of private prison companies that profit from incarceration – even though most studies show that privately operated prisons are generally more dangerous, less effective and no less expensive than government-run facilities. Recently, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) decided to add 10,000 beds to its immigrant detention system, increasing the capacity to 45,000 immigrants per day. But, as a result of Trump's proposed deportation plan, the DHS could need many thousands more. Unsurprisingly, private prison stocks have soared since Trump's election. An expansion of the immigrant detention system threatens to greatly exacerbate the mass incarceration crisis in America. And it would violate our nation's basic values and cement our reputation as a country intolerant of immigrants. The findings of this study demonstrate that the immigrant detention system is already rife with civil rights violations and poor conditions that call into question the DHS’s commitment to the due process rights and safety of detainees. Many of these detainees have lived here for years; others recently fled violence in their home countries to seek refuge in the United States. This report is the result of a seven-month investigation of six detention centers in the South, a region where tens of thousands of people are locked up for months, sometimes even years, as they await hearings or deportation. The South is a leader in immigration detention, holding one out of every six detainees in the United States. A closer look makes it clear why it holds this distinction. Detained immigrants in the South are frequently denied the opportunity of a bond hearing that would free them until their cases are adjudicated. The region's immigration courts, which are often inaccessible to the public, are hostile to immigrants not fortunate enough to have an attorney. And so they wait behind bars in remote Southern facilities virtually indistinguishable from prisons. Many of the facilities are former jails or prisons that were shut down after civil rights investigations and lawsuits revealed poor conditions and abuse. Now, it’s the detainees who face abusive and dangerous conditions at these facilities, which fail to meet basic legal and regulatory standards. And it's the detainees who often find there is little hope for release as their due process rights are denied. The investigation by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild and the Adelante Alabama Worker Center focuses on detention centers in Alabama, Florida, Georgia and Louisiana. Three are operated by private companies and three by county sheriffs. All are paid by the DHS on a per diem basis. The report is based on tours of each facility and more than 300 in-person interviews with detainees. They represent more than 5 percent of the average daily population of the detention centers studied. From facility to facility, their stories are remarkably similar accounts of abuse, neglect and rights denied – symptoms of an immigrant detention system where the failures of the nation's immigration system intersect with the failures of its prison system. Details: Atlanta, GA: Southern Poverty Law Center, 2016. 116p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 28, 2016 at: https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/leg_ijp_shadow_prisons_immigrant_detention_report.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/leg_ijp_shadow_prisons_immigrant_detention_report.pdf Shelf Number: 147908 Keywords: Illegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DeportationImmigrant DetentionImmigrationPrivate Prisons |
Author: Human Rights Watch Title: A Price Too High: US Families Torn Apart by Deportations for Drug Offenses Summary: The United States is home to 13 million lawful permanent residents and 11 million unauthorized immigrants. Over two million immigrants have been deported by the Obama administration. While the government claims to focus on deporting serious, dangerous criminals, data obtained by Human Rights Watch shows that over a quarter of a million deportations from 2007 to 2012 involved non-citizens whose most serious conviction was for a drug offense. And, increasingly, individuals are being deported following convictions for drug possession. This trend contrasts sharply with the reforms many US states are undertaking to legalize, decriminalize, or offer drug treatment instead of prison for low-level drug offenders. A Price Too High is based on interviews with over 130 affected individuals, family members, attorneys, advocates, and law enforcement officials, as well as previously unavailable government data obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. The report documents the scope of the problem, including a 43 percent increase between 2007 and 2012 in the number of individuals deported following drug possession convictions. It shows how lawful permanent residents and unauthorized immigrants with strong ties to the US, including US citizen family members, regularly face mandatory detention without bond and deportation for offenses so minor they resulted little or no jail time under criminal law. Even expunged or pardoned convictions can trigger deportation. The consequences are devastating for immigrants, their families, and communities. Human Rights Watch urges US lawmakers to reform immigration laws to eliminate deportation based on simple possession convictions alone, and to ensure that all non-citizens in deportation proceedings, including those with convictions for drug offenses, have access to an individualized hearing where the immigration judge can weigh evidence of family ties, rehabilitation, and other equities against a criminal conviction. Details: New York: HRW, 2015. 