Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.

Date: April 29, 2024 Mon

Time: 10:52 pm

Results for immigration enforcement

178 results found

Author: Lopez, Mark Hugo

Title: A Rising Share: Hispanics and Federal Crime

Summary: "Sharp growth in illegal immigration and increased enforcement of immigration laws have dramatically altered the ethnic composition of offenders sentenced in federal courts. In 2007, Latinos accounted for 40% of all sentenced federal offenders -- more than triple their share (13%) of the total U.S. adult population. The share of all sentenced offenders who were Latino in 2007 was up from 24% in 1991, according to an analysis of data from the United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) by the Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center. Between 1991 and 2007, enforcement of federal immigration laws became a growing priority in response to undocumented immigration. By 2007, immigration offenses represented nearly one-quarter (24%) of all federal convictions, up from just 7% in 1991. Among those sentenced for immigration offenses in 2007, 80% were Hispanic. This heightened focus on immigration enforcement has also changed the citizenship profile of federal offenders. In 2007, Latinos without U.S. citizenship represented 29% of all federal offenders. Among all Latino offenders, some 72% were not U.S. citizens, up from 61% in 1991. By contrast, a much smaller share of white offenders (8%) and black offenders (6%) who were sentenced in federal courts in 2007 were not U.S. citizens. The total number of offenders sentenced in federal courts more than doubled from 1991 to 2007. During this period, the number of sentenced offenders who were Hispanic nearly quadrupled and accounted for more than half (54%) of the growth in the total number of sentenced offenders. One reason all of these figures have risen so sharply is that immigration offenses, unlike most other criminal offenses, are exclusively under the jurisdiction of federal rather than state or local courts. In 1991, three times as many Hispanics were sentenced in federal courts for drug crimes (60%) as for immigration crimes (20%). By 2007, that pattern had reversed; among Hispanic offenders sentenced in federal courts, 48% were sentenced for an immigration offense and 37% for a drug offense. Among sentenced immigration offenders, most were convicted of unlawfully entering or remaining in the U.S. Fully 75% of Latino offenders sentenced for immigration crimes in 2007 were convicted of entering the U.S. unlawfully or residing in the country without authorization, while 19% were sentenced for smuggling, transporting or harboring an unlawful alien. Convictions broke down largely along citizenship lines. Among sentenced non-citizen Latino immigration offenders, more than eight-in-ten (81%) were convicted of entering unlawfully or residing in the U.S. without authorization. In contrast, more than nine-in-ten (91%) U.S. citizen Latino immigration offenders were convicted of smuggling, transporting or harboring an unlawful alien. Hispanics who were convicted of any federal offense were more likely than non-Hispanics to be sentenced to prison. But among all federal offenders sentenced to prison, Hispanics received shorter prison terms on average than did either blacks or whites. These racial and ethnic disparities in sentencing appear to be linked to USSC guidelines that attach clear boundaries for the types of sentences that can be meted out for different types of crimes. This report examines the ethnic, racial and citizenship status of sentenced offenders in federal courts."

Details: Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, Pew Hispanic Center, 2009. 27p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 22, 2010 at: http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/104.pdf

Year: 2009

Country: United States

URL: http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/104.pdf

Shelf Number: 113911

Keywords:
Illegal Aliens - Immigrants
Illegal Immigration
Immigration Enforcement
Sentencing Statistics

Author: Hoffmaster, Debra A.

Title: Police and Immigration: How Chiefs Are Leading their Communities through the Challenges

Summary: Local police and sheriffs’ departments increasingly are being drawn into a national debate about how to enforce federal immigration laws. In many jurisdictions, local police are being pressured to take significantly larger roles in what has traditionally been a federal government responsibility. This is not a simple matter for local police. Active involvement in immigration enforcement can complicate local law enforcement agencies’ efforts to fulfill their primary missions of investigating and preventing crime. While no two communities are affected by immigration in the same way, the current system creates a number of challenges for local police, such as understanding an extremely complicated set of federal laws and policies, and working to develop trust and cooperation with undocumented immigrants who are victims of or witnesses to crime. For several years now, PERF has been focusing attention on the question of illegal immigration and its impact on local police departments. Immigration laws are federal statutes, so this is fundamentally a matter for the federal government to decide. But Congress has not been able to pass any comprehensive immigration reform legislation. Arizona’s passage in April 2010 of SB 1070, a new law designed to expand the role of local police in immigration enforcement, and the Obama Administration’s decision to challenge the Constitutionality of this state law in federal court, have focused national attention on the question of federal, state, and local enforcement of immigration laws. In the meantime, many local communities and police agencies are struggling to devise local policies and strategies that reflect their own values and are consistent with the federal government’s efforts, which seem to ebb and flow with changing Administrations. This publication explores the role of six leading police departments in their communities’ immigration debates, and how they navigated the challenges and pressures surrounding the immigration issue. Our six case-study jurisdictions were not chosen at random; these six cities have experienced some of the most contentious local battles on this issue in recent memory. The case studies were conducted between December 2008 and September 2009. The goal of this report is to provide a base of information about what police are currently doing regarding immigration enforcement. Following are brief summaries of the six case studies. Each chapter concludes with a set of lessons learned and guiding principles for dealing with immigration issues. In addition, a concluding chapter includes a set of Recommendations for Congress and the Obama Administration, and Recommendations for Local Police Agencies. These recommendations are based on the lessons learned in the six case studies as well as through a National Summit on Immigration Enforcement held in July 2009 in Phoenix.

Details: Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum, 2010. 96p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 18, 2011 at: http://www.policeforum.org/library/immigration/PERFImmigrationReportMarch2011.pdf

Year: 2010

Country: United States

URL: http://www.policeforum.org/library/immigration/PERFImmigrationReportMarch2011.pdf

Shelf Number: 121077

Keywords:
Illegal Aliens
Illegal Immigration
Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Laws
Policing

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 Justice
Illegal Immigrants (U.S.)
Immigration
Immigration Enforcement

Author: Kohli, Aarti

Title: Secure Communities by the Numbers: An Analysis of Demographics and Due Process

Summary: The United States will deport a record number of individuals this year, due in large part to rapidly expanding federal immigration programs that rely on local law enforcement. The numbers are sobering: annual deportations have increased over 400% since 1996 and more than a million people have been removed from this country since the beginning of the Obama administration. Almost 300,000 individuals are currently in deportation proceedings but have not yet been removed. The newest and most controversial immigration enforcement program partnering with local law enforcement is Secure Communities. Secure Communities was introduced by the Bush administration in March 2008 and piloted in 14 jurisdictions beginning in October 2008. Under President Obama, the program has expanded dramatically. As of the drafting of this report, Secure Communities is active in 1,595 jurisdictions in 44 states and territories, a 65% increase since the beginning of this year. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has stated that it plans to have the program active in all jurisdictions in the United States by 2013. Like earlier programs such as the 287(g) program and the Criminal Alien Program (CAP), Secure Communities mobilizes local law enforcement agencies’ resources to enforce federal civil immigration laws. Whereas earlier programs such as 287(g) trained law enforcement agents to assist with immigration enforcement, Secure Communities relies heavily on almost instantaneous electronic data sharing. This data sharing has transformed the landscape of immigration enforcement by allowing ICE to effectively run federal immigration checks on every individual booked into a local county jail, usually while still in pre-trial custody. It has long been the case that local law enforcement agencies electronically share fingerprint data from the people they arrest with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). If that data comes from a Secure Communities jurisdiction, however, the FBI now forwards the fingerprints to the DHS. DHS checks the fingerprints against the Automated Biometric Identification System, also known as IDENT, a fingerprint repository containing information on over 91 million individuals, including travelers, applicants for immigration benefits, and immigrants who have previously violated immigration laws. When a match is detected, ICE reportedly examines its records to determine whether the person is deportable. If ICE believes an individual may be deportable, or if ICE wishes to further investigate an individual’s immigration status, then ICE issues a detainer. The detainer is a request to the local police to notify immigration authorities when the individual is going to be released from criminal custody and to hold the individual for up to two days for transfer to ICE. Despite the scrutiny that the program has generated in the public sphere, the federal government has conducted limited systematic analysis of its own data on individuals who are arrested under Secure Communities. To address this gap in knowledge, the Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy at UC Berkeley School of Law has undertaken a comprehensive study of data provided by the federal government to the National Day Labor Organizing Network (NDLON), the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Clinic at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law pursuant to a partial settlement in NDLON v. ICE. This initial report is the first in a series based on that data. In this report, we attempt to better understand the profile of individuals who have been apprehended through Secure Communities and the process they have encountered as they are funneled through the system. Overall, the findings point to a system in which individuals are pushed through rapidly, without appropriate checks or opportunities to challenge their detention and/or deportation. This conclusion is particularly concerning given that the findings also reveal that people are being apprehended who should never have been placed in immigration custody, and that certain groups are over-represented in our sample population.

Details: Berkeley, CA: Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy, University of California, Berkeley Law School, 2011. 20p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 22, 2011 at: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Secure_Communities_by_the_Numbers.pdf

Year: 2011

Country: United States

URL: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Secure_Communities_by_the_Numbers.pdf

Shelf Number: 123083

Keywords:
Deportation
Illegal Aliens
Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Racial Profiling

Author: Rabin, Nina

Title: Disappearing Parents: A Report on Immigration Enforcement and the Child Welfare System

Summary: Quiet, slow motion tragedies unfold every day in immigration detention centers throughout the country, as parents caught up in immigration enforcement are separated from their young children and disappear into the detention system. If no relative is identified who can take the children at the time of an immigrant parent's apprehension, the children may be placed in state custody and find themselves in foster homes, abruptly unable to communicate with their parents or even know where their parents are. If parents choose to accept their deportation, they risk being forever separated from their children, since their children will likely be unable to accompany them so long as they remain in state custody. If parents choose instead to fight their deportation, they often remain detained for months or even years, greatly complicating efforts to reunify as a family even if they are eventually successful in their case against deportation.

Details: Tucson: Bacon Immigration Law and Policy Program, James E. Rogers College of Law, University of Arizona, 2011. 38p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 23, 2011 at: http://www.law.arizona.edu/depts/bacon_program/pdf/disappearing_parents_report_final.pdf

Year: 2011

Country: United States

URL: http://www.law.arizona.edu/depts/bacon_program/pdf/disappearing_parents_report_final.pdf

Shelf Number: 123439

Keywords:
Children of Illegal Immigrants
Illegal Immigrants (Arizona)
Immigrant Detention
Immigration
Immigration Enforcement

Author: Women's Refugee Commission

Title: Torn Apart by Immigration Enforcement: Parental Rights and Immigration Detention

Summary: Approximately 5.5 million children in the United States live with at least one undocumented parent. Three million of them are U.S. citizens. These children are uniquely situated in relation to federal immigration law because immigration enforcement activities against their parents can have a particularly dramatic and disproportionate effect on them. According to a report by the Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector General, more than 108,000 alien parents of U.S. citizen children were removed from the United States between 1998 and 2007.4 Deportation forces countless parents to make heart-wrenching decisions about what to do with their children. For some families, however, there is no choice to be made. Immigration apprehension, detention and deportation can trigger a complex series of events that undermine parents’ ability to make decisions about their children’s care, complicate family reunification and can — in some circumstances — lead to the termination of parental rights. With the exception of parents apprehended in large worksite enforcement operations, few parents benefit from time-of-apprehension protocols designed to minimize adverse consequences of detention and deportation on children. There is no guarantee that apprehended parents can make a phone call within a reasonable time of apprehension in order to make care arrangements for children. While Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) makes efforts to identify and release parents apprehended in large worksite raids, the majority of parents are not subject to any humanitarian protections and immigration officers struggle with how to handle apprehensions where children will be impacted. Many parents are transferred from the area in which they are apprehended to an immigration detention center without knowing what care arrangements have been made for their children and without knowing how to remain in contact with their children. For these parents, it can be difficult, if not impossible, to locate and reunite with their children at the conclusion of their immigration case. The legal systems governing immigration law and family and child welfare law are not well calibrated. The awkward intersection of these two disciplines can create challenges to parental rights and family unity, violations of due process, significant trauma for children and an undue burden for our social services system. Yet adverse effects that arise at the crossroads of the two systems could be reduced or avoided through policies and procedures that are not inconsistent with the enforcement of existing immigration or child welfare laws. Since the Women’s Refugee Commission began focusing on this issue in 2007, we have found that challenges to parental rights are becoming more frequent as immigration enforcement expands. Our interviews with detained parents continue to reveal cases in which parents are unable to locate or communicate with their children, unable to participate in reunification plans and family court proceedings, and unable to make arrangements to take their children with them when they leave the country. With the increased participation of states and localities in immigration enforcement programs like Secure Communities and the expansion of this program nationwide by 2013 we can expect the number of parents who are apprehended and deported to remain stable or increase. Unless ICE takes steps to reduce the unnecessary detention of parents, to ensure that detained parents can take steps to protect their parental rights and to facilitate the ability of parents facing deportation to make decisions in the best interest of their children, challenges to parental rights will remain a very real problem for children, families and society.

Details: New York: Women's Refugee Commission, 2010. 36p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 23, 2011 at: www.womenscommission.org

Year: 2010

Country: United States

URL:

Shelf Number: 123440

Keywords:
Children of Illegal Immigrants
Deportation
Illegal Aliens
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrant Detention
Immigration 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 Justice
Illegal Aliens
Illegal Immigrants (U.S.)
Immigrant Detention
Immigration Enforcement

Author: National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (NNIRR)

Title: Injustice for All: The Rise of the U.S. Immigration Policing Regime

Summary: HURRICANE’s 2009-2010 report, Injustice for All: The Rise of the Immigration Policing Regime, finds that the U.S. government has built a brutal system of immigration control and policing that criminalizes immigration status, normalizes the forcible separation of families, destabilizes communities and workplaces, and fuels widespread civil rights violations. This “immigration policing regime” is also fueling racial discrimination and hate violence against immigrants and those perceived to be foreign born or “illegal.” Based on over 100 stories of abuse documented by NNIRR’s initiative, HURRICANE: The Human Rights Immigrant Community Action Network, Injustice for All shows how a new dimension of immigration control, ICE-police collaboration and border security, are hurting communities from the rural areas of New Mexico and North Carolina to New York City and the suburbs of Chicago. Injustice for All includes eleven essays by HURRICANE members in California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Illinois, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and New York. These reports demonstrate how immigration policing impacts border and rural communities, women, Indigenous people, African and South Asian communities and workers. The report’s findings and testimonial essays bring to light the often tragic consequences of this system of immigration policing and its four identifiable pillars: 1. Relentless criminalization of immigration status and use of incarceration. 2. Persistent linking of immigration to the politics of national security and engaging in policing tactics that rely upon racial, ethnic/nationality and religious profiling. 3. Escalating militarization of immigration control and border communities; reinforcing policies and strategies that deliberately “funnel” migrants to cross through the most dangerous segments of the U.S.-Mexico border and compromise the rights and safety of border residents. 4. Scapegoating immigrants for the economic crisis and leveraging anti-immigrant sentiment to push laws and policies that cut and/or eliminate public services, roll back civil rights, environmental, labor and other social protections.

Details: Oakland, CA: National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (NNIRR), 2010. 58p.

Source: Internet Resource: Acccessed March 23, 2012 at http://www.colawnc.org/files/pdf/injustice_2011.pdf

Year: 2010

Country: United States

URL: http://www.colawnc.org/files/pdf/injustice_2011.pdf

Shelf Number: 124646

Keywords:
Border Control
Immigrant Detention
Immigration
Immigration Enforcement

Author: National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (NNIRR)

Title: Over-raided, under seige: U.S. Immigration laws and enforcement destroy the rights of immigrants

Summary: Over-Raided, Under Siege: U.S. Immigration Laws and Enforcement Destroy the Rights of Immigrants provides a critical overview and analysis of the trends and patterns of human rights violations being perpetrated against immigrant and refugee communities by the U.S. government, local, county and state governments, employers and private citizen groups. It is the fourth report issued by the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (NNIRR) on immigration enforcement. The most recent report – Human Rights, Human Security at Risk – concludes that placing immigration services and enforcement under the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) jeopardizes community safety and compromises access to services. The report was published in 2003, shortly after the formation of DHS. Over-Raided, Under Siege, produced under the auspices of the Human Rights Immigrant Community Action Network (HURRICANE) a new initiative of NNIRR, documents over 100 stories of human rights violations from across the country between 2006 and 2007. They range from immigration raids and migrant deaths at the U.S.-Mexico border tomounting detentions and deportations. The report identifies fivemajor trends of rights violations in immigration services and enforcement based on some 100 stories of abuse and 206 incidents of raids tracked through extensive documentation from newspaper articles, scholarly journals, reports, and interviews with affected persons and reporting by community groups. The report also provides a political and historical context to the stories (SEE PAGE 53). Over-Raided, Under Siege concludes with a series of recommendations for Congress, state and local governments, the Social Security Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, and local law enforcement agencies to cease all policies, practices, measures and laws that violate international human rights norms and to protect and uphold the rights of all immigrant and refugee families, workers and communities and focus on addressing the root causes of migration.

Details: Oakland, CA: National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, 2008. 108p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 23, 2012 at http://173.236.53.234/~nnirrorg/drupal/sites/default/files/undersiege_web.pdf

Year: 2008

Country: United States

URL:

Shelf Number: 124647

Keywords:
Border Control
Human Rights
Immigration Enforcement
Police Behavior
Raids

Author: Wessler, Seth Freed

Title: Shattered Families: The Perilous Intersection of Immigration Enforcement and the Child Welfare System

Summary: This report presents a national investigation on threats to families when immigration enforcement and the child welfare system intersect. It explores the extent to which children in foster care are prevented from uniting with their detained or deported parents and the failures of the child welfare system to adequately work to reunify these families. Immigration policies and laws are based on the assumption that families will, and should, be united, whether or not parents are deported. Similarly, child welfare policy aims to reunify families whenever possible. In practice, however, when mothers and fathers are detained and deported and their children are relegated to foster care, family separation can last for extended periods. Too often, these children lose the opportunity to ever see their parents again when a juvenile dependency court terminates parental rights. In fiscal year 2011, the United States deported a record-breaking 397,000 people and detained nearly that many. According to federal data released to ARC through a Freedom of Information Act request, a growing number and proportion of deportees are parents. In the first six months of 2011, the federal government removed more than 46,000 mothers and fathers of U.S.-citizen children. These deportations shatter families and endanger the children left behind.

Details: New York: Applied Research Center, 2011. 65p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 28, 2012 at: http://act.colorlines.com/acton/form/1069/0041:d-0001/0/index.htm

Year: 2011

Country: United States

URL: http://act.colorlines.com/acton/form/1069/0041:d-0001/0/index.htm

Shelf Number: 124753

Keywords:
Child Welfare
Deportation (U.S.)
Foster Care
Immigrant Children
Immigrant Detention
Immigration
Immigration Enforcement

Author: Ewing, Walter

Title: Money for Nothing: Immigration Enforcement without Immigration Reform Doesn't Work

Summary: While the U.S. government has poured billions upon billions of dollars into immigration enforcement, the number of undocumented immigrants in the United States has increased dramatically. Rather than reducing undocumented immigration, this enforcement-without-reform strategy has diverted the resources and attention of federal authorities to the pursuit of undocumented immigrants who are drawn here by the labor needs of our own economy. For more than two decades, the U.S. government has tried without success to stamp out undocumented immigration through enforcement efforts at the border and in the interior of the country, but without fundamentally reforming the broken immigration system that spurs undocumented immigration in the first place. While billions upon billions of dollars have been poured into enforcement, the number of undocumented immigrants in the United States has increased dramatically. Rather than reducing undocumented immigration, the enforcement-without-reform strategy has diverted the resources and attention of federal authorities to the pursuit of undocumented immigrants who are not a threat to anyone, and who are drawn here by the labor needs of our own economy. It has fueled the growth of increasingly profitable and sophisticated businesses in human smuggling and the production and sale of fraudulent identity documents. And it has done nothing to lessen the dependence of many U.S. industries on the labor of undocumented immigrants.

Details: Washington, DC: Immigration Policy Center, The American Immigration Law Foundation, 2008. 8p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 7, 2012 at http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/MoneyForNothing05-08.pdf

Year: 2008

Country: United States

URL: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/MoneyForNothing05-08.pdf

Shelf Number: 126585

Keywords:
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Reform

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 Security
Human Rights
Illegal Aliens
Illegal Immigrants (U.S.)
Immigration
Immigration Enforcement

Author: National Immigration Forum

Title: Misbehavior at the Border: Are Those Who Control Immigration Out of Control Themselves?

Summary: This paper looks at corruption and misconduct documented within the Border Patrol and its parent agency, Customs and Border Protection. With rapid growth, high turnover and a high new agent to experienced agent ration, there are questions about the adequacy of training and supervision. Another problem stems from the fact that the Inspector General’s office, which investigates many complaints against CBP agents, has not been properly resourced to keep pace with its workload.

Details: Washington, DC: National Immigration Forum, 2012. 6p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 13, 2013 at http://www.immigrationforum.org/images/uploads/2012/CBP_Misconduct.pdf

Year: 2012

Country: United States

URL: http://www.immigrationforum.org/images/uploads/2012/CBP_Misconduct.pdf

Shelf Number: 127270

Keywords:
Border Security
Corruption
Customs Agencies
Immigration Enforcement
Police Misconduct

Author: Meissner, Doris

Title: Immigration Enforcement in the United States: The Rise of a Formidable Machinery

Summary: The US government spends more on federal immigration enforcement than on all other principal federal criminal law enforcement agencies combined, and has allocated nearly $187 billion for immigration enforcement since 1986. Deportations have reached record highs, border apprehensions 40-year lows, and more noncitizens than ever before are in immigration detention. The report traces the evolution of the immigration enforcement system, particularly in the post-9/11 era, in terms of budgets, personnel, enforcement actions, and technology – analyzing how individual programs and policies have resulted in a complex, interconnected, cross-agency system.

Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2013. 182p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 17, 2013 at: http://carnegie.org/fileadmin/Media/Image_Galleries/immigration_enforcement_in__us_MPI_report.pdf

Year: 2013

Country: United States

URL: http://carnegie.org/fileadmin/Media/Image_Galleries/immigration_enforcement_in__us_MPI_report.pdf

Shelf Number: 127284

Keywords:
Border Security
Costs of Criminal Justice
Illegal Aliens
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrant Detention
Immigration (U.S.)
Immigration Enforcement

Author: University of Southern California

Title: Hitting Homes: The Impact of Immigration Enforcement

Summary: Migrants returned to Mexico by U.S. authorities are now more likely to be older, married, and heads of household since the Obama administration made deportations from American communities a major instrument of immigration policy, according to new data from the Border Survey of Mexican Migration. In 2011 nearly half of all Mexicans repatriated from the United States had lived there for more than a year, and midway through 2012 the share was more than a third. As recently as 2008, those longer-term residents comprised only one-tenth of the repatriations, according to the survey, which captures data from both immigrants who are removed or deported after living in the United States and those returned after being apprehended trying to cross the border. As noted elsewhere in this report, compared with the great weight of economic circumstances, the shift in enforcement emphasis has not had a notable impact on either the size of the Mexican-born population or the flow of new migrants into the United States. The forced removals of Mexicans who are longtime residents of U.S. communities has, however, had a distinct psychological effect in addition to the change in the characteristics of those being returned, according to the border survey. Even during the darkest days of the Great Recession, more than 80 percent of repatriated Mexican migrants said they intended to return to the United States. That figure now hovers around 70 percent as a degree of discouragement appears to have set in.

Details: Los Angeles: University of Southern California, 2013. 5p.

Source: Internet Resource: Migration Monitor: Accessed February 11, 2013 at: http://www.migrationmonitor.com/3-article/

Year: 2013

Country: United States

URL: http://www.migrationmonitor.com/3-article/

Shelf Number: 127571

Keywords:
Illegal Immigrants
Immigration (U.S.)
Immigration Enforcement

Author: Phillips, Susan D.

Title: Children in Harm's Way: Criminal Justice, Immigration Enforcement, and Child Welfare Reports

Summary: 1998, the Child Welfare League of America published a seminal issue of Child Welfare describing the needs of children with parents in prison. It marked a milestone in what has become an ongoing effort to influence how the child welfare system responds to children whose parents are arrested and the support available to relatives caring for children whose parents are incarcerated. It pointed to policies and practices that either ignored the needs of this group of vulnerable children and their families, or created impediments to reunifying children with parents who had been incarcerated. This publication, produced jointly by The Sentencing Project and First Focus, introduces readers to concerns about a subgroup of this vulnerable group of children: children whose parents are affected by the interplay of the criminal justice, child welfare, and immigration enforcement systems. In the past decade, the federal government dramatically changed its approach to enforcing federal immigration laws and the scale of its efforts. As a result, a growing number of parents are being apprehended by local and state police (often for relatively minor offenses), turned over to federal immigration authorities, held in federal detention centers, and then returned to their home countries. In many cases, their children are U.S. citizens who are forced to leave their homes to be with their parents, or who remain in the United States permanently separated from their parents. Others end up in the foster care system where they may be placed for adoption. The number of people being held in immigration detention centers while waiting for their cases to be heard in administrative immigration proceedings has reached a historic high at a time when prison growth is otherwise beginning to slow. For-profit prison companies are poised to seize on this opportunity to bolster their profit margins. This became most evident in 2010 when Arizona legislators adopted the notorious S.B. 1070 law, perceived by many as an open invitation for law enforcement agencies to engage in racial profiling. Not long after the enactment of S.B. 1070, it became clear that the legislation was based on a blueprint that had been handed out by representatives of the private prison industry at a meeting of the American Legislative Exchange Council. Like an echo from the past, the questions being raised about children whose parents are targets of stepped-up immigration enforcement are similar to those that were first raised nearly 20 years ago about children whose parents were then being sent to jails and prisons in record numbers. Those questions include: What happens to children in the wake of authorities taking their parents into custody?; How do children of color view the legal system after seeing so many members of their communities being taken away by police?; And how are communities changed when arrests or immigration enforcement actions can happen at any time? And, a central issue in the articles assembled here: How does the child welfare system help or hinder families in the wake of criminal or immigration court actions against parents?

Details: Washington, D.C.: Jointly published by The Sentencing Project and First Focus, 2013. 73p.

Source: Internet Resource: accessed February 16, 2013 at: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/cc_Children%20in%20Harm's%20Way-final.pdf

Year: 2013

Country: United States

URL: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/cc_Children%20in%20Harm's%20Way-final.pdf

Shelf Number: 127648

Keywords:
Child Protection
Child Welfare
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrant Children
Immigrant Detention
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy

Author: U.S. Immigration and CustomsEnforcement

Title: Secure Communities: A Comprehensive Plan to Identify and Remove Criminal Aliens. Strategic Plan

Summary: Secure Communities: A Comprehensive Plan to Identify and Remove Criminal Aliens (Secure Communities) is working with ICE senior leadership and offices, as well as the broader law enforcement community, to better identify criminal aliens, prioritize enforcement actions on those posing the greatest threat to public safety, and transform the entire criminal alien enforcement process. Through improved technology, continual data analysis, and timely information sharing with a broad range of law enforcement agency (LEA) partners, we are helping to protect communities across the country. This document outlines our goals, objectives, and our strategic approach to accomplishing them.

Details: Wshington, DC: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 2009. 28p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 9, 2013 at: http://epic.org/privacy/secure_communities/securecommunitiesstrategicplan09.pdf

Year: 2009

Country: United States

URL: http://epic.org/privacy/secure_communities/securecommunitiesstrategicplan09.pdf

Shelf Number: 128336

Keywords:
Border Patrol
Border Security
Criminal Aliens
Customs Enforcement
Homeland Security (U.S.)
Illegal Migrants
Immigration Enforcement

Author: Filindra, Alexandra

Title: The Myth of "Self-Deportation": How Behavioral Economics Reveals the Fallacies behind “Attrition through Enforcement”

Summary: The concept of “self-deportation” rests on a deceptively simple premise. According to its supporters, if the federal government invests more in enforcing immigration laws, and if states and localities take on additional immigration control responsibilities, the costs and risks of staying in the United States will increase substantially for undocumented immigrants. Faced with a high risk of being caught and imprisoned, “rational” undocumented residents will “give up and deport themselves” returning to their home countries rather than remain in the U.S. However, preliminary evidence from studies conducted in states where such enforcement laws have been enacted shows that immigration restrictionists have gotten it wrong. Immigrant population in these states has remained in place and the predicted exodus never materialized. Economic factors, rather than enforcement, have played a far more important role in reducing the rate of undocumented entry into the United States. This report uses important research findings from cognitive psychology and behavioral economics to explain why restrictionists have gotten it wrong and people do not behave in the “rational” way that restrictionists expect them to.

Details: Wsahington, DC: Immigration Policy Center, American Immigration Council, 2012. 11p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 1, 2013 at: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/filindra_-_self-deportation_042912.pdf

Year: 2012

Country: United States

URL: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/filindra_-_self-deportation_042912.pdf

Shelf Number: 128894

Keywords:
Deportation
Illegal Immigration
Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement

Author: Saunders, Jessica

Title: Limiting the Potential for Racial Profiling in State and Local Police Enforcement of Immigration Laws

Summary: Enforcing immigration laws in a country as large and complex as the United States is a monumental undertaking, and federal efforts to control offenses have been criticized as being inadequate to the task. According to the Department of Homeland Security, the unauthorized immigrant population in the United States was approximately 11 million in 2010, a 27 percent increase over the preceding ten years.1 Immigration laws are being enforced more aggressively under the Obama Administration, with record numbers of removals in the past few years (over 1 million from 2009 to 2011).2 In addition, more state and local law enforcement departments have begun enforcing immigration laws, with various levels of controversy and success. Advocates of this development claim that local law enforcement can act as a force multiplier in aiding federal efforts because they outnumber U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents by nearly 5,000 to one. Opponents believe that local law enforcement officials are ill-equipped to enforce complicated immigration laws, that doing so alienates the immigrant population and diverts resources away from higher-priority public safety priority tasks, and that, in trying to enforce immigration laws, law enforcement agencies may engage in racial profiling. This last concern is an important federal issue because of the U.S. Constitution’s prohibitions on racial/ethnic discrimination. In this paper, I do not take a position on the appropriateness of involving local law enforcement in immigration enforcement activities; instead, I outline ways in which the federal government can monitor whether enforcement is being applied in accordance with constitutional protections. I first describe how different state and local law enforcement have become involved in enforcing immigration offenses over the past two decades and discuss the pros and cons of these policies. I then review the research evidence on racial discrimination in immigration enforcement. Finally, I recommend a variety of methods for the oversight and monitoring of racial discrimination.

Details: Santa Monica, CA: Rand, 2013. 16p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 6, 2013 at: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/perspectives/PE100/PE104/RAND_PE104.pdf

Year: 2013

Country: United States

URL: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/perspectives/PE100/PE104/RAND_PE104.pdf

Shelf Number: 129546

Keywords:
Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Racial Profiling in Law Enforcement (U.S.)

Author: Watson, Tara

Title: Enforcement and Immigrant Location Choice

Summary: This paper investigates the effect of local immigration enforcement regimes on the migration decisions of the foreign-born. Specifically, the analysis uses individual-level American Community Survey data to examine the effect of recent 287(g) agreements, which allow state and local law enforcement agencies to enforce Federal immigration law. The results suggest that one type of 287(g) agreement - the controversial local "task force" model emphasizing street enforcement - nearly doubles the propensity for the foreign-born to relocate within the United States. The largest effects are observed among non-citizens with at least some college education, suggesting that 287(g) policies may be missing their intended targets. No similar effect is found for the native-born. After the extreme case of Maricopa County is excluded, there is no evidence that local enforcement causes the foreign-born to exit the United States or deters their entry from abroad or from elsewhere in the United States. Rather, 287(g) task force agreements encourage the foreign-born to move to a new Census division or region within the United States.

Details: Boston: Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, 2013. 34p.

Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper: Accessed November 11, 2013 at: http://www.bostonfed.org/economic/wp/wp2013/wp1310.pdf

Year: 2013

Country: United States

URL: http://www.bostonfed.org/economic/wp/wp2013/wp1310.pdf

Shelf Number: 131621

Keywords:
Immigration
Immigration (U.S.)
Immigration Enforcement

Author: Males, Mike

Title: Are Immigration Detainer Practices Rational?

Summary: As public safety resources become more limited, justice administrators across California have begun to scrutinize the wisdom of immigration detainer programs (Gascon, 2013). Holding people in local jails for federal civil immigration purposes occupies valuable resources that could be used to address violent and serious criminal activity. Instead, these detainers are often enforced against people with minimal and nonviolent criminal histories without the due process afforded them under the criminal justice system. CJCJ has produced several publications analyzing data on California's ICE hold requests from October 2009 to February 2013. The series demonstrated that many ICE holds were being requested for people with no documented criminal histories or who were arrested for low priority marijuana offenses (CJCJ, 2013, 2013a). CJCJ has suggested limiting county compliance with these requests in order to better manage already strained jail capacities (CJCJ, 2013b). Additionally, ICE continues to request holds for individuals detained in youth detention facilities despite the de-prioritization of immigration enforcement for youth (CJCJ, 2013c). The cost of incarceration is high, averaging $114 per day per person in California jails (BSCC, 2012). Therefore, best correctional practices differentiate between low-risk and high-risk offenders and place them in the least restrictive settings necessary to protect public safety. Similarly, immigration enforcement and detention under the Secure Communities Program "prioritizes the removal of criminal aliens, those who pose a threat to public safety, and repeat immigration violators" (ICE, 2013). This final publication in the series examines a sample of the data set to determine whether stated criminal justice and immigration priorities are upheld in the practice of detaining suspected undocumented immigrants who have committed criminal offenses. Both systems have expressly stated the need to reserve custodial resources only for those who pose a danger to public safety.

Details: San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2013. 9p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 31, 2014 at: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/are_immigration_detainer_practices_rational_final.pdf

Year: 2013

Country: United States

URL: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/are_immigration_detainer_practices_rational_final.pdf

Shelf Number: 131818

Keywords:
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrant Detention
Immigration
Immigration Enforcement

Author: Frydman, Lisa

Title: A Treacherous Journey: Child Migrants Navigating the U.S. Immigration System

Summary: A Treacherous Journey: Child Migrants Navigating the U.S. Immigration System addresses the issues raised by the recent historic and unabated increase in the number of children coming unaccompanied - without a parent or legal guardian - to the United States. From 6,000-8,000 unaccompanied children entering U.S. custody, the numbers surged to 13,625 in Fiscal Year 2012 and 24,668 in Fiscal Year 2013. The government has predicted that as many as 60,000 or more unaccompanied children could enter the United States in Fiscal Year 2014. These children come from all over the world, but the majority arrive from Mexico and Central America, in particular the Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. Children come unaccompanied to the United States for a range of reasons. Numerous reports and the children themselves say that increasing violence in their home communities and a lack of protection against this violence spurred them to flee. Children also travel alone to escape severe intrafamilial abuse, abandonment, exploitation, deep deprivation, forced marriage, or female genital cutting. Others are trafficked to the United States for sexual or labor exploitation. Upon arrival, some children reunite with family members they have not seen in many years, but their migration is often motivated by violence and other factors, in addition to family separation. Their journeys may be as harrowing as the experiences they are fleeing, with children often facing sexual violence or other abuses as they travel. The children's challenges continue when U.S. immigration authorities apprehend them, take them into the custody of the federal government, and place them in deportation proceedings. There, they are treated as "adults in miniature" and have no right to appointed counsel and no one to protect their best interests as children in the legal system. In addition, existing forms of immigration relief do not provide sufficient safeguards to protect against deportation when it is contrary to their best interests.

Details: San Francisco: Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, University of California Hastings College of the Law; Washington, DC: Kids in Need of Defense, 2014. 104p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 28, 2014 at: http://www.uchastings.edu/centers/cgrs-docs/treacherous_journey_cgrs_kind_report.pdf

Year: 2014

Country: United States

URL: http://www.uchastings.edu/centers/cgrs-docs/treacherous_journey_cgrs_kind_report.pdf

Shelf Number: 132011

Keywords:
Child Protection
Illegal Immigrations
Immigrant Children
Immigration Enforcement
Runaways
Unaccompanied Children
Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Rosenblum, Marc R.

Title: The Deportation Dilemma: Reconciling Tough and Humane Enforcement

Summary: The United States has deported a record number of unauthorized immigrants and other removable noncitizens in recent years. More than 4.5 million noncitizens have been removed since Congress passed sweeping legislation in 1996 to toughen the nation's immigration enforcement system. The pace of formal removals has quickened tremendously, rising from about 70,000 in 1996 to 419,000 in 2012. This report analyzes the current pipelines for removal and key trends in border and interior apprehensions, deportations and criminal prosecutions. With the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the midst of a review of its deportation policies to see if they can be conducted "more humanely," the report also examines the policy levers the Obama administration has to influence deportation policies, practices and results. Using Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Naturalization Service data, the authors identify striking trends in the deportation system since 1996: - A fundamental shift from a deportation system focused on informal returns (voluntary return and departure) to one focused on formal removals, which have more severe consequences for those who are repatriated. - Major expansion in the use of nonjudicial removal procedures such as expedited removal and reinstatement of removal, in which immigration enforcement officers rather than immigration judges make deportation decisions. - Escalating criminalization, with a rising proportion of those apprehended at the Southwest border charged with immigration-related criminal offenses. The report explains that three factors have been the key drivers of major changes in deportation outcomes during the last two decades: new laws that expand the grounds for removal and speed the removals process; sizeable and sustained increases in immigration enforcement personnel, infrastructure, and technology; and operational and policy decisions by three successive administrations to shape enforcement outcomes. The report describes the actual state of U.S. immigration enforcement: Who is being deported and where and how are they being apprehended? It also explores how the current administration is carrying out its enforcement mandates. The Obama administration inherited - and expanded upon - unprecedented capacity to identify, apprehend, and deport unauthorized immigrants. Nearly as many people were formally deported during the first five years of the current administration (over 1.9 million) as during the entire eight years of the prior administration (2.0 million). What is new is that the Obama administration also has implemented prosecutorial discretion policies to focus enforcement efforts, even as the overall scope of enforcement has grown. These policies provide guidelines for exercising discretion not to deport certain people in cases that are outside established priority categories. Overall, enforcement at the border and within the United States show sharply different pictures. At the border, there is a near zero-tolerance system, where unauthorized immigrants are increasingly subject to formal removal and criminal charges. Within the country, there is greater flexibility, with priorities and resources focused on a smaller share of the population subject to removal. Such differences are consistent with the different goals and circumstances confronting border and interior enforcement. But the impacts of these differing systems have begun to converge, raising increasingly complex questions and choices for policymakers and the public. The research presented here highlights the deportation dilemma: that more humane enforcement is fundamentally in tension with stricter immigration control; and that a more robust enforcement system inevitably inflicts damage on established families and communities.

Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2014.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 3, 2014 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/deportation-dilemma-reconciling-tough-humane-enforcement

Year: 2014

Country: United States

URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/deportation-dilemma-reconciling-tough-humane-enforcement

Shelf Number: 132208

Keywords:
Deportation
Illegal Immigrants
Immigration
Immigration Enforcement
Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Flynn, Michael

Title: How and Why Immigration Detention Crossed the Globe

Summary: Today in countries across the globe, immigration-related detention has become an established policy apparatus that counts on dedicated facilities and burgeoning institutional bureaucracies. Before the decade of the 1980s, however, detention appears to have been largely an ad hoc tool, employed mainly by wealthy states in exigent circumstances. This paper details the history of key policy events that led to the diffusion of detention practices during the last 30 years and assesses some of the motives that appear to have encouraged this phenomenon. The paper also endeavors to place the United States at the center of this story because its policy decisions were instrumental in initiating the process of policy innovation, imitation, and - in many cases - imposition that has helped give rise to today's global immigration detention phenomenon. More broadly, in telling this story, this paper seeks to flesh out some of the larger policy implications of beyond-the-borders immigration control regimes. Just as offshore interdiction and detention schemes raise important questions about custody, accountability, and sovereignty, they should also spur questions over where responsibility for the wellbeing of migrants begins and ends. As this paper demonstrates, when it comes to immigration detention, all the answers cannot be found just at home.

Details: Geneva, Switzerland: Global Detention Project, Programme for the Study of Global Migration, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, 2014. 34p.

Source: Internet Resource: Global Detention Project Working Paper No. 8: Accessed May 3, 2014 at: http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/fileadmin/publications/Flynn_diffusion_WorkingPaper_v2.pdf

Year: 2014

Country: International

URL: http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/fileadmin/publications/Flynn_diffusion_WorkingPaper_v2.pdf

Shelf Number: 132215

Keywords:
Illegal Aliens
Immigrant Detention
Immigrants
Immigration
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy
Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Papademetriou, Demetrios G.

Title: A Strategic Framework for Creating legality and Order in Immigration

Summary: "Immigration harms" undermine the positive economic and social benefits of immigration and in some cases produce economic and social costs that may outweigh the benefits of migration. These risks of migration are extensive, and they include the exploitation of workers, the erosion of working standards, the presence of illegally resident persons that undermine the rule of law, profit to criminal enterprises, government corruption, potential adverse fiscal and welfare consequences, and-at their most severe-violent criminal activity. This report, part of a Transatlantic Council on Migration series that examines migration "bad actors," analyzes how governments ought to best allocate their resources to address these harms, including choosing which threats to tackle and where to prioritize enforcement efforts. The report explores how immigration policymakers can learn from other public policy regulation efforts to ensure that regulatory actions advance the public interest. After assessing a wide range of tools that immigration policymakers have at their disposal, the report concludes that an effective and strategic enforcement regime to tackle immigration harms includes: (1) the abiilty of governments to generate new evidence and analysis to improve their operational understanding of the threats they face; (2) an allocation of resources the scale and intensity of the violations, as well as the cost-effectiveness of policies designed to address them; (3) strong partnerships across government agencies; and (4) decisions based on transparent criteria that all participants in the system can understand.

Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2014. 25p.;

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 3, 2014 at: http://www.fosterquan.com/content/documents/policy_papers/2014/MPI_Legality_and_Order.pdf

Year: 2014

Country: United States

URL: http://www.fosterquan.com/content/documents/policy_papers/2014/MPI_Legality_and_Order.pdf

Shelf Number: 132224

Keywords:
Illegal Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy
Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Smith, Nicola

Title: 'Donkey Flights': Illegal Immigration from the Punjab to the United Kingdom

Summary: This report, written by journalist Nicola Smith, sketches one immigration loophole into Europe: so-called "donkey flights" by which Indian migrants obtain a tourist visa for a Schengen-zone country in order to enter the United Kingdom through the back door. The report is based on an undercover expose of Punjabi visa agencies by The Sunday Times, and from interviews conducted with migrants, law enforcement officers, and senior officials in India and Europe. The report identifies several trends. First, thousands of visa agencies operate in the Punjab region alone, with varying degrees of legality. Some agencies, while breaking no rules, charge disproportionate fees for visas that could be obtained directly from the relevant embassy. Some operate in legally grey areas, such as by advising migrants on how to bend the rules. More underground operations have links to criminal smuggling networks across Europe. Second, the scale of this migration challenge facing the UK government is considerable. Push factors such as low wages and high unemployment combine with the lure of vast earnings overseas. Many are desperate to migrate, whether legally or illegally, and are attracted by word of mouth "success stories." Even migrants who have been deported look for alternative ways to return. Third, developing effective policies is difficult. The illegal immigration industry is flexible and adaptable, responding quickly to legislative changes. By contrast, government bureaucracy can only slowly change its rules and practices. Closing one loophole can mean another is opened elsewhere.

Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2014. 21p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 3, 2014 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/donkey-flights-illegal-immigration-punjab-united-kingdom

Year: 2014

Country: United Kingdom

URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/donkey-flights-illegal-immigration-punjab-united-kingdom

Shelf Number: 132231

Keywords:
Border Control
Illegal Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy
Migration
Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Martinez, Daniel E.

Title: Bordering on Criminal: The Routine Abuse of Migrants in the Removal System. Part II: Possessions Taken and Not Returned

Summary: This report focuses on the issue of repatriated migrants' belongings being taken and not returned by U.S. authorities. Overall, we find that the taking of belongings and the failure to return them is not a random, sporadic occurrence, but a systematic practice. One indication of this is that just over one-third of deportees report having belongings taken and not returned. Perhaps one of the most alarming findings is that, among deportees who were carrying Mexican identification cards, 1 out of every 4 had their card taken and not returned. The taking of possessions, particularly identity documents, can have serious consequences and is an expression of how dysfunctional the deportation system is. Our study finds that migrants processed through Operation Streamline, or held in detention for a week or longer, are most likely to have their possessions taken and not returned.

Details: Washington, DC: Immigration Policy Center, American Immigration Council, 2013. 11p.

Source: Internet Resource: Special Report: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/ipc/Border%20-%20Possessions%20FINAL.pdf

Year: 2013

Country: United States

URL: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/ipc/Border%20-%20Possessions%20FINAL.pdf

Shelf Number: 132341

Keywords:
Immigrant Detention
Immigrants
Immigration
Immigration Enforcement
Operation Streamline
Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Collett, Elizabeth

Title: Trade-Offs in Immigration Enforcement

Summary: Unauthorized migrants - those without a legal right of residence - live in all modern industrialized countries. Beyond their responsibility to respond to the challenges of fast-paced, diverse migration patterns, it is vital that public and private sector institutions address the harms associated with illegal or unauthorized migration. Policymakers face significant constraints in addressing this population, including insufficient financial and human resources, and legal frameworks that protect individuals regardless of their residence status. This report, part of a Transatlantic Council on Migration series focused on migration "bad actors," argues that a successful migration enforcement regime is best defined as one that does limited (or zero) harm to a country's institutions of governance and to citizens' livelihoods, while fortifying public trust that the government is running an efficient and effective system. The report concludes that policymakers have two main policy options: to offer legal residence to unauthorized immigrants, or to identify them and seek to return or deport them to their country of origin. Yet return remains an incomplete policy option. Despite political and public distaste for the policy, regularization remains a frequently employed tool. The authors suggest that one of the key elements of success in this field may well be the recognition that success is not solely an enforcement approach, but one which takes the broad range of policy tools (including regularization) into account.

Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2014. 17p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 17, 2014 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/trade-offs-immigration-enforcement

Year: 2014

Country: International

URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/trade-offs-immigration-enforcement

Shelf Number: 132386

Keywords:
Border Security
Deportations
Illegal Immigrants
Illegal Immigration
Immigration Enforcement

Author: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)

Title: Criminalisation of Migrants in an Irregular Situation and of Persons Engaging with Them

Summary: This paper examines the sanctions applied to counteract irregular migration, building on previous work by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) on the rights of migrants in an irregular situation. It looks first at the punishments used for irregular entry or stay, when persons enter or stay in a territory although they are not authorised to do so. It examines, in particular, the custodial penalties for irregular entry or stay for persons to whom the safeguards of the EU Return Directive should apply. It then examines the risk that those who help such migrants or rent out accommodation to them are punished for smuggling human beings, or facilitating their entry or stay. The paper compares EU Member States' legislation and case law in this field, analysing the findings in light of relevant EU law. Based on this analysis, the paper proposes changes to policies against the smuggling of human beings, to render them more sensitive to fundamental rights.

Details: Vienna: FRA (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights), 2014.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 19, 2014 at: http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2014/criminalisation-migrants-irregular-situation-and-persons-engaging-them

Year: 2014

Country: Europe

URL: http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2014/criminalisation-migrants-irregular-situation-and-persons-engaging-them

Shelf Number: 132718

Keywords:
Human Rights
Human Smuggling
Illegal Migrants
Immigration
Immigration Enforcement
Migrants

Author: End Immigrant Detention Network

Title: Indefinite, Arbitrary and Unfair: The Truth About Immigration Detention in Canada

Summary: Today, more migrants enter Canada on temporary permits than as permanent residents. Though this has been the case with economic immigrants versus migrant workers since 1993, Canadian policies over the last decade have accelerated this trend. The Federal skilled workers program is limited to 50 occupations requiring advanced degrees (an increase from 24 since April 2014), along with years of work experience. As a result, most low-income and racialized migrants can only come to Canada under various categories of the Temporary Foreign Workers Program (TFWP). The move from permanent status towards temporary status is occurring in all aspects of the immigration system. Today, many parents and grandparents enter Canada as temporary migrants under the so-called 'Super Visa' - and only if strict income requirements are met. Many spouses and common-law partners arrive in Canada with "conditional" permanent residence, which is a temporary permit that may force some women to remain in abusive situations rather than risk revocation of status on separation. Refugee applications have dropped in half just over the last year. All of these changes disproportionately impact women, and low-income and racialized families. The Federal government has enacted increasingly harsh measures to remove people's permanent residence, particularly from those who have already served a sentence for a crime, resulting in a 'double punishment'. In the last few years, over 3,000 people have had their citizenship revoked. With more people in Canada in precarious immigration status, many migrants have to choose between living without full status in Canada or returning to places they may not want or be able to return. As a result, there are approximately 500,0005 undocumented migrants in Canada, while an unknown number of migrants on temporary visas are also engaged in unauthorized work. The legislated shift towards temporariness has been accompanied by an increase in immigration enforcement. As more people lose immigration status and become undocumented, immigration detention and deportation grows at an unprecedented rate. The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), established in December 2003, and overseen by the Ministry of Public Safety has seen its immigration enforcement budget balloon in recent years, rising from $91 million in 2010-2011, to over $198 million in 2012-2013. Though latest data on specific expenditure on immigration detention is not available, in 2008-09, when CBSA enforcement budget was $92 million, immigration detention costs were $45.7million. In 2009, immigration detention cost an average of $3,185 per detained case. In the same year, CBSA was paying between $120 and $207 to jail migrants in provincial facilities per day. By mid-2013, approximately 80,000 immigrants had been detained under the current government. In 2013 alone, between 7,373 and 9,932 immigrants spent a total of 183,928 days in immigration hold. This is a combined total of 504 years in prison. Over the past seven years, the number of detained children has fluctuated between 807 children per year in 2008 to 205 in 2013. The actual number is higher as many children are not tracked as detainees but as "accompanying their parents," or are themselves Canadian citizens and thus "not subject to" immigration detention. Advocates point to the particularly severe impacts of incarceration on women and mothers due to the lack of medical facilities for pregnancies and neo-natal care. Migrants in detention thus include those facing deportation; children 'accompanying' their parents; migrant workers who have acted outside the terms of their visas; detention upon arrival in Canada while applications are processed; those held on security grounds such as the Security Certificate detainees and others.

Details: s.l.: End Immigration Detention Network, 2014. 40p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 28, 2014 at: www.truthaboutdetention.com

Year: 2014

Country: Canada

URL: www.truthaboutdetention.com

Shelf Number: 132792

Keywords:
Immigrant Detention
Immigrants (Canada)
Immigration
Immigration Enforcement
Refugees

Author: Theodore, Nik

Title: Insecure Communities: Latino Perceptions of Police Involvement in Immigration Enforcement

Summary: This report presents findings from a survey of Latinos regarding their perceptions of law enforcement authorities in light of the greater involvement of police in immigration enforcement. Lake Research Partners designed and administered a randomized telephone survey of 2,004 Latinos living in the counties of Cook (Chicago), Harris (Houston), Los Angeles, and Maricopa (Phoenix). The survey was designed to assess the impact of police involvement in immigration enforcement on Latinos' perceptions of public safety and their willingness to contact the police when crimes have been committed. The survey was conducted in English and Spanish by professional interviewers during the period November 17 to December 10, 2012. Survey results indicate that the increased involvement of police in immigration enforcement has significantly heightened the fears many Latinos have of the police, contributing to their social isolation and exacerbating their mistrust of law enforcement authorities. Key findings include: - 44 percent of Latinos surveyed reported they are less likely to contact police officers if they have been the victim of a crime because they fear that police officers will use this interaction as an opportunity to inquire into their immigration status or that of people they know. - 45 percent of Latinos stated that they are less likely to voluntarily offer information about crimes, and 45 percent are less likely to report a crime because they are afraid the police will ask them or people they know about their immigration status. - 70 percent of undocumented immigrants reported they are less likely to contact law enforcement authorities if they were victims of a crime. - Fear of police contact is not confined to immigrants. For example, 28 percent of US-born Latinos said they are less likely to contact police officers if they have been the victim of a crime because they fear that police officers will use this interaction as an opportunity to inquire into their immigration status or that of people they know. - 38 percent of Latinos reported they feel like they are under more suspicion now that local law enforcement authorities have become involved in immigration enforcement. This figure includes 26 percent of US-born respondents, 40 percent of foreign-born respondents, and 58 percent of undocumented immigrant respondents. - When asked how often police officers stop Latinos without good reason or cause, 62 percent said very or somewhat often, including 58 percent of US-born respondents, 64 percent of foreign-born respondents, and 78 percent of undocumented immigrant respondents. These findings reveal one of the unintended consequences of the involvement of state and local police in immigration enforcement - a reduction in public safety as Latinos' mistrust of the police increases as a result of the involvement of police in immigration enforcement.

Details: Chicago: Department of Urban Planning and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago, 2013. 28p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 30, 2014 at: https://greatcities.uic.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Insecure_Communities_Report_FINAL.pdf

Year: 2013

Country: United States

URL: https://greatcities.uic.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Insecure_Communities_Report_FINAL.pdf

Shelf Number: 132847

Keywords:
Illegal Immigration
Immigration Enforcement
Latinos
Police-Citizen Interactions
Undocumented Immigrants (Illinois)

Author: Seghetti, Lisa

Title: Border Security: Immigration Inspections at Port of Entry

Summary: About 362 million travelers (citizens and non-citizens) entered the United States in FY2013, including about 102 million air passengers and crew, 18 million sea passengers and crew, and 242 million incoming land travelers. At the same time about 205,000 aliens were denied admission at ports of entry (POEs); and about 24,000 persons were arrested at POEs on criminal warrants. (Not all persons arrested are denied admission, including because some are U.S. citizens.) Within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) Office of Field Operations (OFO) is responsible for conducting immigration inspections at America's 329 POEs. CBP's primary immigration enforcement mission at ports of entry is to confirm that travelers are eligible to enter the United States and to exclude inadmissible aliens. Yet strict enforcement is in tension with a second core mission: to facilitate the flow of lawful travelers, who are the vast majority of persons seeking admission. A fundamental question for Congress and DHS is how to balance these competing concerns. In general, DHS and CBP rely on "risk management" to strike this balance. One part of the risk management strategy is to conduct screening at multiple points in the immigration process, beginning well before travelers arrive at U.S. POEs. DHS and other departments involved in the inspections process use a number of screening tools to distinguish between known, low-risk travelers and lesser-known, higher-risk travelers. Low-risk travelers may be eligible for expedited admissions processing, while higher-risk travelers are usually subject to more extensive secondary inspections. As part of its dual mission, and in support of its broader mandate to manage the U.S. immigration system, DHS also is responsible for implementing an electronic entry-exit system at POEs. Congress required DHS' predecessor to develop an entry-exit system beginning in 1996, but the implementation of a fully automated, biometric system has proven to be an elusive goal. The current system collects and stores biographic entry data (e.g., name, date of birth, travel history) from almost all non-citizens entering the United States, but only collects biometric data (e.g., fingerprints and digital photographs) from non-citizens entering at air or seaports, and from a subset of land travelers that excludes most Mexican and Canadian visitors. With respect to exit data, the current system relies on information sharing agreements with air and sea carriers and with Canada to collect biographic data from air and sea travelers and from certain non-citizens exiting through northern border land ports; but the system does not collect data from persons exiting by southern border land ports and does not collect any biometric exit data. Questions also have been raised about DHS' ability to use existing entry-exit data to identify and apprehend visa over-stayers. The inspections process and entry-exit system may raise a number of questions for Congress, including in the context of the ongoing debate about immigration reform. What is the scope of illegal migration through ports of entry, and how can Congress and DHS minimize illegal flows without unduly slowing legal travel? Congress may consider steps to enhance POE personnel and infrastructure and to expand trusted travel programs. Congress also may continue to seek the completion of the entry-exit system, a program that has been the subject of ongoing legislative activity since 1996, as summarized in the appendix to this report.

Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2014. 39p.

Source: Internet Resource: R43356: Accessed July 31, 2014 at: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43356.pdf

Year: 2014

Country: United States

URL: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43356.pdf

Shelf Number: 132857

Keywords:
Border Security (U.S.)
Homeland Security
Illegal Immigration
Immigration
Immigration Enforcement
Risk Management
Undocumented Immigrants

Author: University of Nevada, Las Vegas. William S. Boyd School of Law, Thomas & Mack Legal Clinic, Immigration Clinic

Title: The Conditions of Immigration Detention in Nevada: A Report on the Henderson Detention Center, November 19, 2013

Summary: The most recent statistics on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity show that ICE detained 429,247 individuals during the 2011 fiscal year. Compared to the number of immigrants detained in the last twenty years, this represents an enormous expansion of efforts to physically contain immigrants. Indeed, from 1995 to 2009, ICE expanded its daily detention capacity by 400%. During the same timeframe, ICE removals skyrocketed by more than 700%. In other words, ICE has paired a massive expansion of detention with a focus on aggressive efforts to carry out deportations. This sudden and unprecedented expansion of ICE's power and responsibility has placed immigrants in a particularly vulnerable position. Aggressive prosecution and expanded use of detention has simply added to the well-documented vulnerabilities that tend to characterize immigrants as a group. In the United States, immigrants are more likely than those born in the U.S. to lag behind in education, have trouble speaking English, and to be in or near poverty. Moreover, immigrants are less likely to report when they are the victims of criminal and civil violations. These attributes are exacerbated by the fact that most immigrants in detention do not have ready access to counsel because they are often detained some distance from their homes (and population centers generally), and the U.S. removal system does not provide indigent detainees with counsel. ICE's rapid and aggressive expansion of detention and removal, combined with the inherent vulnerabilities of the undocumented population, has led to grave concerns about the treatment of detained immigrants. As a result, ICE's Office of Detention Oversight (ODO) has audited correctional facilities where immigration detainees are housed.13 Yet these efforts have not resolved concerns about immigration detention. This report represents an effort to examine immigration detention conditions in Nevada and determine whether improvements have occurred at the Henderson Detention Center (HDC) since ODO performed its audit of HDC in 2011.

Details: Las Vegas: Immigration Clinic, Thomas & Mack Legal Clinic, William S. Boyd School of Law, 2013. 54p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 22, 2014 at: http://www.knpr.org/son/images/people/immigrationdetentionnevada.pdf

Year: 2013

Country: United States

URL: http://www.knpr.org/son/images/people/immigrationdetentionnevada.pdf

Shelf Number: 131908

Keywords:
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrant Detention (Nevada)
Immigration Enforcement
Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Miles, Thomas J.

Title: Does Immigration Enforcement Reduce Crime? Evidence from "Secure Communities"

Summary: Does immigration enforcement actually reduce crime? Surprisingly, little evidence exists either way-despite the fact that deporting noncitizens who commit crimes has been a central feature of American immigration law since the early twentieth century. We capitalize on a natural policy experiment to address the question and, in the process, provide the first empirical analysis of the most important deportation initiative to be rolled out in decades. The policy initiative we study is "Secure Communities," a program designed to enable the federal government to check the immigration status of every person arrested for a crime by local police. Before this program, the government checked the immigration status of only a small fraction of arrestees. Since its launch, the program has led to over a quarter of a million detentions. We exploit the slow rollout of the program across more than 3,000 U.S. counties to obtain differences-in-differences estimates of the impact of Secure Communities on local crime rates. We also use rich data on the number of immigrants detained under the program in each county and month-data obtained from the federal government through extensive FOIA requests-to estimate the elasticity of crime with respect to incapacitated immigrants. Our results show that Secure Communities led to no meaningful reductions in the FBI index crime rate. Nor has it reduced rates of violent crime-homicide, rape, robbery, or aggravated assault. This evidence shows that the program has not served its central objective of making communities safer.

Details: Chicago: University of Chicago School of Law; New York: New York University Law School, 2014. 61p.

Source: Internet Resource: Draft, August 21, 2014: Accessed September 15, 2014 at: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/file/does_immigration_enforcement_reduce_crime_082514.pdf

Year: 2014

Country: United States

URL: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/file/does_immigration_enforcement_reduce_crime_082514.pdf

Shelf Number: 133328

Keywords:
Crime Prevention
Immigrants (U.S.)
Immigrants and Crime
Immigration
Immigration Enforcement
Secure Communities
Undocumented Citizens

Author: Capps, Randy

Title: Executive Action for Unauthorized Immigrants: Estimates of the Populations that Could Receive Relief

Summary: In the absence of legislative movement to reform the U.S. immigration system, the Obama administration is considering executive action to provide relief from deportation to some of the nation's estimated 11.7 million unauthorized immigrants. These actions could include an expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, extension of deferred action to new populations, or further refinement of enforcement priorities to shrink the pool of those subject to deportation. Using an innovative methodology to analyze the most recent U.S. Census Bureau data to determine unauthorized status, this issue brief examines scenarios for executive action publicly advanced by members of Congress immigrant-rights advocates, and others, providing estimates for DACA expansion or potential populations (such as spouses and parents of U.S. citizens) that might gain deferred action. Among the possible criteria for deferred action that MPI modeled are length of U.S. residence; close family ties to U.S. citizens, legal permanent residents, or DACA beneficiaries; and/or potential eligibility for a green card as the immediate relative of a U.S. citizen. The brief's key findings include: - Modifications to current DACA criteria could expand the eligible population by a few tens of thousands or as many as 1.9 million. For example, eliminating the current education requirement while retaining all other criteria would expand the population by about 430,000. - Looking beyond the DACA-eligible population, 3 million unauthorized immigrants had lived in the United States for 15 or more years as of 2012, 5.7 million for at least ten years, and 8.5 million for at least five years. - An estimated 3.8 million unauthorized immigrants were parents or spouses of U.S. citizens as of 2012. - 1.3 million unauthorized immigrants in 2012 had immediate-relative relationships with U.S. citizens that potentially qualify them for green cards, including 770,000 because of their marriage and 560,000 because they were parents of a U.S. citizen. Beyond deferred action, the Obama administration is said to be considering refinement of immigration enforcement priorities to limit the deportation of certain groups of unauthorized immigrants if they are apprehended by federal immigration authorities. While it is not possible to model future apprehensions and thus predict who might be affected by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) enforcement priorities, MPI analyzed 11 years of ICE removals data (for fiscal years 2003-13) to determine how changes to current enforcement priorities could have affected past deportations, assuming removals were strictly limited to priority cases. Among the findings: - Narrowing the definition of "recent illegal entrants" to those apprehended within one year of entering the U.S. (currently the definition is three years) would have reduced removals by 232,000 during 2003-13. - Excluding noncitizens convicted exclusively of traffic offenses (other than DUI) would have resulted in 206,000 fewer removals over the period. - Excluding all non-violent crimes would have reduced removals by 433,000. - Foregoing deportation of those with outstanding deportation orders more than a decade old would have resulted in 203,000 fewer removals. The brief makes clear that the reach of potential changes to expand the DACA program or refine immigration enforcement priorities would be even greater if multiple changes were to be implemented at the same time.

Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2014. 13p.

Source: Internet Resource: MPI Issue Brief No. 10: Accessed October 2, 2014 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/executive-action-unauthorized-immigrants-estimates-populations-could-receive-relief

Year: 2014

Country: United States

URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/executive-action-unauthorized-immigrants-estimates-populations-could-receive-relief

Shelf Number: 133550

Keywords:
Illegal Immigrants
Immigration (U.S.)
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy
Unauthorized Immigrants

Author: Human Rights Watch

Title: Two Years with No Moon: Immigration Detention of Children in Thailand

Summary: Every year, Thailand arbitrarily detains thousands of children, including infants and toddlers, in squalid immigration facilities and police lock-ups. About 100 children each year - primarily from countries that do not border Thailand - may be held for months or years, due to their immigration status or that of their parents. Thousands more children - from Thailand's neighboring countries - are summarily deported with their families to their home countries within days or weeks. But no matter how long the period of detention, these facilities are no place for children. Two Years With No Moon describes the needless suffering and permanent harm that migrant children experience in Thai immigration detention. It examines the abusive conditions children endure in detention centers, particularly in the Bangkok immigration detention center, one of the most heavily used facilities, where children are held in filthy, overcrowded cells without adequate nutrition, education, or exercise space. Thailand's use of immigration detention violates children's rights under international law, risks their health and wellbeing, and imperils their capacity to mentally and physically grow and thrive. Children should not lose any of their childhood in immigration detention. Alternatives to detention exist and are used effectively in other countries, such as open reception centers and conditional release programs. Such programs, generally a cheaper option, respect children's rights and protect their future. Given the serious risks of permanent harm from depriving children of liberty, Thailand should immediately cease detention of children because of their immigration status.

Details: New York: HRW, 2014. 89p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 8, 2014 at: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/thailand0914_ForUpload_0.pdf

Year: 2014

Country: Thailand

URL: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/thailand0914_ForUpload_0.pdf

Shelf Number: 133594

Keywords:
Immigrant Children (Thailand)
Immigrant Detention
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy

Author: Amnesty International

Title: The human cost of Fortress Europe: Human rights violations against migrants and refugees at Europe's borders,

Summary: Every year, thousands of migrants and refugees try to reach Europe. Some are fleeing grinding poverty; others are seeking refuge from violence and persecution. The response of the European Union (EU) and its member states has been to invest in surveillance technology, security forces and detention centres, both internally and in neighbouring countries, with one overriding aim: to construct an impenetrable fortress at Europe's borders to keep people out. Fixated on "protecting" borders, EU member states are employing drastic measures, some of which breach their human rights obligations and cause immense human suffering. At some EU borders, migrants and refugees are denied access to asylum procedures and pushed back into neigbouring countries, often in ways that put them at grave risk. They are ill-treated by border guards and coastguards and left stranded in neighbouring countries where there are serious human rights concerns. With safer routes to Europe being closed off through increased securitization, and in the absence of legal channels into the EU, migrants and refugees are attempting ever more hazardous routes. Thousands have died on the journey since 2000; many more are missing feared dead. This report describes some of the key elements of the EU's migration policy and how this policy plays out at the EU border where Bulgaria and Greece meet Turkey, one of the main routes used by Syrian refugees seeking safety in the EU. The report ends with recommendations calling on the EU and member states to review their migration policy urgently in order to shift its primary focus from protecting borders to protecting people.

Details: London: AI, 2014. 54p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 9, 2014 at: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/EUR05/001/2014/en

Year: 2014

Country: Europe

URL: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/EUR05/001/2014/en

Shelf Number: 133928

Keywords:
Border Security (Europe)
Human Rights Abuses
Illegal Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Migration Policy
Refugees

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 Deportation
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy

Author: Human Rights Watch

Title: "You Don't Have Rights Here". US Border Screening and Returns of Central Americans to Risk of Serious Harm

Summary: In recent years, the United States has apprehended growing numbers of Central Americans crossing the US-Mexico border without authorization. These migrants have left their countries for many reasons, including fleeing rising violence by gangs involved in the drug trade. US Customs and Border Protection deports the overwhelming majority of migrants it apprehends from Central America in accelerated processes known as "expedited removal" or "reinstatement of removal." These processes include rapid-fire screening for a migrant's fear of persecution or torture upon return to their home country. "You Don't Have Rights Here" details how summary screening at the US border is failing to identify people fleeing serious risks to their lives and safety. It is based primarily on the accounts of migrants sent back to Honduras or in detention in US migrant detention facilities. An analysis of US government deportation data shows that the Border Patrol flags only a tiny minority of Central Americans for a more extended interview to determine if they have a "credible" fear of returning home. Migrants said that Border Patrol officers seemed singularly focused on deporting them and their families despite their fear of return. Some said that after their deportation they went into hiding, fearful for their lives. Human Rights Watch calls on the US government to ensure that immigration authorities give the cases of Central American migrants sufficient scrutiny before returning them to risk of serious harm. It also urges US authorities to stop detaining migrant children, and to improve migrants' access to lawyers.