99p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 16, 2016 at: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0615_ForUpload_0.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0615_ForUpload_0.pdf Shelf Number: 146128 Keywords: DeportationsDrug OffendersImmigrant DeportationImmigration Law EnforcementUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: Rietig, Victoria Title: Stopping the Revolving Door: Reception and Reintegration Services for Central American Deportees Summary: In the past five years, hundreds of thousands of Central American migrants deported from Mexico and the United States -including tens of thousands of children - have arrived back in the Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. For many deportees, the conditions upon arrival are worse than those that compelled them to leave in the first place. They and their families may be in crippling debt after having paid smugglers, and many return to communities that are even less safe than when they left. Thus, a significant number are in danger of entering a revolving door of migration, deportation, and remigration. Efforts to break this cycle center on providing more and better opportunities for Central America's people, especially its youth - an effort that includes reception programs and reintegration services for deportees once they return. Governments of Central America acknowledge the need for comprehensive policies and programs to help their deported citizens anchor themselves again upon return. All three countries offer reception services to most deportees, but reintegration services are far more limited and serve only a few. This report offers a detailed profile of the organization, funding sources, capacity, and the numbers of deportees served in reception and reintegration programs in the Northern Triangle. While the relevance of reintegration programs is largely unquestioned, knowledge is limited about what services are already in place, and how existing programs can be leveraged effectively. The authors note that there is little in the way of program evaluation or monitoring. This report attempts to fill these knowledge gaps by describing the types of reception and reintegration services, and analyzing common challenges to building successful initiatives in the region. An appendix provides further details on the programs surveyed, including relevant actors, organizations, budgets, evaluations, numbers of beneficiaries, and challenges. Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2015. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 10, 2017 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/stopping-revolving-door-reception-and-reintegration-services-central-american-deportees Year: 2015 Country: Central America URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/stopping-revolving-door-reception-and-reintegration-services-central-american-deportees Shelf Number: 144765 Keywords: Asylum SeekersDeporteesIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DeportationImmigrationImmigration Policy |
Author: Stepick, Alex Title: False Promises: The Failure of Secure Communities in Miami-Dade County Summary: This report addresses the impact on Miami-Dade County of the Secure Communities program, currently one of the primary federal immigration enforcement programs administered by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). DHS claims that the program prioritizes the removal of convicted criminal aliens who pose a danger to national security or public safety, repeat violators who game the immigration system, those who fail to appear at immigration hearings, and fugitives who have already been ordered removed by an immigration judge. Contrary to these policy goals, we found that 61% of individuals ordered for removal from Miami-Dade County are either low level offenders or not guilty of the crime for which they were arrested. By ICE's standards only 18% of the individuals ordered for removal represent high priority public safety risks, and that number drops to a mere 6% when we apply local standards suggested by Miami-Dade County's Public Defender. Interviews with detainees also reveal that often residents are stopped by police for no apparent reason and subjected to detention and deportation. Secure Communities in Miami-Dade County also has a disproportionately negative impact on Mexicans and Central Americans who constitute a relatively low percentage of the local population but a high percentage of those whom Secure Communities detained and removed. For this report, the Research Institute on Social and Economic Policy (RISEP) of the Center for Labor Research and Studies at Florida International University analyzed twelve months of arrest records, and the detentions and subsequent dispositions of all 1,790 individuals held in Miami-Dade County Corrections' jails for the Secure Communities program. RISEP complemented this analysis with interviews of individual Miami-Dade County residents who were directly affected by Secure Communities and interviews with local government officials in the City of Miami and Miami-Dade County. We also conducted a thorough analysis of DHS and ICE documents that guide Secure Communities. Our analysis of these documents demonstrates that the program is based on internally ambiguous priorities and directives that result in contradictory guidelines. Accordingly, Secure Communities has become a program that in essence removes virtually all undocumented migrants who are identified through Secure Communities, in spite of DHS Secretary Napolitano calling for ICE to use prosecutorial discretion. The program's guidelines bear the signs of a centrally devised policy created without consideration for the complex criminal justice landscapes of the thousands of jurisdictions where the program is implemented. The implications and effects of enforcing Secure Communities are far reaching. It disrupts and tears apart honest and hardworking families and makes Miami-Dade less secure for everyone as it discourages immigrants from cooperating with law enforcement. ICE's detention and deportation of immigrants for minor crimes, ordinary misdemeanors, and non-offense incidents reduces trust of law enforcement. This is especially dangerous in Miami-Dade County where the majority of the population is immigrants and approximately three-fourths are either immigrants themselves or children of immigrants. Miami's Mayor and Police Chief both expressed their belief that the reduced trust that Secure Communities produces will make protecting all communities more difficult - the opposite of what DHS and ICE claim is their goal. When community trust in law enforcement decreases, residents are less likely to report crimes and cooperate with police in the investigation of crimes. When serious crimes do occur, the reduced trust engendered by ICE's Secure Communities program makes it more difficult for local law enforcement to do its job, undermining the security of all county residents. We strongly recommend that Miami-Dade leaders form a broad-based task force to review the impact of Secure Communities. We urge Miami-Dade County residents, elected officials, law enforcement leadership, and representatives of the criminal justice system to carefully and conscientiously evaluate and determine which aspects of this federal program are in the best interests of Miami-Dade County and adjust their cooperation accordingly. The task force should be charged with carefully defining those aspects of Secure Communities that, in fact, help protect public safety and the parts of the program that contradict local law and enforcement policy. This evaluation should include a meticulous cost analysis. Without this knowledge, Secure Communities has the potential for creating long-term damage and problems that will persist long after reform of the country's current federal immigration law. We suggest that Miami-Dade County and its municipalities follow the lead of numerous other state and local governments and not honor ICE detainer requests unless an immigrant has been convicted of a serious crime. Details: Miami, FL; Research Institute on Social & Economic Policy, Center for Labor Research & Studies. Florida International University' Miami: Americans for Immigrant Justice, 2013. 59p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 4, 2017 at: http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=soc_fac Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=soc_fac Shelf Number: 145258 Keywords: Community PolicingIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DeportationImmigrant DetentionImmigration EnforcementImmigration PolicyRacial Profiling in Law Enforcement Sanctuary CitiesUndocumented Migrants |
Author: Schultheis, Ryan Title: A Revolving Door No More? A Statistical Profile of Mexican Adults Repatriated from the United States Summary: Repeat migration is slowing significantly for Mexican adults removed from the United States. An official survey of Mexican adults removed or voluntarily returned by the U.S. government found an 80 percent drop in the number intending to seek re-entry, from 471,000 in 2005 to 95,000 in 2015. Overall, the share of Mexican returnees saying they intended to return to the United States fell from 95 percent in 2005 to 49 percent in 2015. This stark shift in the decision-making of Mexican returnees represents an important aspect of the changing dynamics of U.S.-Mexico migration - one worth considering as U.S. policymakers contemplate appropriating vast new sums for additional border enforcement. This report provides a statistical profile of Mexican adults repatriated from the United States between 2005 and 2015. Using representative data collected in the Mexican Northern Border Survey (EMIF Norte) and repatriation data from the Mexican Interior Ministry, it explores the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of deportees, their immigration histories, and information on their future migration plans and minor children left behind in the United States. While a number of factors likely contribute to the decision of repatriated adults to forgo repeat illegal migration and instead remain in Mexico, this trend has profound implications for governments and communities on both sides of the border. For Mexico, it highlights the importance of building out reception services to ensure the successful social and economic reintegration of repatriated Mexican adults who can contribute to future economic growth in Mexico. Such programs, as well as economic conditions in both Mexico and the United States, will determine whether the revolving door of migration continues to slow. Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2017. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 4, 2017 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/revolving-door-no-more-statistical-profile-mexican-adults-repatriated-united-states Year: 2017 Country: Mexico URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/revolving-door-no-more-statistical-profile-mexican-adults-repatriated-united-states Shelf Number: 145308 Keywords: Border EnforcementIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DeportationImmigration EnforcementImmigration PolicyUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: Capps, Randy Title: Advances in U.S.- Mexico Border Enforcement: A Review of the Consequence Delivery System Summary: Questions about how to best secure the U.S.