Details: New York: HRW, 2014. 49p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 17, 2014 at: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us1014_web.pdf

Year: 2014

Country: Central America

URL: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us1014_web.pdf

Shelf Number: 133732

Keywords:
Border Security
Deportation
Human Rights Abuses
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrant Detention
Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement

Author: Police Executive Research Forum

Title: Local Police Perspectives on State Immigration Policies

Summary: In recent years, several states have adopted immigration policies that have created conflict for local police agencies. These policies, such as those in Arizona's SB 1070 legislation, pose challenges for police agencies that are working to build strong ties to their communities while enforcing the laws of their jurisdictions. On December 12, 2012, the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), in partnership with the Tucson Police Department and with funding from the Ford Foundation, convened a group of police executives from Alabama, Arizona, California, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia to discuss the challenges that state immigration laws pose for local police and sheriffs' departments. The goal of the day-long Executive Roundtable Discussion was to bring together Arizona officials with law enforcement leaders from states that were in various stages of implementing legislation similar to SB 1070, so they could share their experiences and lessons learned. This publication will explore some of the commonalities and differences that exist across different jurisdictions with respect to the issues, the challenges that state immigration laws pose for local policing, how such laws are being enforced, and efforts by each locality to mitigate some of the problematic effects of such laws. As immigration policies continue to evolve, police departments across the country will continue to face the question of how to comply with new laws that require police to take a larger role in immigration enforcement, while maintaining their traditional roles of protecting public safety and fostering relationships with their communities. PERF is continuing the discussions initiated at the 2012 Roundtable and promoting dialogue in which police executives remain committed to preserving public trust.

Details: Washington, DC: PERF, 2014. 52p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 20, 2014 at: https://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Free_Online_Documents/Immigration/local%20police%20perspectives%20on%20state%20immigration%20policies.pdf

Year: 2014

Country: United States

URL: https://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Free_Online_Documents/Immigration/local%20police%20perspectives%20on%20state%20immigration%20policies.pdf

Shelf Number: 133747

Keywords:
Immigrants
Immigration (U.S.)
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy

Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office

Title: Alternatives to Detention: Improved Data Collection and Analyses Needed to Better Assess Program Effectiveness

Summary: Aliens awaiting removal proceedings or found to be removable from the United States are detained in ICE custody or released into the community under one or more options, such as release on bond and under supervision of the ATD program. Within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), ICE is responsible for overseeing aliens in detention and those released into the community. In 2004 ICE implemented the ATD program to be a cost-effective alternative to detaining aliens. ICE administers the program with contractor assistance using case management and electronic monitoring to ensure aliens comply with release conditions-including appearing at immigration court hearings and leaving the United States if they receive a final order of removal. The Joint Explanatory Statement to the 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act mandated that GAO evaluate ICE's implementation of the ATD program. This report addresses (1) trends in ATD program participation from fiscal years 2011 through 2013 and the extent to which ICE provides oversight to help ensure cost-effective program implementation, and (2) the extent that ICE measured the performance of the ATD program for fiscal years 2011 through 2013. GAO analyzed ICE and ATD program data, reviewed ICE documentation, and interviewed ICE and ATD contractor officials. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that ICE analyze data to monitor ERO field offices' implementation of guidance and require the collection of data on the Technology-only component. DHS concurred with the recommendations.

Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2014. 46p.

Source: Internet Resource: GAO-15-26: Accessed November 25, 2014 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/666911.pdf

Year: 2014

Country: United States

URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/666911.pdf

Shelf Number: 134254

Keywords:
Alternatives to Incarceration
Immigrant Detention (U.S.)
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
Immigration Enforcement
Undocumented Citizens

Author: Accardi, Steven

Title: "Humanitarian Aid in Never a Crime." A study of one local public's attempt to negotiate rhetorical agency with the state

Summary: At its core, this dissertation is a study of how one group of ordinary people attempted to make change in their local and national community by reframing a public debate. Since 1993, over five thousand undocumented migrants have died, mostly of dehydration, while attempting to cross the US/Mexico border. Volunteers for No More Deaths (NMD), a humanitarian group in Tucson, hike the remote desert trails of the southern Arizona desert and provide food, water, and first aid to undocumented migrants in medical distress. They believe that their actions reduce suffering and deaths in the desert. On December 4, 2008, Walt Staton, a NMD volunteer placed multiple one-gallon jugs of water on a known migrant trail, and a Fish and Wildlife officer on the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge near Arivaca, Arizona cited him for littering. Staton refused to pay the fine, believing that he was providing life-saving humanitarian aid, and was taken to court as a result. His trial from June 1-3, 2009 is the main focus of this dissertation. The dissertation begins by tracing the history of the rhetorical marker "illegal" and its role in the deaths of thousands of "illegal" immigrants. Then, it outlines the history of NMD, from its roots in the Sanctuary Movement to its current operation as a counterpublic discursively subverting the state. Next, it examines Staton's trial as a postmodern rhetorical situation, where subjects negotiate their rhetorical agency with the state. Finally, it measures the rhetorical effect of NMD's actions by tracing humanitarian and human rights ideographs in online discussion boards before and after Staton's sentencing. The study finds that despite situational restrictions, as the postmodern critique suggests, subjects are still able to identify and engage with rhetorical opportunities, and in doing so can still subvert the state

Details: Phoenix, AZ: Arizona State University, 2011. 192p.

Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed January 16, 2015 at: http://repository.asu.edu/attachments/56796/content/Accardi_asu_0010E_10757.pdf

Year: 2011

Country: United States

URL: http://repository.asu.edu/attachments/56796/content/Accardi_asu_0010E_10757.pdf

Shelf Number: 134414

Keywords:
Illegal Immigrants (Arizona)
Illegal Immigration
Immigration Enforcement
Undocumented Migrants

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.)
Immigration
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy
Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Australian Human Rights Commission

Title: The Forgotten Children: National Inquiry into Children in Immigrant Detention

Summary: Australia currently holds about 800 children in mandatory closed immigration detention for indefinite periods, with no pathway to protection or settlement. This includes 186 children detained on Nauru. Children and their families have been held on the mainland and on Christmas Island for, on average, one year and two months. Over 167 babies have been born in detention within the last 24 months. This Report gives a voice to these children.

Details: Sydney: The Commission, 2014. 324p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 18, 2015 at: http://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/document/publication/forgotten_children_2014.pdf

Year: 2014

Country: Australia

URL: http://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/document/publication/forgotten_children_2014.pdf

Shelf Number: 134641

Keywords:
Immigrant Children
Immigrant Detention (Australia)
Immigration Enforcement

Author: Seilonen, Aleksi

Title: Administrative Detention of Migrants in the District Court of Helsinki

Summary: The overarching aim of this study was to investigate and evaluate the practical application of the Finnish law regulating the grounds and conditions of detention of aliens. This is the first comprehensive study on the subject and we hope that these findings will contribute to current and future discussion on detention in Finland and can be used as a basis for influencing the legislative and decision making processes. The study focuses on three primary issues: 1) the practice of detention in Finland, including statistical information as well as the main grounds of detention and their interpretation by the police and the court, 2) the right to effective judicial proceedings and 3) the conditions of detention, in particular its length and the placement of detainees in police prisons. The data for the study was collected from the District Court of Helsinki detention cases between 15 February and 31 May 2013. Altogether 57 detention hearings were monitored in place at the Court. Case records were collected, in addition to the 57 monitored cases, from 110 further cases. The data thus comprises records of a total of 167 district court cases. In addition, all detention cases from the Helsinki Court of Appeal up to 6 June 2013 were collected to support the analysis. The findings described in this report point out a number of issues which are problematic in the light of international standards: the proportionality assessment in detention decisions, the interpretation and application of the grounds of detention, matters concerning the conditions of dentition and certain aspects of the right to fair and effective judicial proceedings.

Details: Helsinki: University of Helsinki, 2015. 75p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 18, 2015 at: http://www.helsinki.fi/law-and-other/publications/detention-monitoring-report.pdf

Year: 2015

Country: Finland

URL: http://www.helsinki.fi/law-and-other/publications/detention-monitoring-report.pdf

Shelf Number: 134646

Keywords:
Asylum Seekers
Illegal Immigrants (Finland)
Immigrant Detention
Immigration Enforcement

Author: Nix, Justin

Title: Immigration and Law Enforcement: Results from a State Census of Police Executives

Summary: This report represents the 2012 South Carolina Law Enforcement Census. The census is an annual survey conducted by the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of South Carolina. The survey alternates on a year-to-year basis between a general census of South Carolina law enforcement agency characteristics and surveys on special issues confronting agencies in the state. Previous special-issue surveys have explored various topics including patterns of gang activity in South Carolina, standards of law enforcement training, and local law enforcement use of the South Carolina Intelligence and Information Center (SCIIC). This year's survey focuses on state and local law enforcement perspectives on immigration enforcement issues that underlie South Carolina Senate Bill 20, which contains provisions related to enforcement of immigration laws by state and local law enforcement. A handful of states have passed legislation "or are giving consideration to legislation" that authorizes local law enforcement to play a more active role in immigration enforcement efforts. Although such legislation will likely increase the workload of local law enforcement agencies, little empirical consideration has been given to how local law enforcement leaders view such legislation and its impact on their agencies. While the issue of illegal or unauthorized immigrants in the United States could involve individuals from diverse countries of origin, the present study focuses on Hispanic/Latino immigrants. This focus is in response to the concerns expressed in other states and from comments of local law enforcement executives who played an advisory role in the development of this study. These executives suggested that in South Carolina the current issue of state and local law enforcement involvement in immigration enforcement largely centers on Hispanic/Latino immigrants.

Details: University of South Carolina, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 2012. 87p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed march 12, 2015 at: http://artsandsciences.sc.edu/crju/pdfs/sc_census_2012.pdf

Year: 2012

Country: United States

URL: http://artsandsciences.sc.edu/crju/pdfs/sc_census_2012.pdf

Shelf Number: 134914

Keywords:
Immigrants (South Carolina)
Immigration
Immigration Enforcement

Author: Facchini, Giovanni

Title: The Rhetoric of Closed Borders: Quotas, Lax Enforcement and Illegal Migration

Summary: This paper studies why illegal immigration is widespread. We develop a political agency model in which a politician decides on an immigration target and its enforcement, facing uncertainty on the supply of migrants. Illegal immigration can arise for two reasons: the policy maker may be unable to enforce the target because supply is higher than expected; alternatively, he may underinvest in enforcement because of electoral concerns, and this occurs only when the incumbent and the majority of voters have different preferences over immigration. Empirical evidence provides strong support for our predictions, highlighting how electoral concerns shape illegal immigration flows.

Details: Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor, 2014. 41p.

Source: Internet Resource: IZA Discussion Paper No. 8457: Accessed April 29, 2015 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2502317

Year: 2014

Country: United States

URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2502317

Shelf Number: 135410

Keywords:
Illegal Immigrants (Europe)
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy

Author: Rabin, Nina

Title: Victims or Criminals? Discretion, Sorting, and Bureaucratic Culture in the U.S. Immigration System?

Summary: This article examines the Obama Administration's effort to encourage the use of prosecutorial discretion by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the executive agency in charge of the enforcement of immigration laws. Since 2010, the Obama Administration has repeatedly stated that agency officials are to focus enforcement efforts on those who pose a threat or danger, rather than pursuing deportation of all undocumented immigrants with equal fervor. Yet despite repeated directives by the administration, the implementation of prosecutorial discretion is widely considered a failure. Data and anecdotes from the field suggest that ICE has yet to embrace this more nuanced approach to the enforcement of immigration laws. In this article, I argue that one key reason that prosecutorial discretion has not taken hold within ICE is the failure of the President and his administration to adequately account for agency culture. In particular, the prosecutorial discretion initiative directly conflicts with the central role that criminal convictions play in ICE culture. To support my argument, I present an in-depth case study of the agency's refusal to exercise discretion in a highly compelling case. For over two years, ICE aggressively prosecuted a client of University of Arizona's immigration clinic who appeared to be the quintessential recipient of prosecutorial discretion, as the victim of domestic violence, sex trafficking, and the primary caregiver for three young U.S citizen children. Despite these equities, ICE's decision to prosecute was based wholly on the single conviction on her record, which was directly related to her victimization and for which she received a sentence of probation only. I situate this case study in a theoretical framework regarding bureaucratic culture. Applying this analysis to ICE brings into focus key elements of the agency's culture, particularly its tendency to view all immigrants as criminal threats. This culture makes the sole fact of a conviction - without regard to its seriousness or context - a nearly irreversible determinant of the agency's approach to any given case. My analysis of the nature and intensity of ICE's bureaucratic culture has troubling implications for the capacity of the President and his administration to implement reforms that counter the lack of nuance in the immigration system's current legal framework. It suggests that locating discretion primarily in the enforcement arm of the immigration bureaucracy has inherent limitations that lead to a system poorly designed to address humanitarian concerns raised in individual cases.

Details: Tucson: University of Arizona - James E. Rogers College of Law, 2013. 68p.

Source: Internet Resource: Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 13-38 : Accessed June 3, 2015 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2310125

Year: 2013

Country: United States

URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2310125

Shelf Number: 129775

Keywords:
Immigrants
Immigration
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy
Prosecutorial Discretion

Author: Garcia, Michael John

Title: State and Local "Sanctuary" Policies Limiting Participation in Immigration Enforcement

Summary: While the power to prescribe rules as to which aliens may enter the United States and which aliens may be removed resides solely with the federal government, the impact of alien migration-whether lawful or unlawful-is arguably felt most directly in the communities where aliens settle. State and local responses to unlawfully present aliens within their jurisdictions have varied considerably, particularly as to the role that state and local police should play in enforcing federal immigration law. Some states, cities, and other municipalities have sought to play an active role in immigration enforcement efforts. However, others have been unwilling to assist the federal government in enforcing measures that distinguish between residents with legal immigration status and those who lack authorization under federal law to be present in the United States. In some circumstances, these jurisdictions have actively opposed federal immigration authorities' efforts to identity and remove certain unlawfully present aliens within their jurisdictions. Although state and local restrictions on cooperation with federal immigration enforcement efforts have existed for decades, there has reportedly been an upswing in the adoption of these measures in recent years. Moreover, the nature of these restrictions has evolved over time, particularly in response to recent federal immigration enforcement initiatives like Secure Communities (subsequently replaced by the Priority Enforcement Program), which enable federal authorities to more easily identify removable aliens in state or local custody. Entities that have adopted such policies are sometimes referred to as "sanctuary" jurisdictions, though there is not necessarily a consensus as to the meaning of this term or its application to a particular state or locality. Recent reports that an alien who shot and killed a woman, after being released by San Francisco authorities who had declined to honor an immigration detainer issued by federal authorities, have brought increased attention to state and local practices of declining to honor such detainers, as well as "sanctuary" policies more generally. This report discusses legal issues related to state and local measures that limit law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities. The report begins by providing a brief overview of the constitutional principles informing the relationship between federal immigration authorities and state and local jurisdictions, including the federal government's power to preempt state and local activities under the Supremacy Clause, and the Tenth Amendment's proscription against Congress directly "commandeering" the states to administer a federally enacted regulatory scheme. The report then discusses various types of measures adopted or considered by states and localities to limit their participation in federal immigration enforcement efforts, including (1) limiting police investigations into the immigration status of persons with whom they come in contact; (2) declining to honor federal immigration authorities' requests that certain aliens be held until those authorities may assume custody; (3) shielding certain unlawfully present aliens from detection by federal immigration authorities; and (4) amending or applying state criminal laws so as to reduce or eliminate the immigration consequences that might result from an alien's criminal conviction. For discussion of legal issues raised by states and localities seeking to play an active role in enforcing federal immigration law, see CRS Report R41423, Authority of State and Local Police to Enforce Federal Immigration Law, by Michael John Garcia and Kate M. Manuel.

Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2015. 23p.

Source: Internet Resource: R43457: Accessed July 23, 2015 at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43457.pdf

Year: 2015

Country: United States

URL: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43457.pdf

Shelf Number: 136136

Keywords:
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrants
Immigration
Immigration Enforcement

Author: Rosenblum, Marc R.

Title: Understanding the Potential Impact of Executive Action on Immigration Enforcement

Summary: While much of the attention to the Obama administration's announcement of executive actions on immigration in November 2014 has focused on key deferred action programs, two changes that have not faced legal challenge are in the process of being implemented and may substantially affect the U.S. immigration enforcement system. These changes include the adoption by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of new policy guidance on which categories of unauthorized immigrants and other potentially removable noncitizens are priorities for enforcement, and the replacement of the controversial Secure Communities information-sharing program with a new, more tailored Priority Enforcement Program (PEP). The new policy guidance, which builds on previous memoranda published by the Obama administration in 2010 and 2011, further targets enforcement to noncitizens who have been convicted of serious crimes, are threats to public safety, are recent illegal entrants, or have violated recent deportation orders. MPI estimates that about 13 percent of unauthorized immigrants in the United States would be considered enforcement priorities under these policies, compared to 27 percent under the 2010-11 enforcement guidelines. The net effect of this new guidance will likely be a reduction in deportations from within the interior of the United States as DHS detention and deportation resources are increasingly allocated to more explicitly defined priorities. By comparing the new enforcement priorities to earlier DHS removal data, this report estimates that the 2014 policy guidance, if strictly adhered to, is likely to reduce deportations from within the United States by about 25,000 cases annually - bringing interior removals below the 100,000 mark. Removals at the U.S.-Mexico border remain a top priority under the 2014 guidelines, so falling interior removals may be offset to some extent by increases at the border. Taking the enforcement focus off settled unauthorized immigrants who do not meet the November 2014 enforcement priorities would effectively offer a degree of protection to the vast majority - 87 percent - of unauthorized immigrants now residing in the United States, thus affecting a substantially larger share of this population than the announced deferred action programs (9.6 million compared to as many as 5.2 million unauthorized immigrants). This report analyzes how many unauthorized immigrants fall within each of the new priority categories and how implementation of these priorities could affect the number of deportations from the United States, as well as what the termination of Secure Communities and launch of PEP could mean for federal cooperation with state and local authorities on immigration.

Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2015. 31p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 29, 2015 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/understanding-potential-impact-executive-action-immigration-enforcement

Year: 2015

Country: United States

URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/understanding-potential-impact-executive-action-immigration-enforcement

Shelf Number: 136235

Keywords:
Criminal Aliens
Deportation
Illegal Immigrants
Immigration
Immigration Enforcement
Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Ewing, Walter A.

Title: The Criminalization of Immigration in the United States

Summary: For more than a century, innumerable studies have confirmed two simple yet powerful truths about the relationship between immigration and crime: immigrants are less likely to commit serious crimes or be behind bars than the native-born, and high rates of immigration are associated with lower rates of violent crime and property crime. This holds true for both legal immigrants and the unauthorized, regardless of their country of origin or level of education. In other words, the overwhelming majority of immigrants are not "criminals" by any commonly accepted definition of the term. For this reason, harsh immigration policies are not effective in fighting crime. Unfortunately, immigration policy is frequently shaped more by fear and stereotype than by empirical evidence. As a result, immigrants have the stigma of "criminality" ascribed to them by an ever-evolving assortment of laws and immigration-enforcement mechanisms. Put differently, immigrants are being defined more and more as threats. Whole new classes of "felonies" have been created which apply only to immigrants, deportation has become a punishment for even minor offenses, and policies aimed at trying to end unauthorized immigration have been made more punitive rather than more rational and practical. In short, immigrants themselves are being criminalized.

Details: Washington, DC: American Immigration Council, 2015. 28p.

Source: Internet Resource: Special Report: Accessed August 3, 2015 at: http://immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/the_criminalization_of_immigration_in_the_united_states_final.pdf

Year: 2015

Country: United States

URL: http://immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/the_criminalization_of_immigration_in_the_united_states_final.pdf

Shelf Number: 136285

Keywords:
Deportation
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy

Author: Slack, Jeremy

Title: In the Shadow of the Wall: Family Separation, Immigration Enforcement and Security.

Summary: Report based on 1,113 surveys completed by bi-national team between 2011-12 examines who are the migrants deported to Mexico, their experiences during their journeys in the United States and the impact of the immigration enforcement strategies. The report includes photographs by Murphy Woodhouse.

Details: Tucson: Center for Latin American Studies, University of Arizona, 2013. 40p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 13, 2015 at: http://las.arizona.edu/sites/las.arizona.edu/files/UA_Immigration_Report2013web.pdf

Year: 2013

Country: United States

URL: http://las.arizona.edu/sites/las.arizona.edu/files/UA_Immigration_Report2013web.pdf

Shelf Number: 136396

Keywords:
Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Immigrations

Author: Slack, Jeremy

Title: Border Militarization and Health: Violence, Death and Security in Mexico and the United States

Summary: Despite proposed increases in spending on personnel and equipment for border enforcement tied to the amended version of the U.S. Senate's current immigration reform bill, the public health impacts of border militarization are relatively under-examined. We begin to explore these health impacts by drawing on the Migrant Border Crossing Study (MBCS) a new data source based on 1,110 surveys of a random sample of deportees we carried out with a bi-national team in five Mexican border cities and in Mexico City. The violence generated by current border and immigration enforcement practices has led to a humanitarian crisis on the U.S.-Mexico border. We specifically examine the risks and dangers associated with contemporary border crossing experiences, migrant deaths in the desert, abuses committed by U.S. authorities involved in immigration enforcement, and migrants' conditions while in U.S. custody, including access to medical attention. The paper also draws from research with families of migrants in Puebla to expand our understandings of the health impacts of migration that extend beyond people impacted directly by U.S. policies to include their families and return migrants' experiences. We end this paper with suggestions about how to address negative health impacts through policy changes.

Details: Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, Center for Latin American Studies, 2014. 26p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 14, 2015 at: http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=scott_whiteford

Year: 2014

Country: United States

URL: http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=scott_whiteford

Shelf Number: 136420

Keywords:
Border Patrol
Border Security
Illegal Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Migrant Deaths

Author: U.S. White House

Title: Moderning & Streamlining our Legal Immigration System for the 21st Century

Summary: On November 20, 2014, President Obama acted within his authority to take executive action to fix our broken immigration system. He announced critical measures that enhance border security; create accountability for certain undocumented individuals; and modernize our legal immigration systems for high-skilled workers, entrepreneurs, students, and families. These steps are enhancing the integrity of our immigration system and national security while contributing to our economy. According to the Council of Economic Advisors, the President's executive actions, if fully implemented, would be expected to boost our nation's gross domestic product (GDP) by between $100 billion and $250 billion, expand the size of the American labor force, and raise average annual wages for U.S.-born workers by 0.4 percent, or $220 in today's dollars, over the next 10 years. The President's actions would also cut the Federal deficit by $30 billion in 2024. As a part of these actions, President Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum on "Modernizing and Streamlining the U.S. Immigrant Visa System for the 21st Century." In this Memorandum, the President directed the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security to lead an interagency effort to develop recommendations, in consultation with stakeholders and experts, to: (1) reduce government costs, improve services for applicants, reduce burdens on employers, and combat waste, fraud, and abuse in the system; (2) ensure that policies, practices, and systems use all of the visa numbers that Congress provides for and intends to be used, consistent with demand; and (3) modernize the information technology infrastructure underlying the visa processing system with the goal to reduce redundant systems, improve the experience of applicants, and enable better oversight. The Departments of State (State) and Homeland Security (DHS), working in consultation with the White House and other federal agencies, conducted a thorough review of options to modernize and streamline our legal immigration system within existing authorities. This process included internal assessments of potential agency actions, engagement with external stakeholders, and a public call for comments and suggestions through a Request for Information (RFI) published in the Federal Register on December 30, 2014, that generated approximately 1,650 responses from both individuals and organizations. Several clear themes emerged from this interagency process and stakeholder feedback. Internal and external stakeholders alike emphasized the need to fully utilize technology to improve and streamline the current system for processing visa applications and requests for other immigration benefits. External stakeholder comments also emphasized frustration with burdensome application requirements, long processing times, and a need for greater transparency and accountability in the application and adjudication processes. Some concerns, such as extended waiting times for immigrant visas, reflect statutory constraints that must be addressed through legislative reform of our immigration system. However, many other concerns can be addressed through administrative reforms and greater collaboration within agencies. To that end, this report makes numerous recommendations.

Details: Washington, DC: The White House, 2015. 48p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 14, 2015 at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/final_visa_modernization_report1.pdf

Year: 2015

Country: United States

URL: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/final_visa_modernization_report1.pdf

Shelf Number: 136427

Keywords:
Border Security
Immigrants
Immigration
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy

Author: Martinez, Daniel E.

Title: Bordering on Criminal: The Routine Abuse of Migrants in the Removal System. Part I: Migrant Mistreatment While in U.S. Custody

Summary: This is the first in a series of three reports we will be releasing that highlight findings from the second wave of the Migrant Border Crossing Study (MBCS). Wave II of the MBCS, currently housed in the Center for Latin American Studies at the University of Arizona and the Department of Sociology at George Washington University, is a binational, multiinstitution study of 1,110 randomly selected, recently repatriated migrants1 surveyed in six Mexican cities between 2009 and 2012. This report focuses on the mistreatment of unauthorized migrants while in U.S. custody. Overall, we find that the physical and verbal mistreatment of migrants is not a random, sporadic occurrence but, rather, a systematic practice. One indication of this is that 11% of deportees report some form of physical abuse and 23% report verbal mistreatment while in U.S. custody - a finding that is supported by other academic studies and reports from nongovernmental organizations. Another highly disturbing finding is that migrants often note they are the targets for nationalistic and racist remarks - something that in no way is integral to U.S. officials' ability to function in an effective capacity on a day-to-day basis. We find that, when they occur, physical and verbal abuses are usually perpetrated during the apprehension process. When taken in the context of prior studies, it appears that the abuse of migrants while in U.S. custody is a systemic problem and points to an organizational subculture stemming from a lack of transparency and accountability in U.S. Customs and Border Protection. These patterns of abuse have brought scrutiny to the Border Patrol's use-of-force policies and created tension in border communities. Future research should examine the longer-term social and psychological consequences of these types of abuse for migrants and their loved ones.

Details: Washington, DC: Immigration Policy Center, American Immigration Council, 2013. 15p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 19, 2015 at: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/ipc/Border%20-%20Abuses%20FINAL.pdf

Year: 2013

Country: United States

URL: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/ipc/Border%20-%20Abuses%20FINAL.pdf

Shelf Number: 132197

Keywords:
Immigrant Detention
Immigrants
Immigration
Immigration Enforcement
Operation Streamline
Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Johnson, Kevin R.

Title: Race-Based Law Enforcement: The Racially Disparate Impacts of Crimmigration Law

Summary: This Essay was prepared for the Case Western Law Review's symposium on the 20th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996). Racially-charged encounters with the police regularly make the national news. Local law enforcement officers also have at various times victimized immigrants of color. For example, New York City Department (NYPD) officers in 1999 killed Amadou Diallo, an unarmed immigrant from Guinea, in a hail of gunfire; two years earlier, officers had tortured Haitian immigrant Abner Louima at a NYPD police station. Both victims were Black, which no doubt contributed to the violence. In less spectacular fashion, police on the beat by many accounts regularly engage in racial profiling in traffic stops of U.S. citizens and noncitizens of color. Removals of "criminal aliens" have been the cornerstone of the Obama administration's immigration enforcement strategy. Well-publicized increases in the number of removals of immigrants also have been the centerpiece of President Obama's political efforts to persuade Congress to pass a comprehensive immigration reform package. The hope behind the aggressive enforcement strategy has been to convince Congress that this is the time to enact comprehensive immigration reform. In the last few years, a body of what has been denominated "crimmigration" scholarship has emerged that critically examines the growing confluence of the criminal justice system and the immigration removal machinery in the United States. That body of work tends to direct attention to the unfairness to immigrants, as well as their families, of the increasing criminalization of immigration law and its enforcement. This Essay agrees with the general thrust of the crimmigration criticism, but contends that it does not go far enough. Namely, the emerging scholarship in this genre fails to critically assess the dominant role that race plays in modern law enforcement and how its racial impacts are exacerbated by the operation of a federal immigration removal process that consciously targets "criminal aliens." Part I of this Essay considers parallel developments in the law: (1) the Supreme Court's implicit sanctioning of race-conscious law enforcement in the United States, with the centerpiece of this symposium, Whren v. United States, the most well-known example; and (2) the trend over at least the last twenty years toward increased cooperation between state and local law enforcement agencies and federal immigration authorities. Part II specifically demonstrates how criminal prosecutions influenced by police reliance on race necessarily lead to the racially disparate removal rates experienced in the modern United States. Part III discusses how some state and local governments have pushed back on cooperation with federal immigration authorities, with effective community police practices being an important policy rationale invoked by local law enforcement for that resistance. Part III of this Essay further contends that more attention should be paid to the racially disparate impacts of linking immigration removals to the outcomes of a racially-tainted criminal justice system. It further sketches some modest reforms to the U.S. immigration laws that might tend to blunt, rather than magnify, some of these racial impacts.

Details: Davis, CA: University of California, Davis, School of Law, 2015. 36p.

Source: Internet Resource: UC Davis Legal Studies Research Paper No. 437: Accessed August 25, 2015 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2640755

Year: 2015

Country: United States

URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2640755

Shelf Number: 136571

Keywords:
Crimmigration
Illegal Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Reform
Racial Disparities
Racial Profiling in Law Enforcement

Author: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)

Title: Support to strengthening of immigration control capacity at the international border gates and international cooperation to prevent and control migrant smuggling and human trafficking

Summary: This report is the independent final evaluation (FE) of the project "Support to Strengthening of Immigration Control Capacity at the International Border Gates and International Cooperation to Prevent and Control Migrant Smuggling and Human Trafficking", implemented by the UNODC Office in Ha Noi, Viet Nam (refer nr VNMS79). Implementation commenced in February 2010 with a duration of 3 years and 6 months, with a budget of USD 1,078,540 (both after project revision). In supporting the Government of Viet Nam to combat the smuggling of migrants and trafficking of people, VNMS79 was designed with a focus on building capacities at land-, air- and seaports through the strengthening of law enforcement and immigration methods (e.g. detection of document and passport fraud, information and trend analysis) in order to better identify and investigate cases of trafficking and smuggling. The objective of VNMS79 is defined as 'To strengthen the capacity of immigration control at the border gates and improved skills of investigation, detection and information processing on migrant smuggling and human trafficking in line with the requirements of the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC) and its Protocols Against Trafficking of Persons and Smuggling of Migrants'. It is supported by two outcomes: (1) 'Improved capacities at selected border gates to prevent, detect and investigate human trafficking and migrant smuggling', further aided through six outputs, and (2) 'Enhance international cooperation to prevent and control migrant smuggling and trafficking', supported by two outputs. The outputs include delivery of training, supporting equipment and the provision of legal assistance in setting up legal frameworks and cooperation mechanisms.

Details: New York: UNODC, 2013. 61p.

Source: Internet Resource: VNMS79: Accessed August 28, 2015 at: https://www.unodc.org/documents/evaluation/Independent_Project_Evaluations/2014/VNMS79_Final_Evaluation_Report_2014.pdf

Year: 2013

Country: Vietnam

URL: https://www.unodc.org/documents/evaluation/Independent_Project_Evaluations/2014/VNMS79_Final_Evaluation_Report_2014.pdf

Shelf Number: 136613

Keywords:
Border Security
Human Smuggling
Human Trafficking
Immigration Enforcement
Migrants
Organized Crime

Author: International Detention Coalition

Title: Does Detention Deter?

Summary: This briefing paper reviews the international research literature on the effectiveness of border control policies - particularly immigration detention - in reducing irregular migration. The brief argues that detention is not only ineffective at reducing irregular migration to desired levels, but also weakens other migration management outcomes such as case resolution, departure for refused cases and integration for approved cases. Given these weaknesses, governments would be better placed prioritizing alternatives to detention. The brief further shows policy development and targeted resource allocation could improve the prospects of migrants by increasing avenues for legal migration and improving life chances in countries of origin and transit. The brief shows destination countries must consider big picture, multi-layered responses to address root causes of irregular movement and reduce the pressures on migrants to undertake risky journeys in an irregular manner.

Details: Melbourne: International Detention Coalitions, 2015. 10p.

Source: Internet Resource: Briefing Paper: Accessed August 28, 2015 at: http://idcoalition.org/detentiondatabase/does-detention-deter/

Year: 2015

Country: International

URL: http://idcoalition.org/detentiondatabase/does-detention-deter/

Shelf Number: 136615

Keywords:
Border Security
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrant Detention
Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Migrants

Author: Weber, Leanne

Title: Deciding to Detain: How Decisions to Detain Asylum Seekers are Made at Ports of Entry

Summary: This research report is based on interviews conducted with immigration officers stationed at international air, sea and train ports in the UK in the late 1990s. It contains extensive first person quotes from immigration officers describing the factors that influence their discretionary decisions to detain asylum seekers on arrival. Both legal and extra-legal factors were found to influence these decisions. Moreover, statements made by immigration officials called into question claims made by departmental management at the time that detention on arrival was being used only as a last resort.

Details: Cambridge, UK: Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, 2014. 136p.