-Mexico border are central to U.S. immigration policy and debates around reforming U.S. immigration laws. In fiscal year (FY) 2011, the U.S. Border Patrol began implementing what it terms the Consequence Delivery System (CDS), its first systematic attempt to employ metrics of effectiveness and efficiency to the different forms of removal and other enforcement consequences that migrants face after being apprehended at the Southwest border. This report presents findings from a year-long study that included analysis of previously unpublished CDS data provided to MPI by the Border Patrol as well as fieldwork in the Tucscon and Rio Grande Valley sectors, discussing which consequence measures may be most effective in deterring illegal migration. As the Border Patrol has shifted towards greater use of formal removal and away from voluntary return, its use of consequences and allocation of resources-including expedited removal, lateral repatriation, and criminal prosecution via Streamline - have been measured and guided by CDS. Overall, the share of migrants apprehended more than once in the same fiscal year fell from 29 percent in FY 2007 to 14 pecent in FY 2014. Ultimately, while CDS has become an important tool that informs Border Patrol priorities, the authors find that some of its underlying assumptions about effectiveness and deterrence may be less applicable to the U.S.-Mexico border today than in the past. The shift from majority Mexican arrivals to new and diverse migrant groups, particularly women and children fleeing violence in Central America, has both limited the consequences the Border Patrol can impose and revealed limitations in data collection. Tackling these challenges will be essential to future enforcement strategy and policy-making. Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2017. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 4, 2017 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/advances-us-mexico-border-enforcement-review-consequence-delivery-system Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/advances-us-mexico-border-enforcement-review-consequence-delivery-system Shelf Number: 145309 Keywords: Border EnforcementBorder SecurityIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DeportationImmigration Policy |
Author: Fair Punishment Project Title: The Promise of Sanctuary Cities and the Need for Criminal Justice Reforms in an Era of Mass Deportation Summary: While many officials champion their status as "sanctuary cities" and have taken meaningful steps to protect immigrant communities, sweeping criminal laws in these places leave many immigrants trapped within an arm's reach of deportation. President Trump intends to use local criminal justice systems to deport as many non-citizens as resources will allow. Local officials - mayors, city council members, county commissioners, prosecutors, and the police - now have a critical opportunity to thwart his plans and acknowledge the inextricable link between the deportation pipeline and the criminal justice system, and to finally reform their criminal justice systems. It is already smart policy to stop sending people to jail en masse; localities' punitive policies disproportionately send people of color, including immigrants, to languish in jail or prison. But to make good on their laudable sanctuary goals, local officials must heed the advice of criminal justice reformers, immigration advocates, and their communities, and institute sweeping change. This report is a collaboration between the Fair Punishment Project and the Immigrant Defense Project, with the support of the Immigrant Legal Resource Center. Together, we hope that our breadth of experience can help advance the conversation that has already started about the intersection between criminal justice and President Trump's immigration policies. In this report, we first explain the various ways that non-citizens are trapped in the deportation web, starting with arrest. We then offer concrete reform proposals that officials at every level of city and county government can implement. Details: Cambridge, MA: Fair Punishment Project, 2017. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 17, 2017 at: https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/fpp-sanctuary-cities-report-final.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/fpp-sanctuary-cities-report-final.pdf Shelf Number: 145543 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DeportationImmigrantsImmigrationSanctuary CitiesUndocumented Migrants |
Author: Great Britain. HM Chief Inspector of Prisons Title: Detainees under escort: Inspection of escort and removals to Jamaica Summary: Removal flights to Jamaica restarted recently. Many of the improvements we observed in removal operations were evident in this operation. The process of collecting detainees from the immigration removal centres (IRCs) was reasonably well organised, and IRC staff generally played their part in preparing detainees for removal, especially at Brook House, although arrangements at Yarl's Wood were less appropriate. Escorting staff promptly established an understanding with most detainees through a friendly and polite approach and informal conversation. They went out of their way on occasion, for example, to arrange for a detainee's luggage to be brought to the airport. However, an expectation of higher risks had built up around this removal route. This was explained by the fact that four men had protested against their removal at their IRC and one detainee had violently resisted removal on the preceding Jamaica flight. However, these incidents influenced staff behaviour to a disproportionate extent. From the initial operational briefing onwards, staff were reminded of the risk of disruptive behaviour generally, rather than in respect of particular individuals. As a result, seven people were put in waist restraint belts, not because of violence or a need for physical restraint, but because of their 'demeanour' or 'attitude', in the words of staff. In the case of two men who were concealing fragments of a razor blade in their mouths, this was a proportionate response. In the case of a 57-year-old woman who was first forced into compliance by use of a rigid handcuff applied purely to inflict pain, then fitted with a waist restraint belt, the proportionality of the treatment was much less clear. These and other examples in this report illustrate that there was a need to establish and embed a calm, consistent and proportionate approach to risk management through staff training and active supervision of the process. For a detainee (and staff with him) to spend nearly eight and a half hours on a coach before transfer to the aircraft was as demanding as it was inexplicable. Many others spent not much less time travelling. The process required streamlining; staff could rest on the return journey, but detainees went straight into a new chapter of their lives. Small deprivations were added to the experience when detainees spent the 11-hour flight without receiving hot drinks and with only a small plastic spoon with which to eat meals. Some written information was available to detainees about sources of assistance that would be available when they arrived in Jamaica; and staff, including immigration officials, were as reassuring as possible. However, while the receiving officials were welcoming and some who disembarked at Kingston seemed confident about their future, a number were anxious and some said they knew no one there. The flaws in this operation were not all attributable to specific risk factors such as concealment of sharp blades. Although it passed off reasonably calmly overall, talking up risks undermined to some degree even experienced staff's confidence in their interpersonal and other skills. It should be possible to achieve a more measured and consistent approach in future. Details: London: Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons, 2017. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 2, 2017 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/07/2017-Jamaica-escort-final-report.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Jamaica URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/07/2017-Jamaica-escort-final-report.pdf Shelf Number: 147007 Keywords: DetaineesIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DeportationImmigration EnforcementImmigration Policy |
Author: Peck, Sarah Herman Title: Immigration Consequences of Criminal Activity Summary: Congress's power to create rules governing the admission of non-U.S. nationals (aliens) has long been viewed as plenary. In the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended, Congress has specified grounds for the exclusion or removal of aliens, including on account of criminal activity. Some criminal offenses, when committed by an alien who is present in the United States, may render that alien subject to removal from the country. And certain criminal offenses may preclude an alien outside the United States from being either admitted into the country or permitted to reenter following an initial departure. Further, criminal conduct may disqualify an alien from certain forms of relief from removal or prevent the alien from becoming a U.S. citizen. In some cases, the INA directly identifies particular offenses that carry immigration consequences; in other cases, federal immigration law provides that a general category of crimes, such as "crimes involving moral turpitude" or an offense defined by the INA as an "aggravated felony," may render an alien ineligible for certain benefits and privileges under immigration law. The INA distinguishes between the treatment of aliens who have been lawfully admitted into the United States and those who are either seeking admission into the country or are physically present in the country without having been lawfully admitted. Aliens who have been lawfully admitted into the country may be removed if they engage in conduct that renders them deportable, whereas aliens who have not been legally admitted into the United States-including both aliens seeking initial entry into the United States as well as those who are physically present in the country but were never lawfully admitted-may be excluded or removed from the country if they have engaged in conduct rendering them inadmissible. Although the INA designates certain criminal activities and categories of criminal activities as grounds for inadmissibility or deportation, the respective grounds are not identical. Moreover, a conviction for a designated crime is not always required for an alien to be disqualified on criminal grounds from admission into the United States. But for nearly all criminal grounds for deportation, a "conviction" (as defined by the INA) for the underlying offense is necessary. Additionally, although certain criminal conduct may disqualify an alien from various immigration-related benefits or forms of relief, the scope of disqualifying conduct varies depending on the particular benefit or form of relief at issue. This report identifies the major criminal grounds that may bar an alien from being admitted into the United States or render an alien within the country removable. The report also discusses additional immigration consequences of criminal activity, including those that make an alien ineligible for certain relief from removal, including cancellation of removal, voluntary departure, withholding of removal, and asylum. The report also addresses the criminal grounds that render an alien ineligible to adjust to lawful permanent resident (LPR) status, as well as those grounds barring LPRs from naturalizing as U.S. citizens. The report also discusses the scope of several general criminal categories referenced by the INA, including "crimes involving moral turpitude," "aggravated felonies," and "crimes of violence. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2018. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: R45151: Accessed April 17, 2018 at: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R45151.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R45151.pdf Shelf Number: 149839 Keywords: Illegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DeportationImmigrants and CrimeImmigrationImmigration Policy |