Source: Internet Resource: Criminal Justice, Borders and Citizenship Research Paper: Accessed September 5, 2015 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2520382

Year: 2014

Country: United Kingdom

URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2520382

Shelf Number: 136701

Keywords:
Asylum Seekers
Border Control
Decision-Making
Discretion
Immigrant Detention
Immigration Enforcement

Author: American Bar Association. Commission on Immigration

Title: Family Immigration Detention: Why the Past Cannot Be Prologue

Summary: The report, developed by the ABA Commission on Immigration with the assistance of the law firm of O'Melveny & Myers LLP, focuses on the government's response to the 2014 influx in arrivals of Central American mothers with young children to the southwestern U.S. border. It finds that the government's buildup of family detention centers �and the practice of detaining families in jail-like settings are at odds with the presumption of liberty and impinge on the families' due process right to legal counsel. The report urges the government and the Department of Homeland Security to anticipate and prepare for periodic increases in the migration of individuals and families seeking asylum without resorting to detention. The report also recommends several specific reforms, including: - releasing families held in detention facilities; - adopting a policy of dealing with families seeking asylum within the community instead of through detention; - employing the least restrictive means of ensuring appearance at hearings and protection of the community; - developing standards for families and children that do not follow a penal model; and - ensuring access to legal information and representation for all families subjected to detention at every stage of their immigration proceedings

Details: Chicago: American Bar Association, 2015. 57p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 5, 2015 at: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/commission_on_immigration/FINAL%20ABA%20Family%20Detention%20Report%208-19-15.authcheckdam.pdf

Year: 2015

Country: United States

URL: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/commission_on_immigration/FINAL%20ABA%20Family%20Detention%20Report%208-19-15.authcheckdam.pdf

Shelf Number: 136708

Keywords:
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrant Detention
Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy

Author: Human Rights First

Title: U.S. Detention of Families Seeking Asylum: A One-Year Update

Summary: On June 20, 2014-ironically, on World Refugee Day-the Obama administration announced its strategy for addressing the increase in families and children seeking protection at the U.S. southern border. Part of this plan: detain and quickly deport families from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala in an attempt to deter more from coming. At the time, U.S. immigration authorities had fewer than 100 beds for detaining families with children, all in one facility in Pennsylvania. They quickly increased that number-first by using a makeshift facility in Artesia, New Mexico, then by converting a facility in Karnes County, Texas, and more recently, by opening a large facility in Dilley, Texas to hold up to 2,400 children and their mothers. All told, the administration's plans would increase family detention by 3,800 percent to 3,700 detention beds for children and their parents. One year later, as World Refugee Day 2015 approaches, the Obama Administration continues to send many mothers and children who fled persecution and violence in Central America into U.S. immigration detention. About five thousand children and mothers have been held in U.S. immigration detention since June 2014. Some have been held for nearly a year, and as of April 25, 2015, nearly one-third has spent more than two months in U.S. detention facilities. More than half of the children held in fiscal year 2014 were very young, from newborns to 6-year-olds. The mothers and children held at these facilities face an array of obstacles, from a lack of access to counsel to the day-to-day trauma of detention. Medical and mental health experts report that detention damages the mental health of children, causing depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and suicidal behavior. Medical professionals who have interviewed these mothers confirm that detention is harming their mental health, and several have reportedly attempted suicide. Many of the women are survivors of violence who are already suffering from the effects of prior traumas. At the 2,400-bed Dilley facility, mothers have reported that their and their children's sleep is disrupted each night as officers come into their rooms each hour, shining flashlights and pulling blankets off faces to "count" each person. Beyond the human cost, immigration detention is extremely expensive. In addition to the over $2 billion Congress spends each year on immigration detention (even mandating that the agency maintain 34,000 beds regardless of need), the administration requested, and in March Congress appropriated, an additional $345.3 million to fund a sharp increase in the number of mothers and children held in detention. Family detention costs, on average, $1,029 per day for a family of three. By contrast, community-based supervision or other alternatives to detention cost much less, from 17 cents to $17 dollars a day in some cases. U.S. detention policies and practices relating to asylum seekers violate the nation's obligations under human rights and refugee protection conventions. While the administration has characterized these women and children as "illegal" border crossers, seeking asylum is not an "illegal" act. In fact, the United States has a legal obligation to protect those seeking asylum, one rooted in conventions the United States helped draft in the wake of World War II. Many of these mothers and children are indeed refugees entitled to protection under our laws and treaty commitments. Earlier this year, 87.9 percent passed initial credible fear screening interviews, indicating that they have a significant possibility of establishing eligibility for asylum. When represented by quality pro bono counsel, many are able to prove their eligibility for asylum or other relief. For instance, about 77 percent of those represented by pro bono attorneys through the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) have been determined by U.S. immigration judges to be "refugees" entitled to asylum or other protection.

Details: New York: Human Rights First, 2015. 28p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 16, 2015 at: http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/hrf-one-yr-family-detention-report.pdf

Year: 2015

Country: United States

URL: http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/hrf-one-yr-family-detention-report.pdf

Shelf Number: 136788

Keywords:
Asylum Seekers
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrant Detention
Immigrants
Immigration
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy

Author: Soni, Saket

Title: The Criminal Alien Removal Initiative in New Orleans: The Obama Administration's Brutal New Frontier in Immigration Enforcement

Summary: As 2013 draws to a close, members of Congress are home for the holidays without having passed immigration reform. Meanwhile, immigrants across the United States continue to live under siege. The Obama Administration continues to deport immigrants at the blistering rate of 1,100 a day, separating people from their families and uprooting them from their communities. At the current rate, 20,900 more will be deported by the time Congress returns on January 7. By this time next year, 401,500 more will be deported. Immigrants in New Orleans are already facing the new frontier of immigration enforcement. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in New Orleans is piloting a brutal program of race-based community raids that will become the new normal all across the country - unless we stop it. The program, called the Criminal Alien Removal Initiative (CARI), involves indiscriminate community raids at apartment complexes, grocery stores, laundromats, Bible study groups, and parks based purely on racial profiling. Often working with local law enforcement, New Orleans ICE arrests people who appear Latino and uses high-tech mobile biometric devices, first created for U.S. military use in Iraq and Afghanistan, to conduct immediate biometric record checks. Most people are handcuffed before the fingerprinting begins, and based on the results, many are immediately separated from their families and transported to ICE detention centers for deportation.

Details: New Orleans, LA: New Orleans Workers' Center for Racial Justice, 2013.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 16, 2015: http://nowcrj.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/CARI-report-final.pdf

Year: 2013

Country: United States

URL: http://nowcrj.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/CARI-report-final.pdf

Shelf Number: 131799

Keywords:
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrant Detention
Immigration Enforcement

Author: Cox, Adam B.

Title: Legitimacy and Cooperation: Will Immigrants Cooperate with Local Police Who Enforce Federal Immigration Law?

Summary: Solving crimes often requires community cooperation. Cooperation is thought by many scholars to depend critically on whether community members believe that law enforcement institutions are legitimate and trustworthy. Yet establishing an empirical link between legitimacy and cooperation has proven elusive, with most studies relying on surveys or lab experiments of people's beliefs and attitudes, rather than on their behavior in the real world. This Article aims to overcome these shortcomings, capitalizing on a unique natural policy experiment to directly address a fundamental question about legitimacy, cooperation, and law enforcement success: do de-legitimating policy interventions actually undermine community cooperation with the police? The policy experiment is a massive federal immigration enforcement program called Secure Communities. Secure Communities was widely criticized for undermining the legitimacy of local police in the eyes of immigrants, and it was rolled out nationwide over a four-year period in a way that approximates a natural experiment. Using the rate at which police solve crimes as a proxy for community cooperation, we find no evidence that the program reduced community cooperation - despite its massive size and broad scope. The results call into question optimistic claims that discrete policy interventions can, in the short run, meaningfully affect community perceptions of law enforcement legitimacy in ways that shape community cooperation with police.

Details: Chicago: University of Chicago School of Law, 2015. 64p.

Source: Internet Resource: University of Chicago Coase-Sandor Institute for Law & Economics Research Paper No. 734 U of Chicago, Public Law Working Paper No. 543 : Accessed September 18, 2015 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2658265

Year: 2015

Country: United States

URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2658265

Shelf Number: 136815

Keywords:
Immigration Enforcement
Police Legitimacy
Police-Community Relations
Procedural Justice

Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons

Title: Report on an unannounced inspection of Yarl's Wood Immigration Removal Centre

Summary: Yarl's Wood immigration removal centre in Bedfordshire held 354 detainees at the time of this inspection. Most of those held were single women but the centre also held a small number of adult families and there was a short-term holding facility for single men. The centre has been controversial since it opened in 2001 and in recent months it has been the subject of new allegations about the treatment of women held there and the conduct of staff. We last inspected the centre in June 2013 and at that time concluded that the centre was improving, although significant concerns remained and for the most vulnerable women we found the decision to detain was much too casual. This inspection found that in some important areas the treatment and conditions of those held at the centre had deteriorated significantly, the main concerns we had in 2013 had not been resolved and there was greater evidence of the distress caused to vulnerable women by their detention. We did not find evidence of a widespread abusive or hostile culture among staff - although there were some matters of concern. Women told us about, and we observed, positive attempts by staff to ameliorate the impact of detention for those in their care, although staff numbers and training gaps limited what they could do. We made some adjustments to our normal inspection methodology for this inspection. We amended our inspection criteria to reflect our new expectations for women's prisons, which incorporate the requirements of the UN 'Bangkok Rules' for the treatment of women prisoners. In addition to our normal confidential detainee survey, we asked specific survey questions to address particular issues of concern, such as inappropriate sexual behaviour. We also offered every woman in Yarl's Wood a confidential interview with a female inspector, using interpretation where necessary, and carried out confidential interviews with a sample of staff. We interviewed 92 women detainees in Yarl's Wood and a further eight who had recently been released, as well as 39 staff. The inspection was conducted over three weeks and included intelligence gathered from a variety of voluntary and community groups. Yarl's Wood is a complex and challenging place to manage and in which to work - and had become more so since the last inspection. About 12% of detainees were ex-prisoners, an increase since the previous inspection. Many women told us harrowing stories about their histories of abuse, rape, trafficking and other victimisation. At best, they were distressed and anxious about their detention and the uncertainty surrounding their possible deportation. In our survey, a disturbing 54% of the women held told us they felt depressed or suicidal when they first arrived. A new contract with reduced staffing levels was being introduced as the inspection took place and we were concerned that staffing levels were insufficient. We found that many women were relieved to have someone to listen to them while they described, in often distressing detail, what had happened to them in the past and their anxieties about the future. Staff rarely had time to do this and there was no counselling service. On top of all this, the allegations that had been made about the centre had clearly shocked staff and lowered morale, and both staff and detainees told us about a loss of mutual trust that had occurred since recent news reports. The needs of the men held on the Bunting Unit, the short-term holding facility, needed close attention in their own right. Most of the men had been detained after being found in or disembarking from lorries. Most had endured hazardous and arduous journeys and were grateful for the good care they received in Yarl's Wood. The unit was decent and clean, staff were professional and most of the men only stayed a few days. The experience of the women held was less positive. Forty-five per cent said they felt unsafe at the centre. They told us their fears arose from the uncertainty of their status in the country, a poor introduction to the centre, very poor health care and having too few visible staff on the units. Many women said that past histories of abuse affected their current feelings. The number of violent incidents had increased, albeit from a low base, and both staff and detainees thought the increase was due to the higher number of former prisoners and women with serious mental health problems. In both surveys and interviews, we asked current detainees, former detainees and staff about sexually inappropriate behaviour between staff and detainees. In our confidential survey, four women reported instances of sexually inappropriate comments from staff, one woman reported sexual contact from staff, and one reported comments, contact and abuse. None of these responses gave further details of the incidents concerned. In our interviews, no women said they were aware of staff involved in any illegal activity or sexual abuse of detainees. Three women were aware of an incident some years previously when a detainee became pregnant by an officer. Staff were emphatic they had not witnessed any rogue behaviour by colleagues and would report it if they did. Nevertheless, the whistle-blowing procedure was not sufficiently clear and some staff were not confident about using it. We did not find evidence of widespread abuse in the centre but the vulnerability of the women held, the closed nature of the institution and the power imbalance between the staff and detainees - common to any prison - made individual instances an ever-present risk. Constant vigilance was required to protect women from this risk. Given the very vulnerable and anxious state in which so many women arrived at the centre, early days processes were weak. An unacceptable 38% of detainees (excluding the Bunting unit) arrived at the centre between 10pm and 6am. The reception area was welcoming but the process took too long. Health care screening, which involved asking intimate questions, was sometimes carried out by a male nurse. Not all women received an induction briefing and the briefing did not contain all that women needed to know. Detainee 'greeters' provided positive support to most new arrivals. Levels of self-harm were high but a small number of women accounted for a significant proportion of the incidents. Women on assessment, care in detention and teamwork (ACDT - casework management for detainees at risk of suicide or self-harm) praised the support they received from staff, but other forms of support, such as links with the Samaritans, peer support and counseling were absent. Constant supervision was used for women in the most acute crisis but the use of male staff to do this when women were sleeping was inappropriate. Two detainees had died from natural causes since the last inspection, one of these during this inspection. Security was generally thoughtful and proportionate and some of the most intrusive elements of physical security had been removed. Most use of force was well managed, but we were very concerned about one incident in which an officer appeared to use excessive force. He was rightly suspended. The amount of separation had increased since the last inspection. Some but not all of this could be explained by the difficulties in managing ex-prisoners and women with acute mental health needs. The separation unit was not an appropriate therapeutic environment for women who were eventually transferred to a secure hospital and work to develop a care suite was welcome. Immediate physical safety issues were much less a concern for the women held than uncertainty about their immigration cases and the length of detention. We were particularly concerned about the length of time some women were detained and the detention of the most vulnerable women without clear reason. In the six months prior to the inspection, more than double the number of women who were removed (443) were released back into the community (894), which raises questions about the validity of their detention in the first place. A few detainees were held for very long periods. At the time of the inspection, 15 detainees had been held for between six months and a year and four for more than a year. The longest had been held for 17 months. The Home Office's own policy states pregnant women should not normally be detained, but 99 had been held in 2014. Only nine of these women had eventually been removed from the UK. Rule 35 reports should protect detainees who have been tortured or who are extremely vulnerable in other ways from being detained. The Rule 35 reports we examined at Yarl's Wood were among the worst we have seen. All were handwritten and many were difficult to read, lacked detail and were perfunctory. Some responses were dismissive.

Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2015. 122p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 18, 2015 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/08/Yarls-Wood-web-2015.pdf

Year: 2015

Country: United Kingdom

URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/08/Yarls-Wood-web-2015.pdf

Shelf Number: 136816

Keywords:
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrant Detention
Immigration Enforcement

Author: Koball, Heather

Title: Health and Social Service Needs of U.S.-Citizen Children with Detained or Deported Immigrant Parents

Summary: Between 2003 and 2013, the U.S. government deported 3.7 million immigrants to their home countries. According to the most reliable estimates, parents of U.S.-born children made up between one-fifth and one-quarter of this total. This Urban Institute-MPI report examines the involvement of families with a deported parent with health and social service systems, as well as their needs and the barriers they face accessing such services. Drawing from fieldwork in five study sites in California, Florida, Illinois, South Carolina, and Texas, the researchers find that family economic hardship is highly prevalent following parental detention and deportation, while child welfare system involvement is rarer. Schools represent a promising avenue for interaction with these families and delivery of services, as school officials are perceived as safer intermediaries by unauthorized immigrant parents who may be skeptical of interaction with other government agencies. Other important sources of support include health providers, legal service providers, and community- and faith-based organizations that immigrants trust. The authors suggest a number of ways to provide services and reduce harm to children with detained and deported parents. First, health and human service agencies could improve their staff's language capacity, cultural competence, and knowledge of issues associated with immigration status. Another approach involves building bridges between health and human services agencies and informal local organizations that immigrants trust. Coordination among the key agencies (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, social service agencies, and foreign country consulates) is critical, especially for the provision of child welfare services. And small organizations implement many promising strategies to serve children with detained and deported parents, but often face limited resources and high staff turnover. Institutionalizing such strategies would provide a stronger safety net for these children and families in need.

Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute and Migration Policy Institute, 2015. 86p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 21, 2015 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/health-and-social-service-needs-us-citizen-children-detained-or-deported-immigrant-parents

Year: 2015

Country: United States

URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/health-and-social-service-needs-us-citizen-children-detained-or-deported-immigrant-parents

Shelf Number: 136850

Keywords:
Child Welfare
Deportation
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrant Children
Immigration Enforcement

Author: Capps, Randy

Title: Implications of Immigration Enforcement Activities for the Well-Being of Children in Immigrant Families: A Review of the Literature

Summary: Rising immigration enforcement in the U.S. interior over the past decade increased the chances that the estimated 5.3 million children living with unauthorized immigrant parents, the vast majority of them born in the United States, could experience the deportation of a parent. This MPI-Urban Institute report reviews the evidence on the impacts of parental deportation on children, and on their needs for health and social services. The literature mostly dates from a period of peak enforcement: 2009 through 2013, when there were nearly 4 million deportations from the United States. While data on parental removals during this period are limited, perhaps half a million were of parents of U.S.-citizen children. The economic and social instability that generally accompanies unauthorized status is further aggravated for children with a parent's deportation, with effects including psychological trauma, material hardship, residential instability, family dissolution, increased use of public benefits, and, among boys, aggression. At the extreme end, some families became permanently separated as parents lose custody of or contact with their children.

Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute and Migration Policy Institute, 2015. 48p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 24, 2015 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/implications-immigration-enforcement-activities-well-being-children-immigrant-families

Year: 2015

Country: United States

URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/implications-immigration-enforcement-activities-well-being-children-immigrant-families

Shelf Number: 136856

Keywords:
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrant Children
Immigration (U.S.)
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy
Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Pierce, Sarah

Title: Unaccompanied Child Migrants in U.S. Communities, Immigration Court, and Schools

Summary: More than 102,000 unaccompanied children (UACs) from Central America and Mexico were apprehended by U.S. Customs and Border Protection at the U.S.-Mexico border between October 1, 2013 and August 31, 2015. The rapid influx of child arrivals in the spring and summer of 2014, which caught the attention of a concerned public and policymakers, briefly overwhelmed the systems in place for processing and caring for these children. While most of the Mexican children are quickly returned to Mexico, under U.S. law children from noncontiguous countries are transferred to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to be processed and simultaneously placed in removal proceedings. The vast majority of these are released by ORR into the custody of a parent, relative, or friend in the United States while they wait for their cases to progress through the immigration court system. This issue brief summarizes the available data and qualitative research on where unaccompanied child migrants are being placed, how they are faring in immigration court, what types of services are available to them, and how communities, in particular schools, are adapting to their arrival. Even though a priority docket was created in the immigration courts system for unaccompanied minors, their cases continue to lag. Even when their cases are finally heard, the immigration court system has resolved the status for relatively few of them: a review of the data shows that while 70 percent of those who show up for their hearings receive some form of immigration relief, 97 percent do not receive a simultaneous grant of immigration status - meaning they remain unauthorized. Meanwhile, most removal orders go to children who fail to attend their hearings, and as a result many orders of removal go unexecuted. As these cases make their way through the courts, the children become further engrained in communities and school districts across the country. The brief finds that communities and school districts largely continue to face challenges meeting the needs of these children and have responded in disparate ways to their arrival, some creating additional programs to address children's particular needs, while others have made school enrollment more difficult for this population.

Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2015. 23p.

Source: Internet Resource: MPI Issue Brief: Accessed October 19, 2015 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/unaccompanied-child-migrants-us-communities-immigration-court-and-schools

Year: 2015

Country: United States

URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/unaccompanied-child-migrants-us-communities-immigration-court-and-schools

Shelf Number: 136993

Keywords:
Border Security
Human Smuggling
Immigrant Children
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy
Unaccompanied Children
Undocumented Children

Author: Lyubarsky, Andrew

Title: 23 Hours in the Box: Solitary Confinement in New Jersey Immigration Detention

Summary: While solitary confinement is a practice widely used in both civil detention and criminal incarceration, current practices by state and federal facilities have received significant criticism for over reliance on solitary confinement and excessive disciplinary sanctions. The State of New Jersey has a long history of using solitary confinement in its state prisons as a system of control and intimidation. In 1975, after the Civil Rights Movement, the Vietnam War and the prisoners' rights movement, Trenton State Prison (now New Jersey State Prison) established an administrative isolation unit for politically dissident prisoners. Management Control Units (MCUs), which were characterized by "no-touch isolation" and severe restrictions on visits and telephone contact with family members, recreation, as well as the denial of work, education, law library access, and collective religious practice - imposed nearly complete sensory deprivation on those subjected to it. Individuals who had not broken institutional rules were isolated because they belonged to radical political groups, particularly Afro-American nationalist organizations. Some people were subject to this treatment for years; Ojore Lutalo, a member of one such group, was held in isolation for 16 years. The American Friends Service Committee and other New Jersey civil society groups have actively monitored the use of isolated confinement in the state for decades, and fought to secure dignity for many of those subjected to prolonged isolated confinement. The present report continues this tradition of advocacy by focusing exclusively on immigration detainees in civil detention. Though the deprivations immigrant detainees subject to solitary confinement in New Jersey county institutions may not be as prolonged, they are a particularly vulnerable population which suffers lasting psychological damage from isolation. Though such conditions are extremely troubling in the case of confined individuals generally, these problems are of special concern in the context of immigrant detainees. Although immigration detention has always been characterized as non-punitive, and the rhetoric from the Obama Administration has emphasized a reform of the civil immigration detention system, this report finds that immigrant detainees are subject to an unnecessarily harsh system that applies the drastic punishment of solitary confinement too often and for too long. Because immigrants are held in penal facilities they are subjected to the same heavy-handed tactics as criminal inmates, and minor incidents which could easily be handled with non-punitive conflict resolution techniques or, if needed, less restrictive sanctions, immediately trigger solitary confinement. Detainees are confined, often for prolonged periods of time, even when no threat exists to the safety or the functioning of the facilities. Moreover, the current system raises serious due process concerns regarding the policies and practices of disciplinary systems and non-compliance with state regulations in several important respects. Our focus on disciplinary systems and sanctions proceeds from an increased clinical consensus about the severe effects of prolonged solitary confinement on an individual's psychological and physical well-being. Studies have cataloged a series of unique psychiatric symptoms commonly associated with solitary confinement. Taken together, these symptoms rise to the level of a formal psychiatric diagnosis of trauma referred to as "prison psychosis." These harmful effects can be compounded by pre-existing mental health problems that the detainee may have experienced prior to his or her solitary confinement. Since many individuals in immigration detention are likely to have been the victims of life traumas, such as human trafficking, domestic violence, torture, and persecution, solitary confinement poses a unique threat to this population.

Details: New York: New Jersey Advocates for Immigrant Detainees, 2015.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 22, 2015 at: http://afsc.org/sites/afsc.civicactions.net/files/documents/23%20Hours%20in%20the%20Box.pdf

Year: 2015

Country: United States

URL: http://afsc.org/sites/afsc.civicactions.net/files/documents/23%20Hours%20in%20the%20Box.pdf

Shelf Number: 137052

Keywords:
Immigrant Detention
Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Isolation
Solitary Confinement
Undocumented Immigrants

Author: National Immigrant Justice Center

Title: Lives in Peril: How Ineffective Inspections Make ICE Complicit in Immigration Detention Abuse

Summary: The report draws on information from ICE inspections documents for 105 immigration detention facilities and features focused analyses of inspections for detention centers in Arizona, Florida, Alabama, Texas, Georgia and Illinois. NIJC obtained the inspections through a federal court order resulting from three years of litigation under the Freedom of Information Act. NIJC and DWN's review of the documents reveals fundamental inconsistencies within and between inspection reports for individual detention centers which suggests that the immigration detention inspection process is a sham - designed to perpetuate a broken and abusive system. Toplines from the report include: ◾ICE has kept the detention inspections process centralized under its own authority and has hidden the system from the eyes of U.S. taxpayers. ◾ICE's inspection regime fails to provide an accurate assessment of the conditions immigrants experience in detention, holds most facilities to weak and outdated human rights standards, and often fails to acknowledge publicly reported abuses. ◾Numerous inconsistencies within and between inspection reports raise serious questions about the validity of ICE inspections and imply that the inspection process is designed to facilitate passing ratings so that local governments and private prison companies can maintain their contracts. This report makes it obvious that ICE cannot police itself. ◾A robust and legitimate inspection process would find that detention facilities around the country fail to meet basic minimum standards, and require ICE to discontinue contracts with facilities that fail to uphold basic human rights protections.

Details: Chicago: NIJC, 2015. 36p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 27, 2015 at: http://immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/THR-Inspections-FOIA-Report-October-2015-FINAL.pdf

Year: 2015

Country: United States

URL: http://immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/THR-Inspections-FOIA-Report-October-2015-FINAL.pdf

Shelf Number: 137154

Keywords:
Immigrant Detention
Immigration Enforcement
Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

Title: Human Rights Situation of Refugee and Migrant Families and Unaccompanied Children in the United State of America

Summary: This report addresses the situation of migrant and refugee families and unaccompanied children arriving to the southern border of the United States of America. It analyzes the context of humanitarian crises that have been taking place over the past several years in the countries of the Northern Triangle in Central America - El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras - as well as in Mexico. These crises have been generating increased migration northward, principally to the United States, and to a lesser extent Mexico and Canada. This report offers recommendations geared towards assisting the United States in strengthening its efforts to protect and guarantee the rights of the diverse group of persons in these mixed migratory movements - among them, migrants, asylum-seekers and refugees, women, children, families, and other vulnerable persons and groups in the context of human mobility. 2. In recent years, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter the "Inter-American Commission," "Commission," or "IACHR"), through its various mechanisms, has documented with concern the increasing number of persons, including children, fleeing various forms of violence in countries of the Northern Triangle of Central America - El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras - and Mexico. This violence, along with other factors, such as poverty, inequality, and various forms of discrimination, has led to the current state of humanitarian crises in the region. In its report on the Human Rights of Migrants and Other Persons in the Context of Human Mobility in Mexico (2013), the Commission documented, among other issues, the serious violence, insecurity, and discrimination that migrants in an irregular situation in Mexico encounter, in addition to troubling State responses such as immigration detention and deficiencies in due process guarantees for migrants and other persons in human mobility. In its Report on Immigration in the United States: Detention and Due Process (2011), the IACHR documented with concern the United States' response to increasing mixed migratory movements. Since the mid-1990s, this response has consisted of stepped up efforts to detect, detain, and deport migrants in an irregular situation. Some of the most dramatic spikes seen yet in the number of arrivals of unaccompanied children and families to the United States occurred between October 1, 2013 and September 30, 2014 ("U.S. fiscal year 2014"), and specifically in the months of May and June 2014. According to official data, during U.S. fiscal year 2014, the U.S. Border Patrol apprehended a total of 68,541 unaccompanied children and 68,445 families, which represented a 77% increase in the number of arrivals of unaccompanied children and a 361% increase in families over fiscal year 2013. The majority of the arrivals of unaccompanied children and families were to the U.S. southwest border and particularly to the Rio Grande Valley of the state of Texas. The Commission considers that this drastic uptick in the number of arrivals signals a worsening human rights situation in the principal countries of origin. Official data shows that the top four countries of origin for both unaccompanied children and families were El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico. 4. The IACHR conducted the visit to the U.S. southern border from September 29 - October 2, 2014. The visit was planned and carried out in the context of monitoring the human rights situation of arriving families and unaccompanied children with respect to their apprehension; immigration detention, in many cases over long periods of time; immigration proceedings; as well as deportations and removals. To this end, the Commission visited the Rio Grande Valley area, including McAllen and Harlingen, as well as Karnes City and San Antonio, Texas. 5. According to the information received, families for whom there is capacity at an immigration detention center are automatically and arbitrarily being detained for the duration of the immigration proceedings initiated against them, even in cases where the mother has passed an initial asylum screening. Other information received by the Commission indicated that unaccompanied children of Mexican origin are, in some cases, being turned around before entering U.S. soil (a practice called a 'turn-back") or U.S. officers are failing to correctly identify Mexican unaccompanied children who may have protection needs. While the Commission considers that aspects relating to the overall legal regime in place for unaccompanied children from non-contiguous countries are consistent with international standards, it remains concerned over the lack of due process guarantees and access to mechanisms of international protection for these children in immigration proceedings. 6. For all the sub-groups identified herein, the Inter-American Commission is concerned over allegations of sexual, physical, and verbal abuse by U.S. border officials committed while migrant and refugee children and families are in the State's custody as well as the inadequate detention conditions at border and port of entry stations and family immigration detention centers. The Commission is also deeply concerned over expedited processing of these groups and the lack of access to legal representation in the immigration proceedings initiated against them. 7. The Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS) and the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man constitute sources of legal obligation for OAS Member States including the United States. The organs of the international and regional human rights systems have developed jurisprudence that recognizes the rights of children, families, migrants, and refugees and asylum-seekers. International standards protect the right to equality and non-discrimination, the principle of the best interests of the child, the right to personal liberty, humane treatment during detention, due process and access to justice, consular notification, protection of the family and family life, seek and receive asylum, principle of non-refoulement, and the prohibition on collective expulsions. 8. The IACHR stresses that measures taken to securitize the border will not bring these crises to an end. Rather, the underlying factors generating the crises in the principal countries of origin must be comprehensively addressed. This approach must tackle the poverty, economic and gender inequality, multi-sectorial discrimination, and high levels of violence in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico. Without national and regional efforts to address such factors, mixed migratory movements will only continue. Without the ability to migrate safely and through more open or regular channels, these persons will be forced to take even more dangerous and clandestine routes in order to bypass increasingly securitized borders. Such new routes increase the likelihood that persons in the context of human mobility will fall victim to violence and exploitation at the hands of organized crime groups. 9. Based on its close analysis of the situation of migrant and refugee unaccompanied children and families arriving to the southern border of the United States of America, in the present report the Inter-American Commission issues a series of recommendations to the State. The IACHR notes and commends the United States for its sustained efforts to receive and resettle thousands of asylum-seekers and refugees from all over the world, year after year. In light of the State's global position as a leader on protecting the rights of persons in need of international protection, it is the IACHR's hope that the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report will assist it in upholding its human rights obligations and its commitment to serve as a refuge for many thousands of persons each year. In this regard, the Commission urges the State to end its practice of automatic and arbitrary immigration detention of families; to treat Mexican unaccompanied children with the same safeguards and procedures applicable to unaccompanied children from non-contiguous countries; to investigate claims of abuses and mistreatment committed by U.S. border agents and to prosecute and punish, where necessary, the agents responsible; to ensure that the best interests of the child principle is the guiding principle in all decisions taken with respect to children, including in immigration proceedings; and to ensure migrant and refugee children and families enjoy due process guarantees and are provided with a lawyer, if needed, at no cost to them if they cannot cover the costs on their own; among other recommendations developed in this report.