Author: New York Immigration Coalition Title: Swept Up in the Sweep: The Impact of Gang Allegations on Immigrant New Yorkers Summary: T he United States is no stranger to the use of expansive profiling and discriminatory policing when facing real or perceived threats to national security. Whether it was the casting of Japanese Americans as traitors during World War II, civil rights leaders as radical threats to the country during the civil rights movement, Americans Muslims as national security threats after September 11th, or young black and brown men as criminals through stop-andfrisk policing-the use of fear and stereotypes to justify discriminatory tactics has repeatedly come at the expense of individuals' constitutional and civil rights. The end result? The dehumanizing of people of color, destabilizing of community structures, chilling of constitutionally protected speech and activity, and ultimately the mass incarceration and deportation of entire communities. The Trump administration has consistently sought to cast immigrants as threats to the economic and national security of the United States. And thus, MS-13, a gang born in the United States and grown in Central America, has become a favorite foil for President Donald Trump, as well as for Attorney General Jeff Sessions and White House Chief of Staff John Kelly. The Trump administration has taken a specific narrative course to elevate the status of MS-13 to a household name, responsible for invading armies of Central American migrants who are using supposed loopholes in immigration law to sow terror in the quiet American suburbs of Long Island. The problem is that the threat of MS-13 is purposely exaggerated to manipulate support for unfettered immigration enforcement in the name of gang-policing, without addressing the effectiveness of such policies or their devastating consequences-the large-scale detention and deportation of Latinx individuals. All empirical evidence shows that MS-13 on Long Island lacks basic organization and coordination. And while MS-13 is undoubtedly violent, the gang is not, by far, responsible for the majority of crimes committed on Long Island or, more broadly, in New York. The Trump administration has created and exploited public fear of MS-13 to further the Administration's own anti-immigrant agenda. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) "Operation Matador" (Matador) launched in 2017 as part of "Operation Community Shield" specifically seeks to "target violent gang members and their associates." The most troubling aspect of Matador is that it leads to increased local law enforcement collaboration with ICE. This collaboration exponentially increases the devastating impacts of discriminatory policing by compounding it with immigration enforcement. Allegations of MS-13 affiliation or membership are routinely made by immigration officers, often without credible evidence or the possibility for an individual to challenge the designation. Schools, local police departments, and federal law enforcement agencies all communicate in secrecy and trap Central American migrants in a growing and obscure web of enforcement. By broadly casting immigrant Latin youth as gang members to be targeted for incarceration and deportation, even the outward pretense of basic rights and due process is pushed to the side. Gang policing, like unconstitutional stop-and-frisk policies, has disproportionately impacted black and brown men. Notoriously flawed and unregulated, gang databases have minimal inclusion criteria. Simply living in a building or even a neighborhood where there are gang members, wearing certain colors or articles of clothing, or speaking to people law enforcement believe to be gang members can lead to inclusion in a gang database. Often individuals do not know they have been listed in such a database, and no mechanism exists to challenge inclusion. Similar vague criteria, such as the apparel an individual wears or a drawing made in a notebook, are used to label Latinx youth and young men as gang affiliated and then to subsequently justify their arrest, detention and deportation. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not need to make any showing of gang affiliation to initiate removal proceedings-being undocumented alone is a sufficient basis. Law enforcement agencies have every incentive to target suspected gang affiliates for deportation when they do not have evidence to make a criminal arrest. Further, since immigration proceedings are not subject to the same evidentiary standards as are required in the criminal context, immigration enforcement takes advantage of these lax standards and introduces allegations of gang involvement with little or no evidence. For those swept up by these overbroad allegations, the effect could be the denial of immigration benefits for which they are otherwise eligible, the denial of immigration bond, and ultimately deportation. To better understand how the Trump administration has used the pretext of gang enforcement to further its anti-immigrant policies, the New York Immigration Coalition (NYIC) and the City University of New York (CUNY) School of Law's Immigrant and Non-Citizen Rights Clinic (INRC) embarked on a survey (LE Interactions Survey) of legal service providers, community-based organizations, and community members in the New York City metro area, including Long Island, detailing how various immigration agencies have gone beyond the publicized gang sweeps and are in fact using gang allegations broadly in the immigration removal and adjudications process. Details: New York: The Coalition, 2018. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 23, 2018 at: http://www.thenyic.org/userfiles/file/SweptUp_Report_Final.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://www.thenyic.org/userfiles/file/SweptUp_Report_Final.pdf Shelf Number: 150337 Keywords: GangsIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DeportationImmigrantsImmigration EnforcementUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: PICUM, the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants Title: Untold Stories: immigration Detention and Deportation Summary: In recent years, European migration policy area has undergone a significant shift in political narrative and priorities. The presence of undocumented migrants has been perceived as an innate risk to Europe's common asylum system, the security of Europe's citizens, and even the stability of the European Union itself. Decision makers have been spurred on to appear tough on migration, and have responded by fixing an objective of increasing deportations and stopping certain migratory movements. Seen as a benchmark of success in migration management, the focus on fast-track deportations may lead to a weakening of procedural safeguards, increasing the likelihood of human rights violations and abuse. As a network of civil society organizations working directly with undocumented migrants, PICUM members are confronted daily with individual cases of migrants who are detained and deported from the EU. Through the stories and testimonies that migrants have conveyed about their individual experiences of detention and deportation - which by no means are an exhaustive overview of the situation - six major areas of concern have emerged. Issues around the futility and extreme harmfulness of immigration detention have come strongly to the fore, especially in cases in which children and families are detained. Immigration detention of children is still a reality in Europe, despite the fact that the Committee on the Rights of the Child and other UN experts4 have held that states cannot justify detaining migrant children under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which has been ratified by all EU member states. The consequences of auctioning off migration management tasks to third countries that systematically abuse and harm migrants on their territories are also highlighted. These stories depict cases of extreme violence, torture, humiliation and abuse of power in the deportation process, as well as the more subtle but equally devastating act of separating families through detention and deportation. Asylum seekers and other migrants who are returned to countries that are labelled as "safe" can face disastrous consequences when they are deported. A complete disregard for the risks of deporting people to unsafe situations coupled with the lack of monitoring and accountability mechanisms for governments who deport them are among the key concerns that have emerged through this collection of stories. This booklet sets out each of these areas of concern, and presents them in a succinct way to contextualize them within on-going policy debates. It is intended that the stories can illustrate how certain policy initiatives, existing laws and their implementation (or lack thereof) are responsible for creating conditions which may lead to violations of human rights, suffering and injustice. Details: Brussels: PICUM, 2017. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 25, 2018 at: http://picum.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Deportation_Stories_EN.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Europe URL: http://picum.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Deportation_Stories_EN.pdf Shelf Number: 150371 Keywords: Immigrant DeportationImmigrant DetentionImmigration EnforcementUndocumented ImmigrantsUndocumented Migrants |
Author: Hing, Bill Ong Title: Contemplating a Rebellious Approach to Representing Unaccompanied Immigrant Children in a Deportation Defense Clinic Summary: In response to the surge of unaccompanied immigrant children at the border in the summer of 2014, I expanded my pro bono work with students and started a law school deportation defense clinic. With the hard work of a full-time immigration attorney and a paralegal, the Clinic has attracted three to four students each semester (including summers) who receive three to six units of credit. Within a few months, the Clinic accepted dozens of cases that were transferred to northern California from detention facilities across the country. The pressure to accept such a large number of cases so quickly came from funding sources and from other legal services providers who were having difficulties managing their own caseloads. The clients uniformly suffer from trauma as well as cultural challenges. In the meantime, with Jerry Lopez's vision of rebellious lawyering in mind, I have been committed to practicing law and running the clinic in a collaborative fashion. As this work under pressure has unfolded, we have failed to be perfect. Triage often forces us to shortcut the type of collaboration that is needed to focus on the detailed needs of individual clients or develop allied relationships and institutional partnerships. Yet some remarkable things have been accomplished. The Clinic's staff, students, and I strive to not, as Lopez put it, "be overwhelmed by the daily detail of work" or get frustrated over the "lack of fully developed theoretical help," and try to pursue a rebellious vision of lawyering amidst the high case volume and multiple client needs. Details: San Francisco: University of San Francisco - School of Law, 2017. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: Univ. of San Francisco Law Research Paper No. 2017-03: Accessed September 12, 2018 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2894058 Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2894058 Shelf Number: 151505 Keywords: Immigrant DeportationUnaccompanied Immigrant Children |