Details: Washington, DC: The Commission, 2015. 112p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 30, 2015 at: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/reports/pdfs/Refugees-Migrants-US.pdf

Year: 2015

Country: United States

URL: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/reports/pdfs/Refugees-Migrants-US.pdf

Shelf Number: 137185

Keywords:
Immigrant Children
Immigration Enforcement
Migrant Children
Refugees
Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Cantor, Guillermo

Title: Enforcement Overdrive: A Comprehensive Assessment of ICE's Criminal Alien Program

Summary: The Criminal Alien Program (CAP) is a massive enforcement program administered by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and has become the primary channel through which interior immigration enforcement takes place. Between two-thirds and three-quarters of individuals removed from the interior of the United States are removed through CAP. Each year, Congress allocates hundreds of millions of dollars to fund this program. Until now, however, little has been known about how CAP works, whom CAP deports, and whether CAP has been effective in meeting its goals. Based on government data and documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), this report examines CAP's evolution, operations, and outcomes between fiscal years 2010 and 2013. That data shows that through CAP's enormous web, ICE has encountered millions and removed hundreds of thousands of people. Yet, CAP is not narrowly tailored to focus enforcement efforts on the most serious security or safety threats - in part because CAP uses criminal arrest as a proxy for dangerousness and because the agency's own priorities have been drawn more broadly than those threats. As a result, the program removed mainly people with no criminal convictions, and people who have not been convicted of violent crimes or crimes the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) classifies as serious. CAP also has resulted in several anomalies, including that it appears biased against Mexican and Central American nationals. Moreover, the number of CAP removals differs significantly from state to state. ICE's reliance on CAP to achieve its goals will likely continue as ICE further narrows its focus on removing noncitizens with criminal convictions and continues to seek partnerships with state and local law enforcement to find them. This examination of CAP's outcomes from fiscal years 2010 to 2013 offers important insights into CAP's operations over time and its potential impact on communities moving forward. In particular, it raises questions about the ability of a broad "jail check" program to effectively remove serious public safety threats without resulting in serious unintended consequences, such as those described in this report

Details: Washington, DC: American Immigration Council, 2015. 39p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 5, 2015 at: http://immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/enforcement_overdrive_a_comprehensive_assessment_of_ices_criminal_alien_program_final.pdf

Year: 2015

Country: United States

URL: http://immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/enforcement_overdrive_a_comprehensive_assessment_of_ices_criminal_alien_program_final.pdf

Shelf Number: 137194

Keywords:
Deportation
Immigrant Detention
Immigrants and Crime
Immigration Enforcement
Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Harris, Kristine

Title: 'A Secret Punishment' - the misuse of segregation in immigration detention

Summary: This report reveals that a disturbing number of sick immigration detainees are put in segregation indiscriminately. Medical Justice are calling for an immediate halt to the use of segregation in immigration detention. Immigration detainees may be detained indefinitely despite not having committed any crime - putting them in segregation adds to their trauma. Between 1,200 and 4,800 detainees are segregated each year in immigration detention. Alarmingly there is little central monitoring of the use of segregation. This dossier draws on the cases of 15 detainees assisted by Medical Justice. One woman became mentally ill as a result of being detained for 17 months. During this time she was handcuffed and held in segregation on many occasions to prevent her self-harming. The High Court found her detention amounted to 'inhuman and degrading treatment'. This dossier reveals that the damaging physical and psychological impact of segregation is widely recognised. Its misuse has been repeatedly criticised by official inspectorates yet the abuses continue. It is overused, applied inappropriately and often contravenes the rules. Findings include: - One detainee held in segregation for 22 months - One schizophrenic detainee died in segregation - One person was segregated eight times during 800 days of detention - One detainee was segregated for nine days purely because they were a child - One woman was assaulted with a riot shield while being taken to segregation

Details: London: Medical Justice, 2015. 116p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 5, 2015 at: http://www.medicaljustice.org.uk/images/stories/reports/SecretPunishment.pdf

Year: 2015

Country: United Kingdom

URL: http://www.medicaljustice.org.uk/images/stories/reports/SecretPunishment.pdf

Shelf Number: 137197

Keywords:
Immigrant Detention
Immigrants
Immigration
Immigration Enforcement
Isolation
Mental Health Services
Mentally Ill
Segregation
Solitary Confinement

Author: Isacson, Adam

Title: Increased Enforcement at Mexico's Southern Border: An Update on Security, Migration, and U.S. Assistance

Summary: Key Findings - Far from deterring migrants from making the journey north, the most notable effect of Mexico's migration crackdown has been changes in how migrants are traveling. With decreased possibilities of boarding the train in Chiapas, migrants and smugglers are now relying on different and dangerous routes and modes of transportation, including by foot, vehicle, and boat. These routes expose migrants to new vulnerabilities while simultaneously isolating them from the network of shelters established along traditional routes. - Raids and operations to prevent migrants from riding atop cargo trains, known collectively as La Bestia, have been the most visible and aggressive enforcement efforts under the Southern Border Program. Migration authorities have blocked migrants from boarding trains, pulled migrants off of trains, and raided establishments that migrants are known to frequent, detaining thousands. The train operations have prompted concerns about excessive use-of-force and other abuses by the authorities involved. - U.S. assistance to help Mexico secure its southern border region has increased, though there is limited transparency regarding dollar values, recipient units, equipment, and training. Additionally, some of the U.S.- donated equipment at Mexico's southern border has seen little use and was reported to be ill-suited for the terrain in this region. For example, U.S.-donated observation towers serve little purpose at the densely forested Mexico-Guatemala border. U.S.-donated biometric data equipment was also observed to be in disuse or only used sporadically. - The Southern Border Program brought an increase in mobile checkpoints, and new customs facilities have opened since its launch. Beyond these, there has been little change in the number of roadside checkpoints present on main highways in Chiapas. We observed no new checkpoints on the Pacific coast between Tapachula and Arriaga. The most notable difference is the INM's use of volantas, or mobile checkpoints, which frequently change geographic position, ensnaring unaware migrants and smugglers. The large multi-agency customs checkpoints (Centros de Atencion Integral de Transito Fronterizo, CAITFs) are not a product of the Southern Border Program but have become a key component of the region's border security strategy. Three of these facilities in Huixtla, La Trinitaria, and Playas de Catazaja, Chiapas are already in operation; construction is underway on an additional center in Chiapas and one in Tabasco. - Between July 2014 and June 2015, the Mexican government's apprehensions of Central American migrants increased by 71 percent over the same period in the previous year, before the July 2014 launch of its Southern Border Program. The Southern Border Program modestly increased the presence of immigration agents and security forces, including from Mexico's National Migration Institute (Instituto Nacional de Migracion, INM), Federal Police, and Gendarmeria, a new division of the Federal Police. On the train lines, companies have begun to employ more private security personnel to monitor the cars and tracks. - Increased apprehension and rapid deportation of migrants has not coincided with increased capacity to screen migrants for protection concerns. Rather than viewing this heavy movement of people as a refugee and protection crisis, the Mexican government sees this as an issue of managing large flows of people. Mexican law recognizes a broad definition of "refugee" under which a significant number of Central Americans fleeing violence could qualify; however, few request protection and few receive it. Mexico only granted refugee status in approximately 21 percent of requests in 2014 and during the first seven months of 2015. The lack of awareness or understanding of the right to solicit asylum, the prolonged stay in grim detention center conditions while asylum requests are processed, lack of legal representation, and the shortage of protection officers authorized to make determinations are among the reasons why so few refugees are recognized in Mexico. - Mexico's stepped-up migrant apprehensions reduced the sense of urgency in the United States to support addressing the "root causes" of Central American migration, namely the high levels of violence and poverty, and the lack of opportunity. With fewer migrants arriving at the U.S. border, legislators have delayed or scaled back badly needed reforms or assistance. Whereas Mexico apprehended 67 percent more unaccompanied children from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras from October 2014 to September 2015 compared to the same period in the previous year, U.S. authorities apprehended 45 percent fewer over this period.

Details: Washington, DC: Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), 2015. 36p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 11, 2015 at: http://www.wola.org/sites/default/files/WOLA%20Report_Increased%20Enforcement%20at%20Mexico%E2%80%99s%20Southern%20Border_Nov%202015.pdf

Year: 2015

Country: Mexico

URL: http://www.wola.org/sites/default/files/WOLA%20Report_Increased%20Enforcement%20at%20Mexico%E2%80%99s%20Southern%20Border_Nov%202015.pdf

Shelf Number: 137237

Keywords:
Border Enforcement
Border Security
Illegal Immigration
Immigration Enforcement
Migrants

Author: Knippen, Jose

Title: An Uncertain Path: Justice for Crimes and Human Rights Violations against Migrants and Refugees in Mexico

Summary: In the report An Uncertain Path: Justice for Crimes and Human Rights Violations against Migrants and Refugees in Mexico released today, participating organizations explain how the Southern Border Program has significantly increased migration enforcement operations, apprehensions, and deportations of migrants. This stepped-up enforcement has led to an increase in human rights violations against migrants. These migration operations are increasingly conducted in conjunction with Mexican security forces, and migrant shelters have documented kidnappings, extortions, robberies, and abuses throughout the country. Given that Mexico's National Migration Institute (Instituto Nacional de Migracion, INM) has been the primary agency responsible for carrying out the Southern Border Program, it is clear that, far from a development program, the strategy is focused on migration enforcement actions. The report finds that in 2014, the year the Southern Border Program was announced, the INM spent the largest budget in its history, and that this increase goes hand in hand with the increase in migrant apprehensions. For its part, the United States government has provided political and financial support to the Mexican government for migration enforcement, especially following the 2014 "surge" of migrants, mostly unaccompanied children and families from Central America that arrived at the U.S. southwest border. In July 2014, it was revealed that the State Department was working with the Mexican government on enforcement at its southern border, providing some US$86 million in funds already included in the Merida Initiative, a multi-year U.S. security aid package to Mexico. Furthermore, Congress allocated up to US$79 million in additional funds in fiscal year 2015 for this same purpose. The report demonstrates how the Mexican government's efforts to strengthen protections for migrants have fallen far short of their actual needs. There is no evidence that migrants who are victims of crimes and human rights violations have effective access to justice, despite the creation of new specialized prosecutors for attention to migrants. There is a lack of conclusive data regarding justice for migrants in Mexico. The most detailed data are from the specialized prosecutor's office in Oaxaca, which reports that of the 383 complaints received over four years, only 96 resulted in a preliminary investigation being opened and only four resulted in sentences for the perpetrators. Although the National Human Rights Commission (Comisioin Nacional de los Derechos Humanos, CNDH) and state-level human rights commissions are more approachable for demanding justice, the report finds that their "procedures and investigative capacities are not particularly expeditious or effective." The report reveals that of the 1,617 complaints of human rights violations against migrants that the CNDH received from December 1, 2012 to June 15, 2015, only four resulted in a formal recommendation issued to the institution implicated in the complaint. The report also discusses why there are so many potential refugees in Mexico and so few recognized refugees. It stresses that the Mexican Commission for Refugee Assistance (Comision Mexicana de Ayuda a Refugiados, COMAR), only has 15 protection officers in the entire country to ensure access to international protection for the more than 100,000 migrants that are detained over the period of a year. Moreover, COMAR's budget did not increase in real terms from 2014 to 2015. Given this context, An Uncertain Path: Justice for Crimes and Human Rights Violations against Migrants and Refugees in Mexico, provides concrete recommendations to the relevant governmental agencies within the Mexican government, including the INM, the Ministry of the Interior, and the federal Attorney General's office, as well as to the United States government. The report is the result of a close collaboration between the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), Fundar, Centro de Analisis e Investigacion, and seven shelters and organizations that work to defend migrant rights in five areas of Mexico: Casa del Migrante "Frontera con Justicia," AC in Saltillo, Coahuila; the "Red Sonora" (a network composed of three organizations in Sonora: Kino Border Initiative in Nogales, Centro de Recursos para Migrantes in Agua Prieta y Centro Comunitario de Atencion al Migrante y Necesitado, or CCAMYN, in Altar); Albergue de Migrantes "Hermanos en el Camino" in Ixtepec, Oaxaca; La 72, Hogar - Refugio para Personas Migrantes in Tenosique, Tabasco; and Un Mundo, Una Nacion in Apizaco, Tlaxcala

Details: Washington, DC: Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), 2015. 60p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 24, 2015 at: http://www.wola.org/sites/default/files/An%20Uncertain%20Path_Nov2015.pdf

Year: 2015

Country: Mexico

URL: http://www.wola.org/sites/default/files/An%20Uncertain%20Path_Nov2015.pdf

Shelf Number: 137321

Keywords:
Border Security
Human Rights Abuses
Immigrants
Immigration
Immigration Enforcement
Migrants
Refugees

Author: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Country Office Pakistan

Title: Pakistan's law enforcement response to the smuggling of migrants and trafficking in persons.

Summary: This report assesses the legal frameworks, law enforcement strategies, capacities, and methodologies pertaining to migrant smuggling and trafficking in persons in Pakistan, focusing specifically on the mandate, organisation, and operations of Pakistan's Federal Investigation Agency. The report identifies, maps, outlines, and explores existing law enforcement responses and assess these against international law requirements and against the standards set by international best practice guidelines. This report reveals strengths of existing arrangements and identifies areas where further development or reform may be needed. This report shows that Pakistan has solid policy, legislative, and organisational frameworks to combat trafficking in persons and, to a lesser degree, the smuggling of migrants. The Government of Pakistan has to be commended for setting up a National Action Plan for Combating Human Trafficking in 2004 and enacting the Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance two years earlier. This report shows enforcement mandates pertaining to trafficking in persons, especially those of the FIA, are sufficiently clear and are supported by relevant enforcement powers. Legislative and law enforcement frameworks for migrant smuggling are not well developed or, as confirmed by other reports, non-existent and concerns remain over ongoing confusion between migrant smuggling and trafficking in persons in Pakistani law and by Pakistani authorities. Pakistan is also not a Signatory to the United Nations Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Air, and Sea and the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children. Pakistan has, however, signed the Convention against Transnational Organised Crime. Pakistan's relatively sound policy, legal, and organisational frameworks are, however, not matched by consistent implementation and execution; words are often not followed by actions. This assessment has found major deficiencies in the training of FIA personnel and in the facilities and equipment used by and available to FIA investigators and front-line officers. Most FIA officers working in units charged with investigating migrant smuggling and trafficking in persons obtain no training at all and frequently lack the most basic equipment to carry out their duties. FIA facilities in local areas are often in poor condition and lack reliable electricity supplies. Practical mechanisms for the protection of smuggled and migrants and, in particular, victims of trafficking in persons are, for the most part, non-existent, under-developed, or are only addressed in very rudimentary and ad-hoc ways. Also of concern are deficiencies in inter-departmental cooperation, national coordination, human resources, case management and data storage, information and evidence gathering.

Details: Islamabad : United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Country Office Pakistan, 2011. 147p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 25, 2015 at: https://www.unodc.org/documents/pakistan//2011.10.00_Pakistans_Law_Enforcement_Response_final.pdf

Year: 2011

Country: Pakistan

URL: https://www.unodc.org/documents/pakistan//2011.10.00_Pakistans_Law_Enforcement_Response_final.pdf

Shelf Number: 137340

Keywords:
Human Smuggling
Human Trafficking
Illegal Immigrants
Illegal Immigration
Immigration Enforcement
Migrant Smuggling
Migrants
Organized Crime

Author: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)

Title: Fundamental rights implications of the obligation to provide fingerprints for Eurodac

Summary: Eurodac is a large database of fingerprints the European Union (EU) set up for the smooth running of the Dublin system, a mechanism established to determine the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application. The paper intends to assist EU Member States and EU institutions and agencies in avoiding fundamental rights violations when promoting compliance with the duty to provide fingerprints, by examining more closely the impact of refusing to give fingerprints on the principle of non-refoulement, the right to liberty and security, and the protection from disproportionate use of force. It also contains a checklist to guide authorities responsible for implementing the duty to take fingerprints. This focus paper is the first publication of FRA's project on biometric data in large information technologies systems in the field of borders, immigration and asylum included in its Annual Work Programmes 2014-2016. It is a living document that FRA will review in case of new research findings or if the currently sparse national case law develops further. Although focused on fingerprints, the considerations included in this focus paper also apply to other biometric identifiers.

Details: Vienna: FRA, 2015. 12p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 1, 2015 at: http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2015-fingerprinting-focus-paper_en.pdf

Year: 2015

Country: Europe

URL: http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2015-fingerprinting-focus-paper_en.pdf

Shelf Number: 137371

Keywords:
Asylum Seekers
Fingerprinting
Immigrants
Immigration
Immigration Enforcement

Author:

Title: Streamline: Measuring Its Effect on Illegal Border Crossing

Summary: Streamline is an initiative to criminally prosecute individuals who illegally enter the United States through defined geographic regions along the Southwest border. We reviewed: (1) whether Border Patrol measures Streamline' effect on illegal re-entry; (2) whether the cost of Streamline can be determined; and (3) how Streamline affects U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations' (ER)) resources.

Details: Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security, 2015. 43p.

Source: Internet Resource: OIG-15-95: Accessed January 11, 2016 at: https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/2015/OIG_15-95_May15.pdf

Year: 2015

Country: United States

URL: https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/2015/OIG_15-95_May15.pdf

Shelf Number: 137459

Keywords:
Border Patrol
Border Security
Illegal Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Operation Streamline

Author: Cantor, Guillermo

Title: Hieleras (Iceboxes) in the Rio Grande Valley Sector: Lengthy Detention, Deplorable Conditions, and Abuse in CBP Holding Cells

Summary: Each year, the Border Patrol-a division of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) - holds hundreds of thousands of individuals in detention facilities near the U.S. southern border. These facilities are not designed for overnight custody, and yet they are routinely used in this way. Until recently, CBP policy was clear that these facilities were to serve exclusively as short-term holding cells-meaning that a person should be held there less than 12 hours. Evidence presented in this report, which pertains to Border Patrol holding cells in the Rio Grande Valley (RGV) Sector, reveals that, instead, individuals are routinely held for days. In October 2015, CBP updated its guidance on how long it may detain individuals. The new guidance states that "short-term" detention generally should last no longer than 72 hours. Notably, however, no structural changes have been made to the facilities. These facilities, which are often referred to as "hieleras" (Spanish for "freezers" or "iceboxes"), remain wholly inadequate for any overnight detention. Moreover, the conditions are reprehensible, even with respect to truly short-term detention. In addition to the fact that there are no beds in the holding cells, these facilities are extremely cold, frequently overcrowded, and routinely lacking in adequate food, water, and medical care. Recent accounts from families held in short-term facilities also demonstrate that Border Patrol officers harass and ridicule individuals in their custody and separate mothers from their minor children. This report focuses on two aspects of detention in CBP facilities in RGV. First, based on never-before-released government data and documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), it examines length of detention. Second, analyzing new survey data from the Binational Defense and Advocacy Program (in Spanish, Programa de Defensa e Incidencia Binacional, or PDIB), as well as declarations from a sample of women who were recently detained in RGV facilities, it sheds light on the conditions of detention that are prevalent in Border Patrol holding cells in the RGV sector. Government data show that during the months of August, September, October, and December of 2013, on average, 1173 individuals were detained in RGV facilities at any given time. Also, on average, 212 individuals were held in custody for over 72 hours at any given time. The share of individuals detained for over 72 hours ranged from 2.3 percent of all detainees at its lowest point to 42.5 percent at its peak. A significant number of individuals were held in detention even after their CBP "processing" was completed - meaning that these individuals were ready to be released or transferred to another federal agency. These data reveal that the Border Patrol regularly uses holding cells to detain people for prolonged periods, forcing men, women, and children to sleep on concrete floors and hard benches in holding cells that have no beds and are not equipped for sleeping. Additionally, our analysis of the PDIB survey data collected between June and November 2015 reveals that previously reported issues such as extreme temperatures, overcrowding, and inadequate food are routine. Three out of every four individuals detained in the RGV sectors reported having been exposed to extremely cold temperatures. Everyone who was held in detention in the RGV sector agreed that there was not enough space in the holding cell to lie down, and all but one indicated that there was not enough space for people to sit down. Almost all of the interviewees who were detained in RGV asserted that the food they received while detained was insufficient. In an effort to better illustrate the conditions individuals experience while in detention, the report also analyzes personal accounts of women who were held in CBP facilities in the Border Patrol RGV Sector. These accounts, shared by women who were held in Border Patrol cells in October or November 2015, reveal the markedly dehumanizing conditions to which these women were subjected while in Border Patrol custody. Recurring themes include overcrowding, separation of mothers from their children, inadequate access to medication and/or medical care, extreme temperature, lack of access to showers, food insufficiency, and sleep deprivation.

Details: Washington, DC: American Immigration Council, 2015. 31p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 11, 2016 at: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/hieleras_iceboxes_in_the_rio_grande_valley_sector.pdf

Year: 2015

Country: United States

URL: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/hieleras_iceboxes_in_the_rio_grande_valley_sector.pdf

Shelf Number: 137460

Keywords:
Border Patrol
Border Security
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrant Detention
Immigration
Immigration Enforcement

Author:

Title: ICE and USCIS Could Improve Data Quality and Exchange to Help Identify Potential Human Trafficking Cases

Summary: Although January is National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month, the month kicked off with a startling report revealing that human traffickers are exploiting the US visa process to smuggle victims into the country. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and US Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) data from 2005 to 2014 indicates that work and fiance visas were the predominant means by which more than half of the human traffickers known to federal law enforcement legally smuggled victims into the United States, according to an audit by the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Office of the Inspector General (IG). The IG also determined that 274 subjects of ICE human trafficking investigations successfully petitioned USCIS to bring 425 family members and fiances into the United States. ICE could not say exactly how many visa petitioners were human traffickers; however, 18 of the 274 had been arrested for trafficking-related crimes, including sex trafficking, labor trafficking, peonage, and involuntary servitude. The IG's report explained that fiance visas are used to lure human trafficking victims to the US as part of marriage fraud schemes. The traffickers confiscate the victims' passports and often subject them to psychological and physical abuse, such as forced sex and/or forced labor. The auditors determined that ICE and USCIS could improve data quality to better identify instances of human trafficking. Lack of communication between ICE and USCIS also created vulnerabilities in the visa process. "ICE had to extensively manipulate its system to provide us with reasonably reliable data for our data matching and analysis," the report stated. "USCIS did not always collect names and other identifiers of human traffickers that victims had provided in their T visa applications. Due to incomplete data, we were limited in our ability to match, analyze, and draw conclusions from the components' databases." The IG made three recommendations: Recommendation 1: Develop and implement procedures to capture the names and other identifying information on human traffickers found in victims' statements, which are submitted with T and U petitions, in USCIS information systems. Recommendation 2: Collaborate with ICE to institute a mutually acceptable procedure for transferring USCIS data on alleged human traffickers to ICE. Recommendation 3: Collaborate with USCIS to identify a mutually acceptable procedure for obtaining names and other identifying information on alleged human traffickers that is available in USCIS systems. ICE and USCIS concurred, saying they would address the IG's recommendations.

Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2016. 27p.

Source: Internet Resource: OIG-16-17: Accessed January 25, 2016 at: https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/2016/OIG-16-17-Jan16.pdf

Year: 2016

Country: United States

URL: https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/2016/OIG-16-17-Jan16.pdf

Shelf Number: 137658

Keywords:
Customs Enforcement
Forced Labor
Human Smuggling
Human Trafficking
Immigration Enforcement
Labor Trafficking
Sex Trafficking

Author: Southern Poverty Law Center

Title: Families in Fear: The Atlanta Immigration Raids

Summary: This report features stories from women swept up in the Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids that began on Jan. 2, 2016. The report by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights found that the federal government has engaged in a needlessly aggressive - and potentially unconstitutional - act against immigrants with these home raids that targeted women and children from Central America.

Details: Montgomery, AL: SPLC, 2016. 28p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8, 2016 at: https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/splc_families_in_fear_ice_raids_3.pdf

Year: 2016

Country: United States

URL: https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/splc_families_in_fear_ice_raids_3.pdf

Shelf Number: 137803

Keywords:
Customs Enforcement
Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Hagen-Zanker, Jessica

Title: Journeys to Europe: The role of policy in migrant decision-making

Summary: With more than a million migrants reaching Europe, 2015 has become known as the year of Europe's migration crisis. The persistence and intensification of crises in other parts of the world fuelled the largest movement of migrants and refugees into Europe since World War II. With some exceptions, the European response has been guided by strategies of containment, restriction and deterrence. Rather than welcoming, settling and integrating the new arrivals, many EU member states have tried to drive them away from their borders through an escalation of restrictive migration policies designed to stop people coming in the first place. This report and policy briefing aims to increase understanding of the journeys made by migrants. Based on in-depth interviews with more than 50 migrants, refugees and asylum seekers who have recently arrived in four European cities (Berlin, London, Madrid and Manchester), it explores: the journeys migrants take; the factors that drive them; and the capacity of destination country migration policies to influence people's decisions, both before their journey begins and along the way. Based on these findings, the authors make policy recommendations that could lead to the better management of, and a more effective and positive response to, the current migration crisis in Europe.

Details: London: Overseas Development Institute, 2016. 50p.

Source: Internet Resource: ODI Insights: Accessed February 11, 2016 at: http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/10297.pdf

Year: 2016

Country: Europe

URL: http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/10297.pdf

Shelf Number: 137845

Keywords:
Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Migrants
Refugees

Author: Capps, Randy

Title: Deferred Action for Unauthorized Immigrant Parents: Analysis of DAPA's Potential Effects on Families and Children

Summary: In November 2014, the Obama administration announced the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program, which would protect from deportation and provide eligibility for work authorization to as many as 3.6 million unauthorized immigrants, according to MPI estimates. Unauthorized immigrants who are parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents (LPRs) would qualify for deferred action for three years if they meet certain other requirements. The Supreme Court in April 2016 is expected to hear arguments in the administration's appeal of a lower court order blocking implementation of DAPA and a related expansion of the existing Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The justices' decision in the case, which began when Texas and 25 other states challenged the president's authority to create the DAPA program and expand DACA, is expected in June 2016. If the high court permits DAPA to go forward, the program has the potential to improve the incomes and living standards for many unauthorized immigrant families through protection from deportation and eligibility for work authorization. This MPI-Urban Institute report describes the population of 3.6 million unauthorized immigrant parents potentially eligible for DAPA and the likely impacts of the program on potential recipients and their children. The report finds that more than 10 million people live in households with at least one potentially DAPA-eligible adult, including some 4.3 million children under age 18 - an estimated 85 percent of whom are U.S. citizens.

Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute and Migration Policy Institute, 2016.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 2, 2016 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/deferred-action-unauthorized-immigrant-parents-analysis-dapas-potential-effects-families

Year: 2016

Country: United States

URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/deferred-action-unauthorized-immigrant-parents-analysis-dapas-potential-effects-families

Shelf Number: 138013

Keywords:
Children of Immigrants
Illegal Immigrations
Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement

Author: Carper, Thomas R.

Title: Stronger Neighbors - Stronger Borders: Addressing the Root Causes of Illegal Migration from Central America

Summary: Given the increasingly dangerous world in which we live today, there is broad agreement among Americans that secure borders are more important than ever. In response to those concerns, our country has spent nearly $250 billion over the past decade to make our southern border with Mexico more secure. We've built over 600 miles of fencing. We've doubled the number of Border Patrol agents to more than 21,000. And we've deployed technology such as drones, helicopters, sophisticated surveillance systems, and ground sensors. But all of these security enhancements along our borders could not hold back the waves of tens of thousands of unaccompanied children and families who arrived at our southern border in 2014, mostly into Texas. Significant flows continue even today. The overwhelming majority of these migrants are coming -not from Mexico -but from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, three Central American countries collectively known as the Northern Triangle. For the most part, the children and families aren't evading Border Patrol agents. They are surrendering and asking for help.

Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 2015. 54p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 5, 2016 at: http://www.carper.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/0d5438ad-7cfb-4afe-be3f-f94a01546f6a/stronger-neighbors---stronger-borders.pdf

Year: 2015

Country: United States

URL: http://www.carper.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/0d5438ad-7cfb-4afe-be3f-f94a01546f6a/stronger-neighbors---stronger-borders.pdf

Shelf Number: 138111

Keywords:
Border Patrol
Border Security
Illegal Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Migrants

Author: Hiskey, Jonathan

Title: Understanding the Central American Refugee Crisis: Why They are Fleeing and How U.S. Policies are Failing to Deter Them

Summary: In the spring and summer of 2014, tens of thousands of women and unaccompanied children from Central America journeyed to the United States seeking asylum. The increase of asylum-seekers, primarily from Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala - the countries making up the "Northern Triangle" region - was characterized by President Obama as a "humanitarian crisis." The situation garnered widespread congressional and media attention, much of it speculating about the cause of the increase and suggesting U.S. responses. The increase of Central Americans presenting themselves at the United States' southwest border seeking asylum, President Obama and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), specifically, implemented an "aggressive deterrence strategy." A media campaign was launched in Central America highlighting the risks involved with migration and the consequences of illegal immigration. DHS also dramatically increased the detention of women and children awaiting their asylum hearings, rather than release on bond. Finally, the U.S. government publicly supported increased immigration enforcement measures central to the Mexican government's Southern Border Program that was launched in July of 2014. Together, these policies functioned to "send a message" to Central Americans that the trip to the United States was not worth the risk, and they would be better off staying put. Yet the underlying assumption that greater knowledge of migration dangers would effectively deter Central Americans from trying to cross the U.S. border remains largely untested. This report aims to investigate this assumption and answer two related questions: "What motivates Central Americans to consider migration?" and "What did Central Americans know about the risks involved in migrating to the United States in August 2014?" An analysis of data from a survey of Northern Triangle residents conducted in the spring of 2014 by Vanderbilt University's Latin American Public Opinion Project (LAPOP) reveals that respondents were more likely to have intentions to migrate if they had been victims of one or more crimes in the previous year. In a separate LAPOP survey of residents of selected municipalities across Honduras, carried out in late July and early August of 2014, we find that a substantial majority of respondents were also well aware of the dangers involved in migration to the United States, including the increased chances of deportation. This widespread awareness among Hondurans of the U.S. immigration climate in the summer of 2014, however, did not have any significant effect on whether or not they intended to migrate. In sum, though the U.S. media campaigns may have convinced - or reminded - Hondurans, and perhaps their Salvadoran and Guatemalan counterparts, that migration to the United States is dangerous and unlikely to be successful, this knowledge did not seem to play a role in the decision calculus of those considering migration. Rather, we have strong evidence from the surveys in Honduras and El Salvador in particular that one's direct experience with crime emerges as a critical predictor of one's emigration intentions. What these findings suggest is that crime victims are unlikely to be deterred by the Administration's efforts. Further, we may infer from this analysis of migration intentions that those individuals who do decide to migrate and successfully arrive at the U.S. border are far more likely to fit the profile of refugees than that of economic migrants. Upon arrival, however, they are still subject to the "send a message" policies and practices that are designed to deter others rather than identify and ensure the protection of those fleeing war-like levels of violence.

Details: Washington, DC: American Immigration Council, 2016. 16p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 9, 2016 at: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/understanding_the_central_american_refugee_crisis.pdf

Year: 2016

Country: Central America

URL: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/understanding_the_central_american_refugee_crisis.pdf

Shelf Number: 138142

Keywords:
Border Security
Immigrants
Immigration
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy
Refugees

Author: Kandel, William A.

Title: U.S. Immigration Policy: Chart Book of Key Trends

Summary: This report is a chart book of selected immigration trends. Key immigration issues that Congress has considered in recent years include increased border security and immigration enforcement, expanded employment eligibility verification, reforms to the system for legal temporary and permanent immigration, and options to address the millions of unauthorized aliens residing in the country. The report offers snapshots of time series data, using the most complete and consistent time series currently available for each statistic. The key findings and elements germane to the data depicted are summarized with the figures. The summary offers the highlights of key immigration trends. The United States has a history of receiving immigrants, and these foreign-born residents of the United States have come from all over the world. - Immigration to the United States today has reached annual levels comparable to the early years of the 20th century. - Immigration over the last few decades of the 20th century was not as dominated by three or four countries as it was earlier in the century, and this pattern has continued into the 21st century. - The absolute number of foreign-born residents in the United States is at its highest level in U.S. history, reaching 42.4 million in 2014. - Foreign-born residents of the United States made up 13.3% of the U.S. population in 2014, approaching levels not seen since the proportion of foreign-born residents reached 14.8% in 1910. Legal immigration encompasses permanent immigrant admissions (e.g., employment-based or family-based immigrants) and temporary nonimmigrant admissions (e.g., guest workers, foreign students). The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) contains the provisions detailing the requirements for admission (permanent and temporary) of foreign nationals and the eligibility rules for foreign nationals to become U.S. citizens. - In FY2013, about 991,000 aliens became U.S. legal permanent residents (LPRs). Of this total, 65% entered on the basis of family ties. - The pool of people potentially eligible to immigrate to the United States as LPRs each year typically exceeds the worldwide level set by the INA. - Most of the 4.6 million approved petitions pending at the close of FY2015 were for family members of U.S. citizens. - After falling from 7.6 million in FY2001 to 5.0 million in FY2004, temporary visa issuances reached 9.9 million in FY2014. - Generally, all of the temporary employment-based visa categories have increased since FY1994. Although there was a dip during the recent recession, the number of employment-based temporary visas increased each year between FY2010 and FY2014. Immigration control encompasses an array of enforcement tools, policies, and practices to secure the border and to prevent and investigate violations of immigration laws. The INA specifies the grounds for exclusion and removal of foreign nationals as well as the documentary and entry-exit controls for U.S. citizens and foreign nationals.

Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2016. 32p.

Source: Internet Resource: CSR R42988: Accessed March 21, 2016 at: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42988.pdf

Year: 2016

Country: United States

URL: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42988.pdf

Shelf Number: 138351

Keywords:
Border Security
Immigrants
Immigration
Immigration Enforcement

Author: Great Britain. House of Commons. Home Affairs Committee

Title: The work of Immigration Directorates (Q3 2015)

Summary: In the past, the Home Affairs Committee has assessed the Home Office's performance on a quarterly basis against a number of indicators covering aspects of its work. This report covers Q3 2015 - the three months from July to September 2015 - and the data was published on 26 November 2015. The report is divided into two sections, reflecting how the work is divided in the Home Office. Part one covers the work of UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI): Visa application; Sponsors and licensing; New asylum cases; Syrian resettlement; Asylum and immigration caseload; Spouse visas; Appeals and tribunals performance; MPs correspondence; Staff numbers. Part two covers the work of Immigration Enforcement: The Migration Refusal Pool; Sponsors and suspension; Immigration detention; Foreign National Offenders.

Details: London: Stationery Office Limited, 2016. 82p.

Source: Internet Resource: HC 772: Sixth Report of Session 2015-16: Accessed March 24, 2016 at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmhaff/772/772.pdf

Year: 2016

Country: United Kingdom

URL: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmhaff/772/772.pdf

Shelf Number: 138398

Keywords:
Asylum Seekers
Immigrant detention
Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy

Author: Advancement Project

Title: Manufacturing Felonies: How Driving Became a Felony for People of Color in Georgia

Summary: While immigration reform has languished in Congress, some states have adopted harsh, undemocratic, and discriminatory laws and policies that seemed designed to criminalize immigrants or push them out of the United States. This happened in Georgia. In 2007, state legislators began to debate various ways to restrict immigration and passed a bill creating a felony category for driving without a driver's license or on a suspended or revoked license. In order to better understand how the "felony driving law" has impacted communities in Georgia, the Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights (GLAHR) and Advancement Project submitted open records requests in three jurisdictions, Fayette County, Houston County and Roswell City. We found that the "felony driving law" in Georgia disproportionately impacts communities of color, particularly Latino and African-American drivers. It also carries heavy monetary penalties driving low-income families further into poverty. At a time when the nation is beginning a long overdue conversation on criminal justice reform, the "felony driving law" is a prime example of a state law that must be revisited and eliminated. An additional concern regarding the "felony driving law" is that it may end up serving as a dragnet by Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) to meet its quotas of undocumented immigrants in process of deportation. Local jails and police agencies cooperate with ICE to the detriment of the undocumented immigrant community. Georgia can and should regulate driving privileges for all of its residents, but creating a harsh criminal penalty is a bad public policy that disproportionately hurts communities of color across the state.

Details: Washington, DC: Advancement Project, 2016. 16p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 26, 2016 at: http://b.3cdn.net/advancement/a23a889905f33b63a2_lim6bsbhf.pdf

Year: 2016

Country: United States

URL: http://b.3cdn.net/advancement/a23a889905f33b63a2_lim6bsbhf.pdf

Shelf Number: 138419

Keywords:
Discrimination
Human Rights Abuses
Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement

Author: Bohn, Sarah

Title: U.S. Border Enforcement and Mexican Immigrant Location Choice

Summary: We provide the first evidence on the causal effect of border enforcement on the full spatial distribution of Mexican immigrants to the United States. We address the endogeneity of border enforcement with an instrumental variables strategy based on administrative delays in budgetary allocations for border security. We find that 1,000 additional border patrol officers assigned to prevent unauthorized migrants from entering a state decreases that state's share of Mexican immigrants by 21.9%. Our estimates imply that border enforcement alone accounted for declines in the share of Mexican immigrants locating in California and Texas of 11 and 6 percentage points, respectively, over the period 1994-2011, with all other states experiencing gains or no change.

Details: Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), 2013. 42p.

Source: Internet Resource: IZA Discussion Paper No. 7842: Accessed April 6, 2016 at: http://ftp.iza.org/dp7842.pdf

Year: 2013

Country: United States

URL: http://ftp.iza.org/dp7842.pdf

Shelf Number: 138573

Keywords:
Border Security
Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Unauthorized Immigration

Author: Dustmann, Christian

Title: Illegal Migration and Consumption Behavior of Immigrant Households

Summary: We analyze the effect of immigrants' legal status on their consumption behavior using unique survey data that samples both documented and undocumented immigrants. To address the problem of sorting into legal status, we propose two alternative identification strategies as exogenous source of variation for current legal status: First, transitory income shocks in the home country, measured as rainfall shocks at the time of emigration. Second, amnesty quotas that grant legal residence status to undocumented immigrants. Both sources of variation create a strong first stage, and - although very different in nature - lead to similar estimates of the effects of illegal status on consumption, with undocumented immigrants consuming about 40% less than documented immigrants, conditional on background characteristics. Roughly one quarter of this decrease is explained by undocumented immigrants having lower incomes than documented immigrants. Our findings imply that legalization programs may have a potentially important effect on immigrants' consumption behavior, with consequences for both the source and host countries.

Details: Munich: Center for Economic Studies (CESifo), 2016. 69p.

Source: Internet Resource: CESifo Working Paper No. 5822: Accessed April 6, 2016 at: http://www.cesifo-group.de/ifoHome/publications/working-papers/CESifoWP/CESifoWPdetails?wp_num=5822&CESifoWP.search=+

Year: 2016

Country: Germany

URL: http://www.cesifo-group.de/ifoHome/publications/working-papers/CESifoWP/CESifoWPdetails?wp_num=5822&CESifoWP.search=+

Shelf Number: 138570

Keywords:
Illegal Migration
Immigration Enforcement
Migrants
Undocumented Immigrants

Author: National Immigration Law Center

Title: Blazing a Trail: The Fight for Right to Counsel in Detention and Beyond

Summary: The federal government has long interpreted the immigration laws to mean that immigrants have a right to be represented by counsel in their deportation proceedings, but not at government expense. Making the right to counsel a reality is an imperative for all immigrants in removal proceedings, but the situation is even more critical for detained immigrants. As this report shows, the very circumstances of detention make that right a legal fiction for almost all detained immigrants. Mounting empirical data show that having a lawyer to help navigate the complex maze of the immigration detention and court systems makes a profound difference in a person's ability to gain release from detention, challenge the government's grounds for seeking their deportation, and present and win a defense that allows the person to remain in the U.S. Innovative projects in New York and New Jersey have begun to provide what we are calling in this report "universal representation," i.e., representation to any detained immigrant within the jurisdiction of a particular immigration court who does not have a private lawyer and who meets certain income requirements. Inspired by these examples, other localities across the country are examining how they can develop similar programs.

Details: Los Angeles: National Immigration Law Center, 2016. 48p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 23, 2016 at: https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Right-to-Counsel-Blazing-a-Trail-2016-03.pdf

Year: 2016

Country: United States

URL: https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Right-to-Counsel-Blazing-a-Trail-2016-03.pdf

Shelf Number: 138782

Keywords:
Immigrant Detention
Immigration
Immigration Enforcement
Legal Aid
Right to Counsel
Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Global Detention Project

Title: Immigration Detention in the United States

Summary: The United States operates the world's largest immigration detention system. On any given day, the country has some 30,000 people in administrative immigration detention at an estimated cost of nearly $150 a day. In 2016, the combined budget of enforcement agencies was $19 billion. The country's sprawling detention estate counts on some 200 facilities, including privately operated detention facilities, local jails, juvenile detention centres, field offices, and euphemistically named "family residential centres." The country has also supported the detention of migrants and asylum seekers in neighbouring countries.

Details: Geneva, SWIT: Global Detention Project, 2016. 25p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 4, 2016 at: http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/publications/immigration-detention-united-states

Year: 2016

Country: United States

URL: http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/publications/immigration-detention-united-states

Shelf Number: 138908

Keywords:
Immigrant Detention
Immigration Enforcement
Migrants
Undocumented Migrants

Author: Katwala, Sunder

Title: Engaging the Anxious Middle on Immigration Reform: Evidence from the UK Debate

Summary: The United Kingdom is often presented as having particularly hostile attitudes toward immigration compared to other countries. Momentum generated by those who are firmly opposed to current immigration levels was a major factor behind the call for a June 2016 referendum on UK membership in the European Union, and has also played a role in tough migration policies put forward by the coalition and Conservative governments. Certainly, immigration is an increasingly salient issue in UK politics and surveys indicate that public trust in the government's ability to manage inflows has fallen to abject levels. Immigration emerged as a key political issue in the late 1990s, and from 2013 onwards politics "caught up" with public views, as parties such as the UK Independence Party (UKIP) rose to prominence campaigning on a populist, anti-immigration platform. However, the authors of this report make the case that polls reveal far more nuanced public attitudes towards immigration and immigrants than commonly depicted in the media and political discourse. Though there are substantial minorities of strong opinion for and against immigration, most people fall into the "anxious middle." They are skeptical about the government's handling of immigration and worried about the effects of immigration on society and the economy, but are not hostile toward immigrants themselves, especially skilled ones who can contribute to the economy. This Transatlantic Council on Migration report analyzes polling data in an attempt to paint a more accurate picture of public opinion on immigration - focusing on the concerns of the anxious middle. It examines several drivers of public opinion in the United Kingdom, including media coverage of immigration, before considering how recent migration policy changes can be linked to public opinion - or, crucially, what policymakers perceive to be the public will.

Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2016. 28p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 11, 2016 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/engaging-anxious-middle-immigration-reform-evidence-uk-debate

Year: 2016

Country: United Kingdom

URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/engaging-anxious-middle-immigration-reform-evidence-uk-debate

Shelf Number: 139001

Keywords:
Asylum Seekers
Border Security
Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy
Migration
Refugees

Author: Lampard, Kate

Title: Independent investigation into concerns about Yarl's Wood Immigration removal centre

Summary: An independent report published today into the culture and practices at Yarl's Wood Immigration Removal Centre ('Yarl's Wood') has found there is not an endemic culture of abuse nor a hidden problem of inappropriate behaviour by staff at the centre. The report, commissioned by Serco following a series of allegations, did however find serious concerns with staffing arrangements including capacity, training, and an inadequate proportion of female officers to care for women at the centre, and has made 35 recommendations for improvement. The investigation, by Kate Lampard CBE and Ed Marsden from Verita, highlighted both the challenges of running Yarl's Wood and the concerns and experiences of the residents living there whilst their immigration applications are processed. Further specific issues identified by the investigating team as needing improvement, include: the physical environment and access to outside space; the availability of meaningful activities and education programmes for residents; weaknesses in safeguarding arrangements and policies; inconsistent policies and underdeveloped practice in relation to raising concerns and whistle blowing; the choice and quality of the food available; and training, development and appraisal of staff. In addition the report makes recommendations aimed at ensuring greater transparency and openness about Yarl's Wood, noting how there is a disparity between perceptions and the reality of how the centre is managed and run.

Details: London: Verita Consultants, 2016.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 11, 2016 at: http://www.yarlswood.co.uk/news/view/an-independent-investigation-into-concerns-about-yarls-wood-immigration-rem

Year: 2016

Country: United Kingdom

URL: http://www.yarlswood.co.uk/news/view/an-independent-investigation-into-concerns-about-yarls-wood-immigration-rem

Shelf Number: 139007

Keywords:
Asylum Seekers
Immigrant Detention
Immigration
Immigration Enforcement
Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Neville, Darren

Title: On the frontline: the hotspot approach to managing migration

Summary: This study, commissioned by the European Parliament's Policy Department for Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the LIBE Committee, places the new "hotspot approach" to managing migration within its policy framework. It examines the way in which EU agencies provide support to frontline Member States, with particular focus on Greece, and assesses the chief challenges identified to date in both the policy design and operational implementation of hotspots.

Details: Brussels: Policy Department of Citizen's Rights and Constitutional Affairs, European Parliament, 2016. 58p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 16, 2016 at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/556942/IPOL_STU(2016)556942_EN.pdf

Year: 2016

Country: Europe

URL: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/556942/IPOL_STU(2016)556942_EN.pdf

Shelf Number: 139049

Keywords:
Immigrants
Immigration
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy
Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Meyer, Peter J.

Title: Unaccompanied Children from Central America: Foreign Policy Considerations

Summary: Since FY2011, the number of unaccompanied alien children (UAC) traveling to the United States from the "northern triangle" nations of Central America - El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras - has increased sharply. U.S. authorities encountered more than 52,000 unaccompanied minors from the region at the U.S. border in FY2014, a more than 1,200% increase compared to FY2011. This unexpected surge of children strained U.S. government resources and created a complex crisis with humanitarian implications. U.S. apprehensions of unaccompanied minors from the northern triangle declined by 45% in FY2015. They increased in the first five months of FY2016, however, and experts warn that significant migration flows will continue until policymakers in the countries of origin and the international community address the poor socioeconomic and security conditions driving Central Americans to leave their homes. The 2014 migration crisis led to renewed focus on Central America, a region with which the United States historically has shared close political, economic, and cultural ties. The United States engages with Central American countries through a variety of mechanisms, including a security assistance package known as the Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI) and the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR). Over the past two years, the Obama Administration has sought closer cooperation with Central American governments to dissuade children from making the journey to the United States, target smuggling networks, and repatriate unauthorized migrants. The Administration also has introduced a whole-of-government "U.S. Strategy for Engagement in Central America" designed to increase economic opportunity, reduce extreme violence, and strengthen the effectiveness of state institutions in the region. The Administration requested $1 billion through the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development to implement the strategy in FY2016, and it has requested more than $770 million through those two agencies to continue implementation in FY2017. The governments of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras are undertaking complementary efforts under their "Plan of the Alliance for Prosperity in the Northern Triangle." Congress has expressed considerable concern about increased migration from Central America, with Members holding numerous hearings, traveling to the region, and introducing legislation designed to address the situation. Although Congress opted not to appropriate supplemental funding for programs in Central America in FY2014, it appropriated more than $570 million for the region in FY2015, which was $241 million more than the Administration originally requested. The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (P.L. 113-235), also directed the Administration to develop a comprehensive strategy to address the key factors contributing to the migration of unaccompanied children to the United States. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (P.L. 114-113), appropriated $750 million in support of the Administration's Central America strategy in FY2016. The act also placed a number of conditions on the assistance, requiring governments in the region to take steps to improve border security, combat corruption, increase revenues, and address human rights concerns, among other actions. As Congress debates the Administration's FY2017 budget request and other legislative options to address increased migration from Central America, it might take into consideration a variety of interrelated issues. These issues might include the humanitarian implications of the current situation, the international humanitarian response, Central American governments' limited capacities to receive and reintegrate repatriated children, Central American governments' abilities and willingness to address poor security and socioeconomic conditions in their countries, and the extent to which the Mexican government is capable of limiting the transmigration of Central Americans through its territory.

Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Services, 2016. 32p.

Source: Internet Resource: R43702: Accessed May 25, 2016 at: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43702.pdf

Year: 2016

Country: Central America

URL: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43702.pdf

Shelf Number: 138656

Keywords:
Child Protection
Homeland Security
Human Smuggling
Immigration Enforcement
Unaccompanied Children

Author: Armacost, Barbara E.

Title: "Sanctuary" Laws: The New Immigration Federalism

Summary: The policy of "immigration federalism" has justified granting state and local police officers greatly increased responsibilities for enforcing immigration laws, but the devolution of power has also generated enormous controversy. Supporters argue that the vast number of local police and their knowledge of local conditions can substantially assist federal immigration enforcement. Critics say that the policy has caused serious problems, including increased racial profiling and more pretextual arrests for minor crimes, and that the resulting alienation of immigrant communities has reduced public safety. The controversy is not just academic, as more than 270 local jurisdictions have adopted policies designed to resist immigration federalism. Some argue that these laws have only one purpose: to thwart federal enforcement and shelter illegal immigrants. National legislators have proposed legislation to squelch local resistance by cutting federal funds to those localities. Such responses are, however, fundamentally inconsistent with the very theory of federalism. The widespread resistance to immigration federalism is a state/local-inspired reaction to the serious, if unintended consequences of localized immigration policing. A true immigration federalist should view such local resistance not as mere opposition to quash, but as a "new immigration federalism," a source of insight into the on-the-ground problems with current immigration policies. This article argues that the policies enacted as part of the local resistance movement point the way both to specific solutions, and to a better - and more theoretically sound - immigration federalism. This "new immigration federalism" is already having an effect on federal immigration policy.

Details: Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia, School of Law, 2016. 57p.

Source: Internet Resource: Virginia Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 2016-45 : Accessed August 30, 2016 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2823925##

Year: 2016

Country: United States

URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2823925##

Shelf Number: 140092

Keywords:
Crimmigration
Illegal Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy
Sanctuary Laws

Author: Cantor, Guillermo

Title: Detained Beyond the Limit: Prolonged Confinement by U.S. Customs and Border Protection along the Southwest Border

Summary: For some time now, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has been in the spotlight for its questionable practices regarding the treatment of migrants. One such practice concerns the manner in which the Border Patrol-a component of CBP-operates its holding facilities near the U.S.' southern border. Each year, hundreds of thousands of individuals are held in these facilities, which are meant to hold individuals for a short time while they undergo initial processing and until a decision is made about the appropriate next step in their case. The holding cells, which are often referred to as "hieleras" (Spanish for "freezers" or "iceboxes"), are typically small concrete rooms with concrete benches and no beds. They are not designed for overnight custody, and yet they are routinely used in this way. Government records analyzed in this report, which contain information on length of detention for all Border Patrol sectors along the U.S.' southwest border, reveal that individuals are frequently held for days and sometimes even months in such facilities. As numerous reports, media accounts, and documented complaints of former detainees have previously shown, these facilities remain wholly inadequate for any overnight detention. Moreover, the conditions are reprehensible-as consistently reported by many who were held in them-even with respect to truly short-term detention. In addition to the fact that there are no beds in the holding cells, these facilities are extremely cold, frequently overcrowded, and routinely lack adequate food, water, and medical care. This report, which is based on never-before-released government data and documents obtained by the American Immigration Council through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), examines length of detention in nine Border Patrol sectors: Big Bend, Texas; Del Rio, Texas; El Centro, California; El Paso, Texas; Laredo, Texas; Rio Grande Valley, Texas; San Diego, California; Tucson, Arizona; and Yuma, Arizona. Between September 1, 2014 and August 31, 2015, 326,881 individuals were held in CBP facilities across the southwest border. Of the cases analyzed, which include only cases with complete data (326,728), 69,016 (21.1 percent) were women. Mexican nationals represent the largest share (57.1 percent) of those detained in CBP facilities during this period, followed by Guatemalans (16.9 percent), Salvadorans (12.7 percent), and Hondurans (9.8 percent). Looking at all sectors combined, the data reveals that a shocking 217,485 individuals (or 67 percent of the total number detained during this period) were held in CBP facilities for 24 hours or more; 93,566 (29 percent) for 48 hours or more; and 44,202 (14 percent) for 72 hours or more. The average number of hours that individuals were detained shows some variation, ranging from 65 hours at its lowest point in July 2015 to 104 hours at its peak in October 2014. Length of detention varies considerably across border sectors. For example, lengthy detention is remarkably frequent in the Laredo, Rio Grande Valley, Tucson, Yuma, and El Centro sectors. Laredo in particular shows the most disturbing numbers; 54 percent (19,000) of the 35,494 individuals held in detention facilities in Laredo were detained for at least 72 hours. A recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) raises questions about the possible existence of irregularities in the way Border Patrol officers capture information on length of detention. Consequently, the data presented here should be interpreted with caution. However, the findings of our analysis are consistent with those reported in previous publications by the American Immigration Council. For example, according to a report released in May 2015, 58,083 individuals-or over 80 percent of people detained by the Border Patrol in its Tucson Sector between January 1, 2013 and June 30, 2013-were held for over 24 hours, and 10.9 percent (7,839 individuals) were held for 72 hours or more. Another report which focused on the Rio Grande Valley Sector showed that during the months of August, September, October, and December of 2013, the share of individuals detained for over 72 hours ranged from 2.3 percent of all detainees at its lowest point to 42.5 percent at its peak. Lengthy detention is especially problematic given the inhumane conditions that characterize these holding facilities. The findings presented in this report document a troublesome reality: lengthy detention is not just a random occurrence that happens to a few individuals in one or two Border Patrol sectors; it is, instead, a systemic practice that affects, to varying degrees, all the sectors along the southwest border.

Details: Washington, DC: American Immigration Council, 2016. 16p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 23, 2016 at: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/detained_beyond_the_limit.pdf

Year: 2016

Country: United Kingdom

URL: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/detained_beyond_the_limit.pdf

Shelf Number: 146113

Keywords:
Border Patrol
Border Security
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrant Detention
Immigration Enforcement

Author: Suarez, Ximena

Title: A Trail of Impunity:Thousands of Migrants in Transit Face Abuses amid Mexico's Crackdown

Summary: On September 3, 2016, in a public event with the United States' Republican party presidential candidate Donald Trump, Mexican president Enrique Pena Nieto commented on how essential it is for his government and for Mexico's relationship with the United States to make Mexico's southern border with Central America "more secure." This discourse is not new. In July 2014 Mexico announced the controversial "Southern Border Program" and has since pursued policies that prioritize securing the country's Southern Border from migrants through control measures and a significant increase in detentions and deportations, ignoring concerns about the human rights of migrants and potential refugees traveling through Mexico, in particular from Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala. A new assessment of the situation reveals that migration enforcement operations keep increasing, at a time when Mexican authorities have not sufficiently improved their capacity to screen migrants to detect protection concerns and to seriously investigate crimes against migrants in transit in the country. Official data, information obtained through freedom-of-information requests, journalistic sources, and information from some of the shelters assisting migrants in Mexico reveals that 2016 may be the year with the highest number of detentions, deportations, and asylum petitions in Mexico.

Details: WOLA; Fundar: Centro de Analisis e Investigacion, and the Casa del Migrante Frontera con Justicia, in Saltillo, Coahuila, 2016. 15p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 15, 2016 at: https://www.wola.org/analysis/a-trail-of-impunity/

Year: 2016

Country: Mexico

URL: https://www.wola.org/analysis/a-trail-of-impunity/

Shelf Number: 144875

Keywords:
Deportation
Human Rights Abuses
Illegal Migrants
Immigration Enforcement
Migrant Detention
Migrants

Author: Barrick, Leigh

Title: Divided by Detention: Asylum-Seeking Families' Experiences of Separation

Summary: As the number of asylum-seeking families from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico arriving in the United States soared in recent years, the Obama Administration aggressively expanded family detention in an attempt to "deter" the arrival of others. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) opened large detention centers to detain mothers and children. Although DHS has the authority to place asylum-seekers directly into immigration court proceedings, it continues to detain mothers and children and subject them to fast-track removal. Families and advocates have exposed the numerous ways that detention and fast-track removal jeopardize the well-being of asylum-seeking families. They have also drawn attention to the due-process violations caused by detention that prevent families from accessing the system of humanitarian protection created for people in their circumstances. This report examines what happens when "family detention" does not actually keep loved ones together. Through its custody determinations, DHS splits family members - sending them to different facilities around the country - while failing to track and reunite those who arrive separately. While DHS claims that family detention keeps families together, the truth is that a mother and child who are sent to family detention will often have been separated by DHS from other loved ones with whom they fled - including husbands, fathers, grandparents, older children, and siblings. Minors who arrive with non-parent caretakers are often removed from their custody. These DHS custody determinations that divide families do not occur in a vacuum. The administration has targeted these families, while Congress maintains a controversial directive to fund a minimum capacity of 34,000 noncitizen detention beds. This report profiles the experiences of five asylum-seeking families who are divided by detention. It provides a preliminary analysis of how this separation occurs, and the impact this separation can have on families' well-being and ability to access humanitarian protection. The families interviewed express that separation negatively impacts their mental and material well-being. Four attorneys highly experienced in representing detained asylum-seeking families interviewed for this report argue that being split up also negatively impacts families' ability to access protection. Families bear the burden of tracking down their loved ones, worrying about their well-being, and attempting to link their cases. Multiple adjudicators across the country may rule on the same case, while only hearing a piece of the story. Ultimately, it is possible that family members who fled their country for the same reason may receive inconsistent decisions in their cases. This report calls for further research into these issues. Separating families has countless negative impacts, while allowing them to stay together has numerous benefits. Doing the latter would allow the U.S. government to better uphold its various commitments to family unity and parental rights in immigration enforcement activities, support the well-being of families, give them more effective access to humanitarian protection, and prevent the unnecessary waste of government resources.

Details: Washington, DC: American Immigration Council, 2016. 29p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 17, 2016 at: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/divided-by-detention-asylum-seeking-families-experience-of-separation

Year: 2016

Country: United States

URL: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/divided-by-detention-asylum-seeking-families-experience-of-separation

Shelf Number: 144864

Keywords:
Asylum Seekers
Illegal Immigration
Immigrant Detention
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy

Author: Eagly, Ingrid

Title: Access to Counsel in Immigration Court

Summary: It has long been the case that immigrants have a right to counsel in immigration court, but that expense has generally been borne by the non-citizen. Because deportation is classified as a civil rather than a criminal sanction, immigrants facing removal are not afforded the constitutional protections under the Sixth Amendment that are provided to criminal defendants. Whereas in the criminal justice system, all defendants facing even one day in jail are provided an attorney if they cannot afford one, immigrants facing deportation generally do not have that opportunity. Detained immigrants, particularly those held in remote locations, face the additional obstacle of accessing counsel from behind bars. Yet, in every immigration case, the government is represented by a trained attorney who can argue for deportation, regardless of whether the immigrant is represented. The lack of appointed counsel may have a profound impact on immigrants' ability to receive a fair hearing. Past research has highlighted the importance of counsel for asylum seekers, and regional studies have highlighted the important role attorneys play for immigrants navigating immigration courts in New York and San Francisco. Yet, up to now, the debate about access to counsel has proceeded with little reliable national information on how many immigrants facing deportation obtain attorneys, the barriers to accessing representation, and how such representation impacts the outcomes of their cases. This report presents the results of the first national study of access to counsel in U.S. immigration courts. Drawing on data from over 1.2 million deportation cases decided between 2007 and 2012, the report provides much-needed information about the scope and impact of attorney representation in U.S. immigration courts.

Details: Washington, DC: American Immigration Council, 2016. 28p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 24, 2016 at: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/access_to_counsel_in_immigration_court.pdf

Year: 2016

Country: United States

URL: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/access_to_counsel_in_immigration_court.pdf

Shelf Number: 140826

Keywords:
Deportation
Immigrant Detention
Immigration Courts
Immigration Enforcement
Right to Counsel
Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Gros, Hanna

Title: "No Life for a Child": A Roadmap to End Immigration Detention of Children and Family Separation

Summary: Canada should urgently implement alternatives to detaining children rather than housing them in immigration detention facilities or separating them from their detained parents, the University of Toronto’s International Human Rights Program (IHRP) said in a report released today. In failing to do so, Canada is violating its international legal obligations. Over the past several years, Canada has held hundreds of children in immigration detention, including children from Syria and other war-torn regions. According to figures obtained by the IHRP through access to information requests, an average of 242 children were detained each year between 2010 and 2014. These figures are an underestimate because they do not account for all children living with their parents in detention as 'guests, who were not subject to formal detention orders. Some of these include children with Canadian citizenship. The 70-page report, "'No Life for a Child': A Roadmap to End Immigration Detention of Children and Family Separation," uncovers the deficient legal underpinnings and detrimental practical implications of Canadian immigration detention for children. The report makes 11 recommendations to ensure that Canada complies with its international human rights obligations, and analyzes various international models of alternatives to detention and family separation. The report concludes that children and families with children should be released from detention outright or given access to community-based alternatives to detention, such as reporting obligations, financial deposits, guarantors, and electronic monitoring. 'No Life for a Child' is based on IHRP interviews with detained mothers and children, as well as mental health experts, social workers, child rights activists, and legal professionals. The report profiles children, including infants, who lived in detention or were separated from their families. The report finds that conditions of detention are woefully unsuited for children. Immigration Holding Centres resemble medium-security prisons, with significant restrictions on privacy and liberty, inadequate access to education, insufficient recreational opportunities and poor nutrition. One of the children profiled in the report, Michel (not his real name), spent the first 28 months of his life living under these conditions in a Toronto detention facility. Michel’s mother was detained when she was two-months pregnant, because Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) suspected that she was a flight risk. After giving birth to Michel, the two continued to be detained for nearly three years before they were deported in late 2015. According to Michel’s mother, although Michel was a Canadian citizen, 'he lives the same life as a detained child.' According to medical experts, immigration detention causes serious and lasting psychological harm to children, including depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress, and suicidal ideation. The report finds that it is the fact of detention — not just the conditions of detention — that is fundamentally harmful to children’s well-being. The report also finds that family separation is not an adequate alternative to child detention because it causes significant psychological distress, and may expose children to the hardships of the child welfare system. Instead, the report recommends that families should be given access to community-based alternatives to detention. The report builds upon years of advocacy by refugee and child rights groups in Canada that have called on the government to ensure that children’s best interests are a primary consideration in decisions affecting them, and ultimately, to end child detention and family separation. International bodies have also repeatedly criticized Canada for its immigration detention practices. The report notes recent initiatives by Canada's federal government and CBSA indicating a strong willingness to reform the immigration detention regime, with a particular view to protecting children and addressing mental health issues. The government has also expressed an intention to engage extensively with non-governmental organizations and other civil society stakeholders in the process of revising relevant policy and designing new programs.

Details: Toronto: International Human Rights Program (IHRP) University of Toronto Faculty of Law, 2016. 70p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 2, 2016 at: http://ihrp.law.utoronto.ca/utfl_file/count/PUBLICATIONS/Report-NoLifeForAChild.pdf

Year: 2016

Country: Canada

URL: http://ihrp.law.utoronto.ca/utfl_file/count/PUBLICATIONS/Report-NoLifeForAChild.pdf

Shelf Number: 145777

Keywords:
Human Rights Abuses
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrant Child Detention
Immigrant Detention
Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy

Author: Kandel, William A.

Title: Sanctuary Jurisdictions and Criminal Aliens: In Brief

Summary: The prominence of immigration enforcement issues during the 2016 Presidential elections and publicity surrounding crimes committed by some unauthorized aliens, have reignited the debate over immigration enforcement in the interior of the country. One homicide case - the July 2, 2015 slaying of a woman on a San Francisco pier by a reported unauthorized alien with a criminal and deportation history - was particularly noteworthy, because the law enforcement agency in question reportedly did not honor an immigration detainer issued by the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS's) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for the individual who committed the crime. At the end of 2014, noncitizens accounted for 11.2% of the 209,561 individuals incarcerated in federal prisons, 3.5% of the 1,268,740 individuals incarcerated in state prisons, and 4.6% of the entire incarcerated population. In 2014, noncitizens represented 7.0% of the U.S. population. All of these proportions are slightly understated because they do not include figures for California which did not report its non-citizen incarcerated population. Incarceration data indicate that drug offenders accounted for 50% of all federal offenders in federal prison at the end of FY2013. Forty-six percent of noncitizen federal prisoners were incarcerated for drug offenses at the end of FY2013. Although immigration offenders represented almost 12% of all federal offenders incarcerated at the end of 2012, they represented 43% of all federal noncitizen offenders. Combined, drug and immigration offenses represented almost 90% of all noncitizen federal offenses at the end of FY2013. Published data on the state and local prisoners by offense type and citizenship status are not available. While immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, efforts have continually been made to use the potential 'force multipliers' offered by local law enforcement. In 1996 legislation was enacted allowing the federal government to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement jurisdictions that would permit it to delegate certain immigration enforcement functions to state and local law enforcement agents. After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, this program, commonly referred to as the Section 287(g) program, and others involving federal and state and local cooperation, took on new urgency. ICE's Section 287(g) program permits the agency to delegate certain immigration enforcement functions to trained state and local law enforcement officers, under federal supervision, to identify criminal aliens. ICE also operates the Criminal Alien Program, along with Secure Communities/Interoperability to identify, detain and remove criminal and other removable aliens. While funding for these programs increased over the years since their inception, it has declined in recent years. In recent years, some jurisdictions have expressly defined or limited their roles and the activities of their employees regarding immigration enforcement. Critics contend that such policies within so-called 'sanctuary' jurisdictions can lead to tragic outcomes (such as the one described above) and can ultimately encourage illegal immigration. Supporters maintain that they are necessary because of resource and legal constraints, the need to avoid the disruption of critical municipal services, and human rights considerations. Congress may choose to consider several issues, including whether the potentially positive impacts on public safety of state and local involvement in immigration enforcement outweigh the potentially negative impacts on both law enforcement resource utilization and community relations within such jurisdictions; and whether increasing law enforcement funding or tying the provision of certain federal grants to greater cooperation with federal immigration enforcement agencies - or a mix of both approaches - would yield the greater cooperation oponents are seeking. The 114th Congress is considering proposals that would prohibit jurisdictions that prohibit or restrict its law enforcement agencies from notifying ICE on the immigration status of aliens or collecting information on the immigration or citizenship status of individuals from receiving certain federal grants. These proposals include H.R. 3009, H.R. 3002, S. 80, S. 1764, S. 2193 and S. 3100. The House passed H.R. 3009 on July 23, 2015. Similarly, amendments adopted during the House Committee on Appropriations markup of the FY2016 Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill and the House consideration of Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016 (H.R. 2578) would prohibit federal funds from going to jurisdictions that restrict their law enforcement agents from notifying ICE on the immigration status of aliens. The former would prohibit Federal Emergency Management Agency funds, while the latter would do so for State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance grant funds. S.Rept. 114-66 to accompany H.R. 2578 contains no language supporting such restrictions. On October 20, 2015, the Senate also failed to pass a cloture motion to consider S. 2146, which would make sanctuary jurisdictions ineligible for certain federal grants; grant jurisdictions that honor immigration detainers the authority to carry them out and limit their liability in doing so; and increase penalties for previously removed aliens who attempt to reenter the United States without authorization. The Senate reportedly plans to consider two measures, S. 3100 and S. 2193, that would restrict federal funding to cities that decline to honor detainers; and increase penalties (i.e., prison sentence) for migrants who illegally renter the country. S. 3100 would withhold a range of federal grants for public works, economic development, planning, administrative expenses, training, research, and technical assistance from such sanctuary jurisdictions. S. 2193 would increase maximum prison terms for unauthorized aliens by setting a five-year maximum sentence for unauthorized aliens with felony convictions caught two or more times, and a 10-year maximum sentence on unauthorized aliens caught reentering three times.

Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2016. 15p.

Source: Internet Resource: R44118: Accessed November 10, 2016 at: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R44118.pdf

Year: 2016

Country: United States

URL: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R44118.pdf

Shelf Number: 146675

Keywords:
Criminal Aliens
Illegal Migrants
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy
Sanctuary Jurisdictions

Author: Manuel, Kate M.

Title: State Challenges to Federal Enforcement of Immigration Law: From the Mid-1990s to the Present

Summary: States and localities can have significant interest in the manner and extent to which federal officials enforce provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) regarding the exclusion and removal of unauthorized aliens. Some states and localities, concerned that federal enforcement disrupts families and communities, or infringes upon human rights, have adopted 'sanctuary' policies limiting their cooperation in federal efforts. Other states and localities, in contrast, concerned about the costs of providing benefits or services to unauthorized aliens, or such aliens settling in their communities, have adopted measures to deter unauthorized aliens from entering or remaining within their jurisdiction. In some cases, such states or localities have also sued to compel federal officials to enforce the immigration laws, or to compensate them for costs associated with unauthorized migration. This report provides an overview of challenges by states to federal officials' alleged failure to enforce the INA or other provisions of immigration law. It begins by discussing (1) the lawsuits filed by six states in the mid-1990s; (2) Arizona's counterclaims to the federal government's suit to enjoin enforcement of S.B. 1070; and (3) Mississippi's challenge to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative. It then describes the challenge brought by over 25 states or state officials in December 2014 to the Obama Administration's proposal to expand DACA and create a similar program for unauthorized aliens whose children are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent resident aliens (LPRs) (commonly known as DAPA)."

Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Congressional Research Service, 2016. 23p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 10, 2016 at: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43839.pdf

Year: 2016

Country: United States

URL: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43839.pdf

Shelf Number: 146677

Keywords:
Border Security
Criminal Aliens
Illegal Immigrants
Immigration
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy
Sanctuary Cities

Author: Herbert, Matthew

Title: At the edge: Trends and routes of North African clandestine migrants

Summary: In 2015, over 16,000 Algerians, Tunisians and Moroccans were caught while attempting to migrate to Europe covertly. Though North Africans are a relatively small portion of the masses of clandestine migrants, they are a critical group to understand. They are the innovators and early adaptors of new methods and routes for migrant smuggling, such as their pioneering in the 1990s and 2000s of the routes across the Mediterranean that now fuel Europe's migration crisis. Understanding how and why North Africans migrate, the routes they use, and how these are changing, offers insights into how clandestine migration methods and routes in general may shift in the coming years. In shaping better responses to actual dynamics, it is important for countries to proactively address the chronic conditions that drive forced migration before they generate social instability.

Details: Pretoria: Institute for Security Studies, 2016. 28p.

Source: Internet Resource: ISS Paper 298: Accessed December 5, 2016 at: http://globalinitiative.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/at-the-edge-paper-final-.pdf

Year: 2016

Country: Africa

URL: http://globalinitiative.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/at-the-edge-paper-final-.pdf

Shelf Number: 140301

Keywords:
Human Smuggling
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Migration

Author: Reitano, Tuesday

Title: The Khartoum Process: A sustainable response to human smuggling and trafficking?