Author: Innovation Law Lab Title: The Attorney General's Judges: How the U.S. Immigration Courts Became a Deportation Tool Summary: Since its creation, the contemporary immigration court system has been perpetually afflicted by dysfunction. Today, under the Trump administration, the immigration court system - a system whose important work is vital for our nation's collective prosperity - has effectively collapsed. nation's collective prosperity - has effectively collapsed. This report explains how the collapse came to be and why the immigration court system cannot be salvaged in its current form. Decades of experience incontrovertibly demonstrate that the immigration courts have never worked and will never work to, as Chief Justice John Roberts says, "do equal right" to those who appear before them. The immigration courts will never work because the structure of the immigration system is fundamentally flawed. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the attorney general of the United States is required to craft a functioning immigration court system: a system that provides genuine case-by-case adjudications by impartial judges who apply existing law to the evidence on the record following a full and fair hearing. Yet every attorney general has failed to do so. Despite the life-or-death stakes of many immigration cases, the immigration court system that persists today is plagued by decades of neglect and official acquiescence to bias. These trends have created a system where case outcomes have less to do with the rule of law than with the luck of the draw. And under the Trump administration, the attorneys general have gone even further by seeking to actively weaponize the immigration court system against asylum seekers and immigrants of color. Overwhelming evidence shows that the Office of the Attorney General has long allowed immigration judges to violate non-citizens' rights in a systemic, pervasive manner that undermines the integrity of the court system. In speaking with immigration practitioners across the country, the authors of this report have heard first-hand accounts of how the attorney general's unitary power shapes adjudication practices that are biased, inconsistent, and driven by politics: Judges fail to apply binding legal standards, make decisions based on illegally invented rules, engage in abusive treatment of non-citizens and their counsel, and even decide cases before holding hearings. No one in the unitary system holds these judges accountable. The normal check in an effective judicial system - the appeals process - fails to ensure uniformity and accountability because it is equally infected by the politicized influence of the attorney general. At the same time, attorneys general have abused their power by allowing enforcement priorities to usurp a court process that is supposed to be impartial and fair. Under the Trump administration, immigration judges are viewed as the attorney general's proxies for enforcing deportations - not as independent case-by-case adjudicators. Over the past two years, the attorneys general have plainly encouraged biased decision-making, including by fomenting judges' distrust of asylum seekers and their attorneys. The attorneys general have interfered with immigration judges' control of their courtrooms by reassigning case dockets to align with enforcement priorities and attacking crucial case management tools. And in contravention of every known norm respecting impartiality, the attorneys general have pitted immigration judges against due process by threatening to punish - and even fire - judges for failing to meet enforcement-driven case quotas. The Trump administration's manipulation of the immigration courts has irreparably undermined any remaining legitimacy of an immigration court system controlled by the attorney general. This report recommends that, in order to achieve a fair and functioning judicial system, immigration adjudication be moved outside the attorney general's control into a truly independent Article I immigration court that includes merits-based appointments, tenure guarantees, and effective mechanisms of internal accountability and appellate oversight. Only by removing the immigration courts from the dangerous control of the executive branch can a fair, independent adjudication system be created - a system in which judges truly "do equal right" to every individual who appears before them. Details: Montgomery, Alabama: SPLC, 2019. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 24, 2019 at: https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/com_policyreport_the_attorney_generals_judges_final.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/com_policyreport_the_attorney_generals_judges_final.pdf Shelf Number: 156615 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrant DeportationImmigrants Immigration Court System Immigration Enforcement Immigration Policy |