Summary: In the 2012-16 'migration crisis', citizens from the Horn of Africa have been arriving irregularly in Europe in unprecedented numbers, whilst featuring disproportionately amongst the fatalities. This has prompted the launch of the Khartoum Process, a partnership between the 28 member states of the European Union (EU) and East and North African states, to respond to human smuggling and trafﬁcking. This brief critically and unfavourably evaluates this framework. The Khartoum Process is not only unlikely to achieve the desired outcomes, but, more importantly, it is likely to pose a risk to the better governance and development of the Horn of Africa.

Details: Pretoria: Institute for Security Studies, 2016. 12p.

Source: Internet Resource: Policy Brief 93: Accessed December 5, 2016 at: http://globalinitiative.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gi-iss-the-khartoum-process-nov-2016.pdf

Year: 2016

Country: Africa

URL: http://globalinitiative.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gi-iss-the-khartoum-process-nov-2016.pdf

Shelf Number: 147921

Keywords:
Human Smuggling
Human Trafficking
Immigration
Immigration Enforcement
Migrants

Author: U.S. Homeland Security Advisory Council

Title: Report of the Subcommittee on Privatized Immigration Detention Facilities

Summary: On August 26, 2016, Secretary Jeh Johnson tasked the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) to create a subcommittee to look at the use by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) of privately run immigration detention facilities. The tasking was occasioned by an August 18 announcement that the Department of Justice (DOJ) was directing the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to reduce and ultimately end its use of private prisons. The Secretary asked that this Subcommittee on Privatized Immigration Detention Facilities "address ICE’s current policy and practices concerning the use of private immigration detention facilities and evaluate whether this practice should be eliminated. This evaluation should consider all factors concerning policy and practice with respect to ICE's detention facilities, including fiscal considerations." The subcommittee was created and spent approximately two months reviewing ICE policies and interviewing ICE leadership, as well as other subject matter experts, staff of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), officials from BOP, the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), and DOJ. The subcommittee also met with detention experts, executives from the major private detention companies, and representatives from national and local immigration advocacy groups. Additionally, subcommittee members visited two ICE detention facilities, one owned and operated by ICE and the other owned and operated by a private for-profit company. This report and its recommendations are the result of the interviews, documents, and site visits mentioned above along with other research conducted by members of the subcommittee.

Details: Washington, DC: The Council, 2016. 97p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 8, 2016 at: http://www.trbas.com/media/media/acrobat/2016-12/70003382918880-01141658.pdf

Year: 2016

Country: United States

URL: http://www.trbas.com/media/media/acrobat/2016-12/70003382918880-01141658.pdf

Shelf Number: 140354

Keywords:
Detention Facilities
Homeland Security
Immigrant Detention
Immigration Enforcement
Private Prisons
Privatization

Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office

Title: Asylum: Variation Exists in Outcomes of Applications Across Immigration Courts and Judges

Summary: GAO analyzed the outcomes of 595,795 asylum applications completed by the Department of Justice's Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) between fiscal years 1995 and 2014, and identified outcome variation both over time and across immigration courts and judges. From fiscal years 2008 through 2014, annual grant rates for affirmative asylum applications (those filed with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) at the initiative of the individual and referred to an EOIR immigration judge) ranged from 21 to 44 percent. In the same period, grant rates for defensive asylum applications (those initiated before an immigration judge) ranged from 15 to 26 percent. Further, EOIR data indicate that asylum grant rates varied by immigration court. For example, from May 2007 through fiscal year 2014, the grant rate was 66 percent (affirmative) and 52 percent (defensive) in the New York, New York, immigration court and less than 5 percent (affirmative and defensive) in the Omaha, Nebraska, and Atlanta, Georgia, immigration courts. GAO found that certain case and judge-related factors are associated with variation in the outcomes of asylum applications. For example, applicants who were represented by legal counsel were granted asylum at a rate 3.1 (affirmative) and 1.8 (defensive) times higher than applicants who were not represented. After statistically controlling for certain factors, such as judge experience and whether or not the applicant had dependents, GAO found variation remained in the outcomes of completed asylum applications across immigration courts and judges. For example, from May 2007 through fiscal year 2014, GAO estimated that the affirmative and defensive asylum grant rates would vary by 29 and 38 percentage points, respectively, for a representative applicant with the same average characteristics we measured, whose case was heard in different immigration courts. In addition, GAO estimated that the affirmative and defensive asylum grant rates would vary by 47 and 57 percentage points, respectively, for the same representative applicant whose case was heard by different immigration judges. GAO could not control for the underlying facts and merits of individual asylum applications because EOIR's case management system was designed to track and manage workloads and does not collect data on all of the details of individual proceedings. Nonetheless, the data available allowed GAO to hold constant certain factors of each asylum application, enabling GAO to compare outcomes across immigration courts and judges. EOIR provides legal resources to targeted populations, including asylum applicants, through the Legal Orientation Program (LOP) and Legal Orientation Program for Custodians of Unaccompanied Alien Children (LOPC). EOIR and its contractor use LOP and LOPC site visits, monthly conference calls, and quarterly reports to monitor these programs. However, EOIR has not established performance measures, consistent with principles outlined in the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, to determine whether these programs are having a measurable impact in meeting program objectives. Developing and implementing performance measures, including establishing a baseline, to determine whether LOP and LOPC are having a measurable impact would better position EOIR to make any adjustments necessary to improve the programs' performance. Why GAO Did This Study Tens of thousands of foreign nationals in the United States apply annually for asylum, which provides refuge to those who have been persecuted or fear persecution on protected grounds. EOIR's immigration judges decide asylum application outcomes in court proceedings. In 2008, GAO reported that EOIR data from October 1994 through April 2007 showed significant variation in the outcomes across immigration courts and judges (grants versus denials) of such applications. The Senate Appropriations Committee report for DHS Appropriations Act, 2015, included a provision for GAO to update its 2008 report. This report examines (1) variation in asylum applications outcomes over time and across courts and judges; (2) factors associated with variability; and (3) EOIR's actions to facilitate asylum applicants' access to legal resources. GAO analyzed EOIR data—using multivariate statistics—on asylum outcomes from fiscal years 1995 through 2014, the most current data available at the time of GAO's analysis; reviewed EOIR policies and procedures; and interviewed EOIR officials and immigration judges about court proceedings and legal access programs. GAO observed asylum hearings in 10 immigration courts selected on the basis of application data and other factors. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that EOIR develop and implement a system of performance measures, including establishing a baseline, to regularly evaluate the effectiveness of LOP and LOPC. EOIR concurred with GAO's recommendation

Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2016. 71p.

Source: Internet Resource: GAO-17-72: Accessed December 14, 2016 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/680976.pdf

Year: 2016

Country: United States

URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/680976.pdf

Shelf Number: 140464

Keywords:
Asylum Seekers
Immigrants
Immigration Courts
Immigration Enforcement

Author: Joyner, Kara

Title: Arresting Immigrants: Unemployment and Immigration Enforcement in the Decade Following the September 11 Terrorist Attacks

Summary: Recent research on the arrest of immigrants in the United States is largely descriptive and focused on a few localities. This study provides an examination of immigrant arrest involving two different agencies of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS): The Border Patrol (BP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Descriptive time series analyses track yearly changes in immigrant arrest in the decade following the September 11 terrorist attacks (2002- 2012). For many DHS jurisdictions, changes in the rates of immigrant arrest closely mirrored changes in the rates of unemployment. Fixed effects models pooling yearly data for the ICE jurisdictions demonstrate that the associations between changes in unemployment rates and changes in immigrant arrest rates were positive and significant. The strength of the associations varied considerably across jurisdictions, with magnitudes that ranged from weak to strong. The results suggest that decisions to arrest immigrants in the interior region of the country during this period were discretionary.

Details: Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University The Center for Family and Demographic Research, 2016. 54p.

Source: Internet Resource: 2016 Working Paper Series: Accessed February 4, 2017 at: http://papers.ccpr.ucla.edu/papers/PWP-BGSU-2016-007/PWP-BGSU-2016-007.pdf

Year: 2016

Country: United States

URL: http://papers.ccpr.ucla.edu/papers/PWP-BGSU-2016-007/PWP-BGSU-2016-007.pdf

Shelf Number: 145878

Keywords:
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrants and Crime
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy

Author: Garcia, Michael John

Title: Barriers Along the U.S. Borders: Key Authorities and Requirements

Summary: Federal law authorizes the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to construct barriers along the U.S. borders to deter illegal crossings. DHS is also required to construct reinforced fencing along at least 700 miles of the land border with Mexico (a border that stretches 1,933 miles). Congress has not provided a deadline for DHS to meet this 700-mile requirement, and as of the date of this report, fencing would need to be deployed along nearly 50 additional miles to satisfy the 700-mile requirement. Nor has Congress provided guidelines regarding the specific characteristics of fencing or other physical barriers (e.g., their height or material composition) deployed along the border, beyond specifying that required fencing must be reinforced. The primary statute authorizing the deployment of fencing and other barriers along the international borders is Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA; P.L. 104-208, div. C). Congress made significant amendments to IIRIRA Section 102 through three enactments - the REAL ID Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-13, div. B), the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-367), and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161, div. E). These amendments required DHS to construct hundreds of miles of new fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, and they also gave the Secretary of DHS broad authority to waive - all legal requirements - that may impede construction of barriers and roads under IIRIRA Section 102. These statutory modifications, along with increased funding for border projects, resulted in the deployment of several hundred miles of new barriers along the southwest border between 2005 and 2011. But in the years following, DHS largely stopped deploying additional fencing, as the agency altered its enforcement strategy in a manner that places less priority upon barrier construction. On January 25, 2017, President Donald J. Trump issued an executive order that, among other things, instructs the Secretary of Homeland Security to “take all appropriate steps to immediately plan, design, and construct a physical wall along the southern border ... to most effectively achieve complete operational control" of the U.S.-Mexico border. The order defines a 'wall' to mean "a contiguous, physical wall or other similarly secure, contiguous, and impassable physical barrier." The order does not identify the contemplated mileage of the wall to be constructed. Until recently, interest in the framework governing the deployment of barriers along the international border typically focused on the stringency of the statutory mandate to deploy fencing along at least 700 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border. But attention has now shifted to those provisions of law that permit deployment of fencing or other physical barriers along additional mileage. IIRIRA Section 102 authorizes DHS to construct additional fencing or other barriers along the U.S. land borders beyond the 700 miles specified in statute. Indeed, nothing in current law would appear to bar DHS from installing hundreds of miles of additional physical barriers, at least so long as this action was determined appropriate to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry or was deemed warranted to achieve "operational control" of the southern border. DHS's policy not to deploy a substantial amount of additional fencing, beyond what is expressly required by law, appeared primarily premised on policy considerations and funding constraints, rather than significant legal impediments. This report discusses the statutory framework governing the deployment of fencing and other barriers along the U.S. international borders. For more extensive discussion of ongoing activities and operations along the border between ports of entry, see CRS Report R42138, Border Security: Immigration Enforcement Between Ports of Entry, by Carla N. Argueta.

Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2017. 44p.

Source: Internet Resource: R43975: Accessed February 4, 2017 at: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43975.pdf

Year: 2017

Country: United States

URL: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43975.pdf

Shelf Number: 145879

Keywords:
Border Security
Homeland Security
Illegal Immigration
Immigration Enforcement

Author: Carrera, Sergio

Title: The European Border and Coast Guard: Addressing migration and asylum challenges in the Mediterranean?

Summary: The humanitarian refugee crisis in Europe of 2015-2016 has revealed several unfinished elements and shortcomings in current EU policies and approaches to migration, asylum and borders, particularly those applying in southern EU maritime borders and frontier states in the Mediterranean. This book provides a critical examination of the main issues and lessons learned from this crisis and gives an up-to-date assessment of the main policy, legal and institutional responses that have been put in place at the EU level. It further examines the extent to which these responses can be expected to work under the current system of sharing responsibilities among EU member states in assessing asylum applications and ensuring a consistent implementation of EU legal standards that comply with the rule of law and fundamental rights. This report is based on original research and draws upon the existing literature, along with the discussions of a CEPS Task Force that met over six months, under the chairmanship of Enrico Letta, President of the Jacques Delors Institute, Dean of the Paris School of International Affairs (PSIA) at Sciences Po and former Prime Minister of Italy. The rapporteurs offer specific recommendations and possible scenarios for policy optimisation and assess the extent to which the establishment of a European Border and Asylum Service (EBAS) could address the current gaps and challenges in EU and member states' migration policies.

Details: Brussels: The Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), 2016. 74p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 4, 2017 at: https://www.ceps.eu/system/files/TFR%20EU%20Border%20and%20Coast%20Guard%20with%20cover_0.pdf

Year: 2017

Country: Europe

URL: https://www.ceps.eu/system/files/TFR%20EU%20Border%20and%20Coast%20Guard%20with%20cover_0.pdf

Shelf Number: 145880

Keywords:
Asylum
Border Security
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy
Refugees

Author: Schriro, Dora Bess

Title: Obstacles to Reforming Family Detention in the United States

Summary: The prospect of ending the detention of immigrant families in the United States appears more remote than ever as the new president begins implementing his immigration agenda. This paper, authored by the former director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Office of Detention Policy and Planning, provides an inside look at how policymakers early in the Obama administration sought to roll back family detention and the fate of those efforts. It examines ambitious early reform proposals and subsequent challenges that spurred officials to significantly ramp up family detention. The author concludes with a series of recommendations and urges renewed calls for reforms in the face of the Trump administration's intended immigration crackdown

Details: Geneva, Switzerland: Global Detention Project, 2017. 22p.

Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper No. 20: Accessed February 11, 2017 at: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/obstacles-to-reforming-family-detention-in-the-united-states-global-detention-project-working-paper-no-20

Year: 2017

Country: United States

URL: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/obstacles-to-reforming-family-detention-in-the-united-states-global-detention-project-working-paper-no-20

Shelf Number: 144826

Keywords:
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrant Detention
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy

Author: Anders, Therese

Title: Kicked-out to the Gangs? Crime Spillovers of Deportation

Summary: This article studies whether immigration enforcement induces international crime spillovers on “home” countries (where individuals are returned when deported). For this purpose, we use individual and municipal panel data on victimization, safety perceptions, and average violent crime matched with annual deportation flows from the United States to Mexico. To identify causal effects, we exploit the exogenous changes in U.S. immigration laws caused by the terrorist attacks of 2001. These changes induced higher variations on exposure to deportation flows for Mexican municipalities closer to the 28 U.S.-Mexican repatriation points. We find that individuals more exposed to deportation have a higher likelihood of being victims of robberies and also have lower safety perceptions. Deportees, however, are mostly the victims and not the perpetrators of crime.

Details: Unpublished paper, 2015. 46p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 16, 2017 at: http://www.sandravrozo.com/uploads/2/9/3/0/29306259/arr-2015.pdf

Year: 2015

Country: Latin America

URL: http://www.sandravrozo.com/uploads/2/9/3/0/29306259/arr-2015.pdf

Shelf Number: 146978

Keywords:
Crime Spillovers
Deportation
Gangs
Immigration Enforcement
Migration

Author: Perez Casanova, Gaspar M.

Title: The Lost Path: Regulating Transit Illegal Immigration on Mexico's Southern Border

Summary: This thesis focuses on the efforts that the Mexican government has made for the regulation of illegal immigration in transit through the country. This study explores the origins and trends of Central American migration, the complexity of Mexico’s southern border, and the reasons for the failure of plans and programs implemented by three different administrations to regulate and protect migration flows. It finds that those plans and programs failed because Mexico did not perceive the control of Central American illegal immigration as an end; instead, it has been used to foster foreign policy objectives or to respond to second-order effects produced by the war against organized crime. Since 2000, Mexican administrations have faced different realities, both domestic and international, which have shaped their response for border management and the regulation of illegal immigration. Security and the reordering of regional migration flows have been the priorities, relegating transit migration to a second plane. Mexico has accomplished important advances to give certainty and protection to illegal immigrants, but an integral and effective framework to regulate migration is lacking. Processes of planning, implementation, and evaluation of migration policies are barely defined, and the implementation of plans and programs is ineffective due to institutional weaknesses. The regulation of transit migration in Mexico is an unresolved issue.

Details: Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School, 2014. 176p.

Source: Internet Resource: Thesis: Accessed February 23, 2017 at: http://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/44643/14Dec_Perez_Casanova_Gaspar.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Year: 2014

Country: Mexico

URL: http://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/44643/14Dec_Perez_Casanova_Gaspar.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Shelf Number: 141206

Keywords:
Border Security
Illegal Immigrants
Immigration
Immigration Enforcement

Author: Grange, Mariette

Title: When Is Immigration Detention Lawful? The Monitoring Practices of UN Human Rights Mechanisms

Summary: his Global Detention Project Working Paper details how the banalisation of immigration detention is contested by international human rights mechanisms. Since the creation of the United Nations, the global human rights regime has provided a framework for the protection of all people, including those living in foreign countries. This paper assesses how national sovereignty and access to territory is mitigated by the universal nature and applicability of human rights and refugee protection standards. The authors comprehensively describe the normative framework governing immigration detention established in core international treaties and discuss how human rights bodies apply this framework when reviewing states' policies and practices. Their assessment of the impact and implementation of fundamental norms reveals gaps in the international protection regime and highlights how states' responses to this regime have shaped contemporary immigration detention systems.

Details: Geneva, SWIT: Global Detention Project, 2017. 24p.

Source: Internet Resource: Global Detention Project Working Paper No. 21: Accessed February 24, 2017 at: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/when-is-immigration-detention-lawful-monitoring-practices-of-un-human-rights-mechanisms

Year: 2017

Country: International

URL: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/when-is-immigration-detention-lawful-monitoring-practices-of-un-human-rights-mechanisms

Shelf Number: 141214

Keywords:
Human Rights
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrant Detention
Immigration Detention
Immigration Enforcement

Author: Australia. Auditor General

Title: The Australian Border Force's Use of Statutory Powers

Summary: Background 1. On 9 May 2014, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection announced the government's decision to bring together the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (Immigration) and the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (Customs) in a single department from 1 July 2015. Within the integrated department, the government established the Australian Border Force (Border Force) as a 'single frontline operational border agency to enforce our customs and immigration laws and protect our border'. 2. Both the Customs Act 1901 (Customs Act) and Migration Act 1958 (Migration Act) contain a wide range of powers. While many of these are essentially administrative in nature, there are a wide range of coercive powers - such as powers to question, search, detain or arrest people, or enter and search vehicles or premises - which departmental officers, such as Border Force officers, can now exercise. Other Acts (such as the Maritime Powers Act 2013) also confer powers on officers. In total, officers can exercise coercive powers under 35 Acts and more than 500 empowering provisions. Audit objective and criteria 3. The objective of the audit was to assess the establishment and administration of the Australian Border Force's framework to ensure the lawful exercise of powers in accordance with applicable legislation. 4. To form a conclusion against the audit objective, the ANAO adopted the following high-level audit criteria: Is there an effective accountability and reporting framework for the lawful exercise of powers? Do Border Force officers have adequate knowledge of their powers and how to use them? Conclusion 5. As part of the integration of Immigration and Customs, the department has made progress towards establishing a framework to ensure Border Force officers exercise coercive powers lawfully and appropriately. However, significantly more work needs to be done to gain assurance that controls are effective. 6. The department's enterprise risk management framework does not adequately address the risk of officers exercising coercive powers unlawfully or inappropriately. Several internal assurance reviews have uncovered problems relating to the exercise of statutory powers. The Border Force has established an integrated operational quality assurance team, which has not yet finalised any reports. Delegations and authorisations for coercive powers are complete and in place but not all instruments are accessible to officers. 7. The ANAO found instances of potentially unlawful searches and failure to comply with instructions under both the Customs Act and Migration Act, which indicate current internal controls for mitigating the risk of unlawful or inappropriate use of coercive powers are inadequate. 8. The department has not provided adequate instructions and guidance for officers exercising coercive powers. There is currently no single source of instructions and guidance material for Border Force officers, and much of the guidance material available is out of date and inaccurate. While positive foundational work has commenced on integrating the former Customs and Immigration training regimes, officers have been exercising significant coercive powers without having undertaken pre-requisite training. Supporting findings 9. The department's approach to risk management at the enterprise level has been developing over the past two years. It has established an enterprise risk framework and is finalising profiles for each of its enterprise risks. The current profile relating to unlawful or inappropriate use of coercive powers conflates this risk with integrity and corruption risks, which require different internal controls. This has the potential to divert attention from controls relating to the risk of unlawful or inappropriate use of coercive powers. 10. The department has undertaken several internal assurance reviews that have uncovered problems relating to the exercise of statutory powers. The Border Force has recently established an integrated team responsible for operational quality assurance testing. The team has not yet completed any reviews. Prior to this, the department did not have satisfactory mechanisms for gaining assurance that officers understand their powers and are exercising them lawfully. 11. Instruments of authorisation and delegation for coercive Migration and Customs Act powers are complete and up-to-date. While Migration Act instruments of authorisation and delegation are available on the intranet, instruments relating to the Customs Act (and other Acts) are not accessible to officers. 12. Some personal searches of passengers at international airports examined by the ANAO were unlawful or inappropriate, indicating weaknesses in the control framework. A number of searches of premises under the Migration Act potentially exceeded the authority of the warrant which authorised them, and officers routinely questioned people without documenting their legal authority to do so. Officers also frequently failed to comply with departmental policy instructions, including compliance with certification and recordkeeping requirements. 13. The department has commenced a project to identify the statutory powers of officers of the integrated department, with a longer term view to possibly amending some powers. As part of the project, in July 2016, the department completed a consolidated inventory of all powers available to departmental officers under Commonwealth legislation. Such an inventory will enable the department to identify overlap, duplication, redundancy and inconsistency within and between Acts. It will also assist with identifying any gaps or deficiencies in powers in order to be able to submit a proposal for potential legislative change for government consideration. 14. The Border Force is developing a coordinated systematic framework for reporting on its use of coercive powers. It presently does not have such a framework. 15. Many of the instructions that are provided to Border Force officers on the department's intranet are out of date, incomplete, inaccurate and are not accessible to all officers. A project to remedy this situation was endorsed by the department's executive in December 2015 and has to date delivered only a very small number of operational instructions for Border Force officers. 16. The department has made progress in integrating the former Customs and Immigration training regimes and addressing deficiencies identified through pre-integration training audits conducted in 2014. The establishment of an integrated Learning and Development Branch and the Border Force College has been managed as a priority project, under the Reform and Integration Taskforce. While this project has delivered solid foundations for enhancing the learning maturity of the department, at the time of examination the results of these foundational efforts had yet to be realised. 17. Not all officers exercising coercive powers under the Migration Act and Customs Act have received pre-requisite training. The department has established an integrated Learning Management System but issues remain in relation to the completeness of training records. 18. The department has been undertaking a project to transition to a new workforce model, which has involved establishing 'vocations', profiling job roles under each vocation, mapping required competencies, and developing high level curricula. Training needs analysis for the Border Force vocational stream commenced in October 2016.

Details: Barton, ACT: Australian National Audit Office, 2017. 60p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 7, 2017 at: https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/g/files/net2766/f/ANAO_Report_2016-2017_39.pdf

Year: 2017

Country: Australia

URL: https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/g/files/net2766/f/ANAO_Report_2016-2017_39.pdf

Shelf Number: 146415

Keywords:
Border Patrol
Border Security
Customs Enforcement
Illegal Immigration
Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Use of Force

Author: Meyer, Maureen

Title: Not a National Security Crisis: The U.S.-Mexico Border and Humanitarian Concerns, Seen from El Paso

Summary: Contrary to popular and political rhetoric about a national security crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border, evidence suggests a potential humanitarian—not security—emergency. This report, based on research and a field visit to El Paso, Texas and Ciudad Juárez, Mexico in April 2016, provides a dose of reality by examining one of the most emblematic of the U.S.-Mexico border's nine sectors, one that falls within the middle of the rankings on migration, drug seizures, violence, and human rights abuses. At a time when calls for beefing up border infrastructure and implementing costly policies regularly make headlines, our visit to the El Paso sector made clear that what is needed at the border are practical, evidence-based adjustments to border security policy, improved responses to the growing number of Central American migrants and potential refugees, and strengthened collaboration and communication on both sides of the border. • WITH 408,870 MIGRANT APPREHENSIONS AT THE U.S.-MEXICO BORDER IN FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2016, OVERALL UNDOCUMENTED MIGRATION IS AT LEVELS SIMILAR TO THE EARLY 1970S. Apprehensions of migrants per Border Patrol agent are less than one-tenth what they were in the 1990s. With 19 apprehensions per agent, FY2015 had the second-lowest rate of the available data. It makes sense that staffing has leveled off since the 2005-2011 buildup that doubled the size of Border Patrol. • THE NUMBER OF MEXICAN MIGRANTS HAS FALLEN TO LEVELS NOT SEEN SINCE THE EARLY 1970S, AND DECLINES HAVE BEEN FAIRLY CONSISTENT. Between FY2004 and FY2015 there were fewer apprehensions of Mexican citizens each year than in the previous year. Apprehensions of Mexicans in FY2016 increased by 2.5 percent. Even though the nearest third country is over 800 miles away from the U.S.-Mexico border, Mexicans comprised less than half of migrants apprehended there in FY2014, and again in FY2016. • OF THE MIGRANTS ARRIVING AT THE BORDER, MANY ARE CHILDREN AND FAMILIES FROM CENTRAL AMERICA WHO COULD QUALIFY AS REFUGEES IN NEED OF PROTECTION. A United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) analysis of credible fear screenings carried out by U.S. asylum officers revealed that in FY2015, 82 percent of women from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, as well as Mexico, who were screened on arrival at the U.S. border "were found to have a significant possibility of establishing eligibility for asylum or protection under the Convention against Torture." This phenomenon is not a threat to the security of the United States. Nor is it illegal to flee one's country if one's life is at risk. Most Central American families and children do not try to evade U.S. authorities when they cross: they seek them out, requesting international protection out of fear to return to their countries. • VIOLENT CRIME RATES IN U.S. BORDER COMMUNITIES REMAIN AMONG THE LOWEST IN THE NATION, AND VIOLENCE HAS LARGELY DECREASED ON THE MEXICAN SIDE AS WELL. The El Paso crime rate in 2015 was below the U.S. national average. Although homicides have increased in Ciudad Juárez during 2016, the security situation has dramatically improved from when the city was considered the murder capital in the world in 2010. • SEIZURES OF CANNABIS, WHICH IS MOSTLY SMUGGLED BETWEEN OFFICIAL PORTS OF ENTRY, ARE DOWN AT THE BORDER. However, seizures of methamphetamine and heroin have increased, indicating that more drugs are probably getting across and, in the case of heroin, feeding U.S. demand that has risen to public-health crisis levels. Meth, heroin, and cocaine are very small in volume and are mostly smuggled at official border crossings. Building higher walls in wilderness areas along the border would make no difference in detecting and stopping these drugs from entering the country. • PORTS OF ENTRY ALONG THE BORDER ARE UNDERSTAFFED AND UNDER- EQUIPPED. As evidenced by the El Paso sector’s continued long wait times, ports of entry remain understaffed and under-equipped for dealing with small-volume, high-potency drug shipments, and for dealing more generally with large amounts of travelers and cargo. Much of the delay in hiring results from heightened screening procedures for prospective Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents to guard against corruption and abuse, an important effort in need of additional resources. Screening delays are also the principal reason for a slight recent reduction in Border Patrol staffing. • ALTHOUGH NEW LOCAL REPATRIATION ARRANGEMENTS (LRAS) BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO ARE A STEP FORWARD IN PROTECTING MEXICAN MIGRANTS RETURNED AT THE BORDER, SOME CHALLENGES STILL REMAIN IN THEIR IMPLEMENTATION. Both governments announced in February 2016 the finalization of new LRAs to regulate the return of Mexican migrants at nine points of entry along the border. The agreements represent important efforts of both governments to curtail many of the practices that negatively affect this vulnerable population, such as nighttime deportation. In the El Paso sector, however, repatriated migrants are often returned without their belongings, such as cell phones, identification documents, and money, presenting them with challenges in accessing funds, communicating with family, and traveling in the country. • THERE ARE FEWER COMPLAINTS ABOUT BORDER PATROL DETENTION CONDITIONS AND ABUSE BY AGENTS IN THE EL PASO SECTOR COMPARED TO OTHER PARTS OF THE BORDER. However, there are concerning reports about abuses by CBP agents at El Paso's ports of entry. A May 2016 complaint lodged by several border organizations points to troubling incidents of excessive force, verbal abuse, humiliating searches, and intimidation by agents at the ports of entry in El Paso and southern New Mexico that must be investigated and addressed. • STRONG LAW ENFORCEMENT AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS IN EL PASO HAVE PLAYED A KEY ROLE IN MAKING IT ONE OF THE SAFEST U.S.-MEXICO BORDER CITIES. Consistently ranked one of the country’s safest cities of its size, El Paso demonstrates the importance of communication and constructive relationships between communities and border law enforcement agencies. Local and federal authorities and social service organizations interviewed noted interagency coordination, open lines of communication, and strong working relationships throughout the sector. The local policy of exempting offenders of Class C misdemeanors from federal immigration status checks does much to ensure community members' willingness to cooperate with law enforcement without fear of deportation. However, reports of racial profiling do exist, and state-level policy proposals against “sanctuary cities,” if passed, could threaten this trust. • MEXICAN FEDERAL AND MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS AND CIVIL SOCIETY PROVIDE IMPORTANT SERVICES FOR REPATRIATED MIGRANTS, AND COULD BE A MODEL FOR OTHER MEXICAN BORDER CITIES. Mexico’s National Migration Institute (Instituto Nacional de Migración, INM) works in close coordination with the one-of-its-kind Juárez municipal government’s office to provide important basic services to repatriated migrants and assist them with legal services, recovering belongings left in the United States, and transportation to the interior of the country. Civil society organizations also provide similar important services to migrants and document abuses by U.S. and Mexican officials. • U.S.-MEXICO SECURITY COOPERATION IS INCREASINGLY FOCUSING ON INSTITUTIONAL REFORM ISSUES AT THE STATE AND FEDERAL LEVELS. U.S. agencies provide support for violence reduction efforts in Ciudad Juárez, as well as support for police training and judicial reform for state and federal agents in Chihuahua.

Details: Washington, DC: Washington Office on Latin America: Mexico, 2016. 59p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 7, 2017 at: https://www.wola.org/analysis/not-national-security-crisis-u-s-mexico-border-humanitarian-concerns-seen-el-paso/

Year: 2016

Country: United States

URL: https://www.wola.org/analysis/not-national-security-crisis-u-s-mexico-border-humanitarian-concerns-seen-el-paso/

Shelf Number: 141369

Keywords:
Border Security
Humanitarian Aid
Immigrant Detention
Immigration
Immigration and Crime
Immigration Enforcement
Migrants and Crime
National Security

Author: Connelly, Elizabeth

Title: Rethinking 'Vulnerability' in Detention: A Crisis of Harm

Summary: More people than ever before are now being detained without time limit in the UK for immigration purposes. The use of detention has become a core element of immigration policy for successive governments, despite mounting evidence that its use is both inefficient and enormously damaging to those detained. In particular, increasing numbers of very vulnerable people are now held in detention. Despite repeated and severe criticism, the UK has been unable to find an effective way to prevent this. Monitoring bodies, academics, clinicians, NGOs, and those with experience of immigration detention themselves have all expressed their concern that the UK’s immigration detention system is putting vulnerable people at risk. The High Court has found on no less than six occasions in a period of three years that the Home Office had breached its responsibilities under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to freedom from torture, cruel and inhuman or degrading treatment)1 for those who are in immigration detention. Most recently, the parliamentary inquiry into immigration detention called for radical reform of the entire detention system. This report revisits the issue of vulnerability through a literature review and interviews and case studies of 31 vulnerable people. This exercise elicited three key observations which should inform a new approach to vulnerability in detention. Such a new approach would require that the Home Office think about vulnerability in a different way, in order effectively to prevent detention of vulnerable people.

Details: London: The Detention Forum, Vulnerable People Working Group, 2015. 62p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 13, 2017 at: http://detentionforum.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/rethinkingvulnerability_8july.pdf

Year: 2015

Country: United Kingdom

URL: http://detentionforum.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/rethinkingvulnerability_8july.pdf

Shelf Number: 144458

Keywords:
Immigrant Detention
Immigrants
Immigration Detention
Immigration Enforcement
Refugees

Author: Herman, Sarah S.

Title: State and Local "Sanctuary" Policies Limiting Participation in Immigration Enforcement

Summary: The federal government is vested with the exclusive power to create rules governing which aliens may enter the United States and which aliens may be removed. However, the impact of alien migration "whether lawful or unlawful" is arguably felt most directly in the communities where aliens reside. State and local responses to unlawfully present aliens within their jurisdictions have varied considerably, particularly as to the role that state and local police should play in enforcing federal immigration law. While some states and municipalities actively participate in or cooperate with federal immigration enforcement efforts, others have actively opposed federal immigration authorities' efforts to identify and remove certain unlawfully present aliens within their jurisdictions. Entities that have adopted such policies are sometimes referred to as "sanctuary" jurisdictions. There is no official, formal, or agreed-upon definition of what constitutes a "sanctuary" jurisdiction, and there has been debate as to whether the term applies to particular states and localities. Moreover, state and local jurisdictions might have varied reasons for opting not to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement efforts, including for reasons not necessarily motivated by disagreement with federal policies, such as concern about potential civil liability or the costs associated with assisting federal efforts. Having said that, traditional sanctuary policies are often described as falling under one of three categories. First, so-called "don't enforce" policies generally bar the state or local police from assisting federal immigration authorities. Second, "don't ask" policies generally bar certain state or local officials from inquiring into a person’s immigration status. Third, "don't tell" policies typically restrict information sharing between state or local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. This report provides examples of various state and local laws and policies that fall into one of these sanctuary categories. The report also discusses federal measures designed to counteract sanctuary policies. For instance, Section 434 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) and Section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) were enacted to curb state and local restrictions on information sharing with federal immigration authorities. Additionally, the report discusses legal issues relevant to sanctuary policies. In particular, the report examines the extent to which states, as sovereign entities, may decline to assist in federal immigration enforcement and the degree to which the federal government can stop state measures that undermine federal objectives in a manner that is consistent with the Supremacy Clause and the Tenth Amendment. Indeed, the federal government's power to regulate the immigration and status of aliens within the United States is substantial and exclusive. Under the doctrine of preemption "derived from the Supremacy Clause" Congress may invalidate or displace state laws pertaining to immigration. This action may be done expressly or impliedly, for instance, when federal regulation occupies an entire field or when state law interferes with a federal regulatory scheme. However, not every state or local law related to immigration is preempted by federal law, especially when the local law involves the police powers to promote public health, safety, and welfare reserved to the states via the Tenth Amendment. Further, the anti-commandeering principles derived from the Tenth Amendment prohibit the federal government from directing states and localities to implement a federal regulatory program, like immigration.

Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Services, 2017. 19p.

Source: Internet Resource: R44795: Accessed April 3, 2017 at: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R44795.pdf

Year: 2017

Country: United States

URL: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R44795.pdf

Shelf Number: 144696

Keywords:
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy
Sanctuary Jurisdictions
Sanctuary Policies

Author: Cuthbert, Neil

Title: Removal of Failed Asylum Seekers in Australia: A Comparative Perspective

Summary: This working paper reviews the current policy of removing failed asylum seekers in Australia and draws lessons from similar policy areas and reforms in the United Kingdom and Canada. The authors put forward five policy recommendations. First, forcible removal of failed asylum seekers should be used as a last resort. Second, timely processing and removal is critical and deadlines could be reintroduced. Third, immigration detention periods can be shortened. Fourth, Australia would benefit from stronger international cooperation, including readmission agreements with countries of origin. Lastly, and most importantly, policymakers must ensure that removal of failed asylum seekers adheres to the principle of non‑refoulement.

Details: Sydney: Lowry Institute, 2017. 24p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 3, 2017 at: https://www.lowyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/documents/Removal%20of%20failed%20asylum%20seekers%20in%20Australia.pdf

Year: 2017

Country: Australia

URL: https://www.lowyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/documents/Removal%20of%20failed%20asylum%20seekers%20in%20Australia.pdf

Shelf Number: 144701

Keywords:
Asylum Seekers
Human Rights
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy
Refugees

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 Policing
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrant Deportation
Immigrant Detention
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy
Racial Profiling in Law Enforcement
Sanctuary Cities
Undocumented 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 Enforcement
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrant Deportation
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy
Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Drake, B. Shaw

Title: Crossing the Line: U.S. Border Agents Illegally Turning Away Asylum Seekers at U.S. Border

Summary: The U.S. government is illegally turning away asylum seekers at official land crossings all along the southern border. Border agents must refer a person seeking asylum or expressing a fear of persecution to a protection screening interview or an immigration court proceeding where they can seek asylum. Instead, some border agents are blocking access to asylum by refusing to process protection requests. This practice violates both U.S. law and U.S. treaty obligations. It also clashes with the ideals of a nation that has often led globally on refugee protection, a nation that President Reagan aptly described as a "beacon" to people searching for freedom. U.S. government entities have raised concerns about the treatment of asylum seekers. In 2016, for example, the bipartisan U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) cited some Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers' "outright skepticism, if not hostility, toward asylum claims and inadequate quality assurance procedures." Also in 2016 Human Rights First and other non-governmental organizations raised concerns about reports that the government was turning away asylum seekers in San Ysidro, California as CPB officers struggled to manage an increase in arrivals. This practice proliferated after the November 2016 election and persists even as the number of arrivals has fallen sharply. In the wake of the election and President Trump's January executive orders relating to refugees, CPB agents have in some cases claimed the United States is no longer accepting asylum seekers. For example, a CBP officer in south Texas reportedly told a Central American asylum seeker, "Trump says we don't have to let you in." In San Ysidro a CPB officer reportedly told a Mexican asylum seeker, "[Christians] are the people we are giving asylum to, not people like you." CBP officers are improperly rejecting asylum seekers at small ports of entry and major ones across the border, including in Brownsville, McAllen, Laredo, El Paso, and San Diego. When they are blocked from protection, asylum seekers face continued danger in Mexico, often immediately. Cartels, smugglers, and traffickers - who control areas around border crossings and wait outside some ports of entry where they see migrants and asylum seekers as easy prey - have kidnapped, raped, and robbed asylum seekers wrongly turned away by the U.S. government. In February, March, and April, Human Rights First researchers visited the border regions of California, Texas, and Arizona, and the Mexican border cities of Reynosa, Matamoros, Nogales, and Tijuana. They interviewed asylum seekers, attorneys, non-profit legal staff, faith-based groups assisting refugees, and migrant shelter staff. While recent data shows CBP agents referred some 8,000 asylum seekers at ports of entry from December 2016 to March 2017, an unknown number of asylum seekers have been unlawfully rejected. This report is based on 125 cases of individuals and families wrongfully denied access to U.S. asylum procedures at U.S. ports of entry. Many more have likely suffered a similar fate as these abuses often goes unreported due to the security threats faced by those who are turned away, the dearth of legal counsel, and the lack of effective compliance mechanisms and monitoring of CBP practices.

Details: New York: Human Rights First, 2017. 32p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 5, 2017 at: http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/hrf-crossing-the-line-report.pdf

Year: 2017

Country: United States

URL: http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/hrf-crossing-the-line-report.pdf

Shelf Number: 145318

Keywords:
Asylum Seekers
Border Patrol
Border Security
Human Rights Abuses
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy

Author: Barciela,Franco

Title: Broward Transitional Center: A 'Model' for Civil Detention

Summary: When Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced plans to reform our nation's troubled immigrant detention facility in 2009, ICE promoted the Broward Transitional Center (BTC) as a model for "civil" detention. ICE Chief John Morton noted that BTC only housed nonviolent detainees, among them asylum seekers. An ICE detention reform list of accomplishments further noted that BTC "offers a less restrictive, yet secure environment." AI Justice's response, as then noted in the New York Times, remains unchanged. BTC may offer a better environment than a local jail, but the vast majority of its detainees have committed no crimes or only minor infractions. They are precisely the population that ICE should release: people who pose no threat to their communities and should not be locked up in detention, even if it is a less punitive detention. Ensuring that ICE does not detain people needlessly is particularly urgent now, as immigration reform is percolating in Congress. Even as we were finalizing this report, ICE was releasing thousands of immigrant detainees across the nation because of looming federal budget cuts triggered by sequestration.

Details: Miami, FL: Americans for Immigrant Justice, 2013. 72p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 5, 2017 at: http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/aijustice/pages/284/attachments/original/1390429868/BTC-A-Model-for-Civil-Detention.pdf?1390429868

Year: 2013

Country: United States

URL: http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/aijustice/pages/284/attachments/original/1390429868/BTC-A-Model-for-Civil-Detention.pdf?1390429868

Shelf Number: 145321

Keywords:
Asylum Seekers
Immigrant Detention
Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy
Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Small, Mary

Title: A Toxic Relationship: Private Prisons and U.S. Immigration Detention

Summary: A new report, A Toxic Relationship: Private Prisons and U.S. Immigration Detention, by Detention Watch Network (DWN) builds on the overwhelming evidence that the privatization of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention exacerbates due process violations, egregious conditions and transparency concerns that are endemic to the immigration detention system. In addition, the report amplifies the experiences of 42 individuals who were or are held in privately-run detention centers. The report comes as the Homeland Security Advisory Council subcommittee presents its findings later today from an investigation into the use of private prisons for ICE detention. Regardless of the subcommittee's findings, A Toxic Relationship shows that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) secretary, Jeh Johnson already has the evidence he needs to severe ties with private prison companies, a crucial step that the Department of Justice announced it is taking earlier this year. Over 73 percent of immigrants held in ICE custody are incarcerated in facilities operated by private companies. The two largest and most notorious companies, The GEO Group, Inc. (GEO) and Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), which is currently attempting a re-brand, have well documented track records of abuse, mismanagement and neglect. Both companies are heavily lobbying the federal government in the hopes of increasing their bottom line as detention numbers climb to over 40,000 people behind bars. In 2015, CCA and GEO received $765 million for immigration detention - more than double the $307 million they received in 2008. The report details four fundamental problems with the use of privately-run detention centers, as our research indicates that private contractors: Seek to maximize profits by cutting costs -- and subsequently critical services -- at the expense of people's health, safety and overall well-being; Are not accountable, and often do not bear any consequences when they fail to meet the terms of their contracts; Exert undue influence over government officials, and push to maintain and expand the immigration detention system; Are not transparent, and in fact, fight hard to obscure the details of their contracts and operations from the American public. The issues of cost-cutting and indifference towards immigrant lives was reaffirmed just this week as news broke of two more deaths at privately-run detention centers over Thanksgiving weekend, bringing this year's total to 12. Raquel Calderon de Hildago died at the CCA operated Eloy Detention Center in Arizona on November 27th and Esmerio Campos died at the GEO operated South Texas Detention Complex (Pearsall) in Texas on November 25th. Recent investigations into deaths in immigration detention have found that inadequate medical care at detention centers has contributed to numerous deaths, and shine a particular spotlight on Eloy - the deadliest detention center in the country. The lack of transparency is clearly demonstrated by DWN and the Center for Constitutional Rights' ongoing Freedom of Information Lawsuit with the federal government. In July, a federal judge ruled that under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the government must release details of its contracts with private prison companies. The government chose not to appeal, but the private prison companies intervened to stop the release and filed an appeal of their own. This latest tactic by GEO and CCA to obscure the details of their contracts and operations from the American public demonstrates the dangerous degree to which they feel entitled to influence the government and block public's right to know what their government is doing.

Details: Washington, DC: Detention Watch Network, 2016. 19p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 26, 2017 at: https://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/sites/default/files/reports/A%20Toxic%20Relationship_DWN.pdf

Year: 2016

Country: United States

URL: https://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/sites/default/files/reports/A%20Toxic%20Relationship_DWN.pdf

Shelf Number: 145811

Keywords:
Detention Centers
Immigrant Detention
Immigration Enforcement
Private Prisons
Privatization

Author: Blitza, Dimitra

Title: Criminal Records and Immigration: Comparing the United States and the European Union

Summary: As the revolution in information technology has made individual criminal history records more comprehensive, efficient and retrievable, an individual's criminal history has become increasingly significant, triggering a broad and severe range of collateral consequences. There is no better example of this phenomenon than immigration law and policy, where developments in data storage and retrieval converge with opposition to immigration, especially to immigrants who bear a criminal stigma. In debates in the United States over immigration reforms, even those politicians and legislators who advocate more liberal immigration policies generally concede the desirability of excluding those with serious criminal records from eligibility for new benefits or status. In the European Union, by contrast, although a criminal record may impact an individual's ability to travel to or reside in a European Union country, it is not as readily dispositive of immigration outcomes. As immigration policy evolves on both sides of the Atlantic, a key question for policymakers is about whether we screen for criminal records in order to protect the public safety or as a way to mark those with criminal records as somehow less deserving of immigration rights and benefits. This article details and compares the ways that the United States and the European Union use criminal records (including both conviction records and, in the U.S., some arrest records) for immigration purposes. The article also outlines guidance for policymakers in both jurisdictions.

Details: New York: New York University School of Law, 2015. 41p.

Source: Internet Resource: NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 15-59: Accessed June 17, 2017 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2700688

Year: 2015

Country: International

URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2700688

Shelf Number: 146228

Keywords:
Criminal Records
Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy

Author: Leyro, Shirley P.

Title: The Fear Factor: Exploring the Impact of the Vulnerability to Deportation on Immigrants' Lives

Summary: This qualitative study explores the impact that the fear of deportation has on the lives of noncitizen immigrants. More broadly, it explores the role that immigration enforcement, specifically deportation, plays in disrupting the process of integration, and the possible implications of this interruption for immigrants and their communities. The study aims to answer: (1) how vulnerability to deportation specifically impacts an immigrant's life, and (2) how the vulnerability to deportation, and the fear associated with it, impacts an immigrant's degree of integration. Data were gathered through a combination of six open-ended focus group interviews of 10 persons each, and 33 individual in-depth interviews, all with noncitizen immigrants. The findings reveal several ways in which the vulnerability to deportation impacted noncitizen immigrants' lives: the fear of deportation produces emotional and psychological distress, which leads immigrants to have negative perceptions of reception into the United States, all which create barriers to integration. In addition, the findings reveal that the fear of deportation and the resulting psychological distress constitutes a form of legal violence. Legal violence is an emerging framework by Menjivar & Abrego (2012) that builds upon structural and symbolic violence, and refers to state-sanctioned harm perpetuated against immigrants via harsh immigration laws. The fear of deportation, combined with the structural reality of legal violence, creates an environment that impedes integration. The effect of deportability on immigrants' lives is of interest on the level of both individual integration and community cohesion.

Details: New York: City University of New York, 2017. 196p.

Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed July 29, 2017 at: http://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/1681/

Year: 2017

Country: United States

URL: http://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/1681/

Shelf Number: 146609

Keywords:
Deportation
Immigrants
Immigration and Crime
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy
Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Goldstein, Brian

Title: The Effect of Immigration Detainers in a Post-Relignment California

Summary: On October 1, 2011, California implemented AB 109 Public Safety Realignment, which transferred state responsibility for individuals who commit non-violent, non-serious, and non-sexual offenses to the 58 counties and their local jurisdictions. Since then, each county has responded differently to Realignment, with some seizing on this unique opportunity to adopt innovative community corrections programming and rehabilitative services. Other counties continue to depend on the state system to manage individuals who have committed low-level offenses (CJCJ, 2013). Some counties struggle with jail capacity issues while failing to adopt necessary alternative sentencing practices (PPIC, 2013). On August 2, 2013, the United States Supreme Court denied Governor Jerry Brown's attempt to delay reducing the state prison system by approximately 10,000 individuals, as required by federal litigation that resulted in AB 109. The state must now work diligently to deemphasize the unnecessary use of incarceration in order to preserve resources for more crucial priorities. Amid varying county responses to Realignment, fiscal constraints, and capacity issues, county jail facilities also hold significant numbers of undocumented immigrants who do not have serious criminal histories, other than potentially violating federal civil immigration laws. For ease of reference, these individuals are here termed "non-criminal ICE holds" given that they have no recorded criminal history. These non-criminal ICE holds are held under ICE Agreements of Cooperation in Communities to Enhance Safety and Security (ACCESS), an umbrella encompassing enforcement programs that specifically target immigrants who make contact with the criminal justice system including the Secure Communities and Criminal Alien Program (ICE, 2008). After identifying individuals under ACCESS, ICE can issue an immigration detainer to law enforcement agencies, which is a non-binding request that an immigrant of interest be detained for up to 48 hours, excluding weekends and federal holidays, so that ICE can assume federal custody to initiate deportation proceedings. This publication studies the impact of non-criminal ICE holds on California's criminal justice system, specifically the effect on county jail capacity, including the significant fiscal cost. It concludes that 89 percent of said detentions in California are held in local jails and facilities. These detentions cost taxpayers approximately $16.3 million for local jail holds during the 30-month period studied.

Details: San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2013. 6p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 2, 2017 at: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/immigrant_detainers_in_a_post_realignment_ca.pdf

Year: 2013

Country: United States

URL: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/immigrant_detainers_in_a_post_realignment_ca.pdf

Shelf Number: 130014

Keywords:
Costs of Corrections
Immigrant Detention
Immigration Enforcement
Jail Inmates
Public Safety Alignment
Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Rodriguez, Alicia

Title: Unwelcome Visitors: Challenges faced by people visiting immigration detention

Summary: Every day, ordinary Australians visit people detained in Australia's onshore immigration detention facilities. This is an important and often under-appreciated role. These visitors provide emotional support to people in detention, advocate on their behalf and fill in the gaps that exist in provision of services and information in immigration detention facilities. It is not easy to visit people in immigration detention, to hear their stories and to speak up for those who are the victims of Australia's current punitive approach to people seeking asylum. Visiting immigration detention facilities takes time, energy and commitment, and often has a significant impact on the wellbeing of visitors. Yet, all too often, we hear some politicians and media outlets falsely blaming these visitors and advocates for encouraging people to harm themselves or to disobey rules. Over the past year, the Refugee Council of Australia (RCOA) has increasingly heard from these visitors that security conditions in immigration detention facilities are being intensified and it is now more difficult to visit people in immigration detention. Correspondingly, people in immigration detention are becoming increasingly isolated from the wider community, with negative impacts on their mental and physical wellbeing. These concerns led us to conduct a national study to explore these issues further. This report is the result of our extensive research and consultations with detention visitors and people previously held in detention. It explores the challenges faced by people when trying to access detention facilities, including: constantly changing rules and their inconsistent application difficulties in arranging a visit, including searches and drug tests lack of adequate space in visitor rooms in some facilities arbitrary rules and intensified security conditions that make visits less friendly, and specific challenges faced by religious visitors. This report identifies the impacts of those difficulties on both visitors and people detained and puts forward a number of recommendations to address those challenges. This report showcases the spirit of volunteerism in Australia, presenting the accounts of many volunteers who continue visiting detention facilities despite difficulties, so they can bring people hope and get their voices and concerns heard. People who visit immigration detention often provide the only public information about what is happening in our immigration detention facilities. This is because Australia does not have an official national body that publicly and regularly reports on visits to immigration detention facilities. The Refugee Council of Australia welcomes the Australian Government's commitment to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT) by the end of 201 We hope that this will result in greater scrutiny of immigration detention and ultimately better treatment of those in detention.

Details: Sydney: Refugee Council of Australia, 2017. 28p.

Source: Internet Resource: Report No. 2/17: Accessed August 4, 2017 at: http://apo.org.au/system/files/100721/apo-nid100721-409001.pdf

Year: 2017

Country: Australia

URL: http://apo.org.au/system/files/100721/apo-nid100721-409001.pdf

Shelf Number: 146696

Keywords:
Asylum Seekers
Detention Centers
Immigrant Detention
Immigration Enforcement
Prison Visitors
Refugees

Author: U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Office of Inspector General

Title: Special Report: Challenges Facing DHS in Its Attempt to Hire 15,000 Border Patrol Agents and Immigration Officers

Summary: Why We Did This Review On January 25, 2017, the President directed DHS to hire an additional 15,000 law enforcement officers. Our objective was to determine whether the Department and its components have the human capital strategies and capabilities to quickly and effectively hire a highly qualified and diverse workforce. What We Recommend While we made no recommendations, this report provides lessons learned from prior DHS OIG, Government Accountability Office, and DHS departmental reports on challenges relating to hiring and other important areas of human capital management.

Details: Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security, 2017. 22p.

Source: Internet Resource: OIG-17-98-SR; Accessed August 25, 2017 at: https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2017/OIG-17-98-SR-Jul17.pdf

Year: 2017

Country: United States

URL: https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2017/OIG-17-98-SR-Jul17.pdf

Shelf Number: 146894

Keywords:
Border Patrol
Border Security
Homeland Security
Immigration Enforcement

Author: Decker, Scott H.

Title: Immigration and Local Policing: Results from a survey of Law Enforcement Executives in Arizona

Summary: In the past several decades, the number of immigrants in the United States who lack legal documentation has grown to unprecedented levels - approximately twelve million, according to recent estimates (Passel 2006) - and so has controversy surrounding their settlement in American communities. Many immigrants are choosing new destinations. Cities, suburbs, and rural communities in parts of the country that have not traditionally hosted large numbers of immigrants are now more on par with traditional gateway cities like Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago (Zuniga and Hernandez-Leon 2005). As evidence of this dramatic shift, the Mexican immigrant population (both legal and undocumented) in "new gateway" states grew dramatically between 1990 and 2000: 200-400 percent in New York, Pennsylvania,Washington, and Wisconsin; 645 percent in Utah; 800 percent in Georgia; 1000 percent in Arkansas and Minnesota; and over 1800 percent in North Carolina, Tennessee, and Alabama (Zuniga and Hernandez-Leon 2005, p. xiv). With immigrant settlement patterns shifting, undocumented immigration has become even more of a hot-button political issue. An increasing number of state and local governments are asking police to take a more active role in identifying and arresting immigrants for civil immigration violations. Two federal statutes adopted in 1996 created opportunities for this partnership between federal immigration agents and local police. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) gives local police the authority to arrest previously deported non-citizen felons, and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) authorizes training of local and state police to enforce federal immigration laws.

Details: Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University, 2008. 11p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 25, 2017 at: https://www.policefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Appendix-G_0.pdf

Year: 2008

Country: United States

URL: https://www.policefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Appendix-G_0.pdf

Shelf Number: 130022

Keywords:
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement

Author: Gruberg, Sharita

Title: Dignity Denied: LGBT Immigrants in U.S. Immigration Detention

Summary: As Congress debates immigration reform, a common refrain from congressional Republicans is the call for increased border security and increased resources for enforcement of immigration laws. While it is in the interest of national sovereignty and security to track those who come into and leave the United States, we cannot permit enforcement of immigration laws to trample immigrants' basic human rights. We must ensure that immigration enforcement is conducted in a humane manner that respects human dignity. Unfortunately, the current immigration enforcement system falls short of this goal, particularly in regard to the treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, or LGBT, immigrants. While the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, does not keep data on the sexual orientation or gender identity of people in its custody, reports of treatment of LGBT detainees obtained through Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, requests and through complaints filed by immigrant rights groups reveal that much like in the general prison population - where LGBT inmates are 15 times more likely to be sexually assaulted than the general population -LGBT immigrants in immigration detention facilities face an increased risk of abuse in detention. The U.N. Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment went as far as finding the treatment of LGBT immigrants in U.S. detention facilities in violation of the Convention Against Torture after it received information on gay and transgender individuals who had been subjected to solitary confinement, torture, and ill-treatment - including sexual assault - while detained in U.S. immigration facilities. This report will examine the mistreatment LGBT immigrants face in immigration detention; the steps that Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, has taken in an attempt to address these issues; the impact that legislation pending before Congress would have on immigration enforcement; and recommendations for how to ensure enforcement of immigration laws is conducted in a manner that is effective and humane.

Details: Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, 2013. 28p.

Source: Internet Resource: accessed August 25, 2017 at: https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/ImmigrationEnforcement.pdf

Year: 2013

Country: United States

URL: https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/ImmigrationEnforcement.pdf

Shelf Number: 131703

Keywords:
Human Rights Abuses
Immigrant Detention
Immigration Detention
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy
LGBT Individuals

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:
Detainees
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrant Deportation
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy

Author: Isacson, Adam

Title: Mexico's Southern Border: Security, Central American Migration, and U.S. Policy

Summary: It has been nearly three years since the Mexican government announced its Southern Border Program, which dramatically increased security operations and apprehensions of northbound migrants. This report-based on field research in the area surrounding Tenosique, Tabasco along Mexico's border with Guatemala-examines migration flows, enforcement, and insecurity in southern Mexico. - THERE HAS BEEN A SHARP INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF MIGRANTS AND ASYLUM SEEKERS WHO INTEND TO STAY IN MEXICO, RATHER THAN TRAVEL TO THE UNITED STATES. Many are seeking asylum or other forms of immigration status. Between 2014 and 2016, there was a 311 percent increase in asylum requests in Mexico. In the first three months of 2017, Mexico had received more asylum applications than all of 2015. The UN Refugee Agency estimates that Mexico will receive up to 20,000 asylum requests in 2017. - DECREASED MIGRATION FLOWS THROUGH MEXICO AND AT THE U.S. SOUTHWEST BORDER DURING THE MONTHS FOLLOWING PRESIDENT TRUMP'S INAUGURATION ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE. News of the Trump administration's hard line appears to have caused a wave of Central American migration before January 20, and a sharp drop afterward. However, until there are improvements in the violence and adverse conditions from which Central Americans are fleeing, people will continue to migrate en masse. By May 2017, apprehension levels at the U.S-Mexico border had begun to tiptoe back up, with a 31 percent increase in total apprehensions compared to April, and a 50 percent increase in apprehensions of unaccompanied minors. - ALTHOUGH MEXICO REGISTERED LOWER APPREHENSION LEVELS IN THE FIRST FOUR MONTHS OF 2017 COMPARED TO PREVIOUS YEARS, MIGRATION ENFORCEMENT UNDER MEXICO'S SOUTHERN BORDER PROGRAM REMAINS HIGH. Total migrant apprehensions increased by a staggering 85 percent during the Southern Border Program's first two years of operation (July 2014 to June 2016) compared to pre-Program levels. Limited government resources, migrants' and smugglers' ability to adjust to new security patterns, corruption among authorities, and an overall drop in migration from Central America since President Trump took office have all likely contributed to the leveling off of apprehensions seen in Mexico in recent months. - CRIMES AND ABUSES AGAINST MIGRANTS TRAVELING THROUGH MEXICO CONTINUE TO OCCUR AT ALARMING RATES, AND SHELTERS HAVE NOTED A MORE INTENSE DEGREE OF VIOLENCE IN THE CASES THEY DOCUMENT. While Mexico's major organized criminal groups do not operate heavily in the Tenosique corridor, smaller criminal bands and Central American gang affiliates routinely rob, kidnap, and sexually assault migrants along this portion of the migration route. Migrant rights organizations in southern Mexico documented an increase in cases of migration and police authorities' abuse of migrants as a result of the Southern Border Program, including recent accounts of migration agents, who are supposed to be unarmed, using pellet guns and electrical shock devices. - THERE HAVE BEEN FEWER U.S. ASSISTANCE DELIVERIES TO MEXICO FOR THE SOUTHERN BORDER PROGRAM THAN ORIGINALLY EXPECTED, BUT BIOMETRIC AND COMMUNICATIONS PROGRAMS CONTINUE APACE. The U.S. State and Defense Departments are currently implementing a US$88 million dollar program to increase Mexican immigration authorities' capacity to collect biometric data and share information about who is crossing through Mexico with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The U.S. State and Defense Departments are also funding a US$75 million project to improve secure communications between Mexican agencies in the country's southern border zone. This program has erected 12 communications towers so far, all of them on Mexican naval posts. - THE MIGRATION ROUTE INTO MEXICO THROUGH TENOSIQUE, TABASCO HAS SEEN A SHARP INCREASE IN CHILDREN AND FAMILIES FLEEING VIOLENCE IN THE NORTHERN TRIANGLE REGION. Between 2014 and 2016, the number of children (both accompanied and unaccompanied) apprehended in the state of Tabasco increased by 60 percent. The majority of migrants traveling through this area of the border are from Honduras.

Details: Washington, DC: Washington Office on Latin America, 2017. 28p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 9, 2017 at: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/980081/download

Year: 2017

Country: Central America

URL: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/980081/download

Shelf Number: 147169

Keywords:
Asylum Seekers
Border Security
Human Smuggling
Illegal Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Migrants
Unaccompanied Minors

Author: White, Ariel R.

Title: Voter Behavior in the Wake of Punitive Policies

Summary: Millions of people in the US have direct experience with the machinery of immigration enforcement or criminal courts, and millions more have seen family members, friends, or neighbors face these experiences. What do these experiences mean for political behavior in the United States? Do these proximate observers decide that government is a dangerous and capricious force to be avoided, and withdraw from political participation entirely? Or is there sometimes a mobilization response, where some people organize to push back against what they see as unjust government actions? This is an important policy feedback story. Large-scale punitive policies could either "lock themselves in" via community disengagement, or hasten their own demise by fueling political responses. The three papers of this dissertation examine policies at varying distances (people living in an area where the policy is introduced, those directly affected, and those living with people directly affected), and with different time-frames and geographic coverage. The results of these papers, and the approach of using administrative datasets and finding causal leverage from "natural experiments," point us toward a new understanding of policy feedbacks. In the first paper, I find that Latino voters living in counties where a new deportation program was introduced before the 2010 election became more likely to vote. This effect seems driven not by personal experience seeing deportation activities, but by activists mobilizing voters in affected counties. In the second paper, I use random courtroom assignment to measure the causal effect of short jail sentences (from misdemeanor cases) on voting. I find that even short jail sentences can deter people from voting in the next election, with particularly large effects among black voters. In the third paper, I find that the household members of incarcerated people also become several percentage points less likely to vote. This finding is particularly striking given the narrow scope of the effect measured: this is only the additional effect of seeing a household member jailed for a short period, among a set of people that have already seen their household member arrested and charged with a crime.

Details: Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 2016. 127p.

Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed September 19, 2017 at: https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/33493481/WHITE-DISSERTATION-2016.pdf?sequence=1

Year: 2016

Country: United States

URL: https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/33493481/WHITE-DISSERTATION-2016.pdf?sequence=1

Shelf Number: 147411

Keywords:
Collateral Consequences
Deportation Policy
Felony Disenfranchisement
Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Politics
Voting Rights

Author: Harrington, Ben

Title: Overview of the Federal Government's Power to Exclude Aliens

Summary: The Supreme Court has determined that inherent principles of sovereignty give Congress "plenary power" to regulate immigration. The core of this power - the part that has proven most impervious to judicial review - is the authority to determine which aliens may enter the country and under what conditions. The Court has determined that the executive branch, by extension, has broad authority to enforce laws concerning alien entry mostly free from judicial oversight. Two principles frame the scope of the political branches' power to exclude aliens. First, nonresident aliens abroad cannot challenge exclusion decisions because they do not have constitutional or statutory rights with respect to entry. Second, even when the exclusion of a nonresident alien burdens the constitutional rights of a U.S. citizen, the government need only articulate a "facially legitimate and bona fide" justification to prevail against the citizen's constitutional challenge. The first principle is the foundation of the Supreme Court's immigration jurisprudence, so well established that the Court has not had occasion to apply it directly in recent decades. The second principle, in contrast, has given rise to the Court's modern exclusion jurisprudence. In three important cases since 1972 - Kleindienst v. Mandel, Fiallo v. Bell, and the splintered Kerry v. Din - the Court applied the "facially legitimate and bona fide" test to deny relief to U.S. citizens who claimed that the exclusion of certain aliens violated the citizens' constitutional rights. In each case, the Court accepted the government's stated reasons for excluding the aliens without scrutinizing the underlying facts. This deferential standard of review effectively foreclosed the U.S. citizens' constitutional challenges. Nonetheless, the Court refrained in all three cases from deciding whether the power to exclude aliens has any limitations. Particularly with regard to the executive branch, the Court left an unexplored margin at the outer edges of the power. In March 2017, President Trump issued an executive order temporarily barring many nationals of six Muslim-majority countries and all refugees from entering the United States, subject to limited waivers and exemptions. This order replaced an earlier executive order that a federal appellate court had enjoined as likely unconstitutional. Upon challenges brought by U.S. citizens and entities, two federal appellate courts determined that the revised order is likely unlawful, one under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the other under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The Supreme Court agreed to review those cases and, for the meantime, has ruled that the Executive may not apply the revised order to exclude aliens who have a "bona fide relationship" with a U.S. person or entity. In reaching this interim solution, the Supreme Court considered only equitable factors and carefully avoided any discussion of the merits of the constitutional and statutory challenges against the revised order. Even so, the Court's temporary restriction of the executive power to exclude nonresident aliens abroad is remarkable when compared with the Court's earlier immigration jurisprudence. The merits of these so-called "Travel Ban" cases raise significant questions about the extent to which the rights of U.S. citizens limit the executive power to exclude aliens. It seems relatively clear that, under existing jurisprudence, the "facially legitimate and bona fide" standard should govern the Establishment Clause claims against the revised executive order. However, Supreme Court precedent does not clarify whether that standard contains an exception that might permit courts to test the government's proffered justification for an exclusion by examining the underlying facts in particular circumstances. Nor does Supreme Court precedent resolve whether the standard governs U.S. citizens' statutory claims against executive exercise of the exclusion power, or even whether such statutory claims are cognizable. The outcome of the Travel Ban cases would likely turn upon these issues, if the Supreme Court were to decide the cases on the merits rather than on a threshold question such as mootness (a key issue in light of a presidential proclamation modifying the entry restrictions at issue in the cases).

Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2017. 45p.

Source: Internet Resource: CRS Report R44969: Accessed October 4, 2017 at: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R44969.pdf

Year: 2017

Country: United States

URL: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R44969.pdf

Shelf Number: 147541

Keywords:
Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy
Refugees

Author: Campos, Sara

Title: Deportations in the Dark: Lack of Process and Information in the Removal of Mexican Migrants

Summary: U.S. immigration officials have a long and checkered history of mistreating migrants at the Southern border. Allegations of abuse throughout the apprehension, detention, and deportation process are not new; migrants have voiced complaints for years, with litigation dating back several decades. A more dismal future for migrants looms today, as the U.S. government promises to institute a new level of immigration enforcement. Within its first year, the Trump administration issued directives to intensify and scale up border enforcement, detention, and deportations, as well as expand expedited deportation procedures to unprecedented levels. Moreover, the administration's tacit - if not explicit - approval of harsh treatment toward migrants also risks emboldening immigration agents to act improperly. Indeed, evidence of mistreatment and abuse has already surfaced. This report explains the stark findings of an empirical investigation into the behavioral patterns of U.S. immigration authorities during the apprehension, custody, and removal of Mexican migrants from the United States. The analysis is based on new survey data and testimonies collected by the Binational Defense and Advocacy Program (in Spanish, Programa de Defensa e Incidencia Binacional, or PDIB). Between August 2016 and April 2017, PDIB interviewed 600 migrants who were deported from the United States to Mexico at one of the following repatriation points: Nogales, Sonora; Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas; Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua; and Reynosa, Tamaulipas. Among other issues, the survey sought to examine whether U.S. immigration agents properly informed migrants of their rights, actively interfered with migrants' rights, coerced or intimidated migrants in their custody, or failed to provide removal documents to migrants at the time of repatriation. The results are unnerving. In each of the areas examined, U.S. officials failed to deliver basic rights under U.S. laws and policies: 43.5 percent of the respondents surveyed were not advised of their right to contact their consulate; More than half of the respondents surveyed (55.7 percent) were not asked if they feared returning home; Almost a quarter of the respondents (23.5 percent) reported being victims of some type of abuse or aggression by immigration authorities during their apprehension; Half of the respondents (50.7 percent) who signed repatriation documents reported that they were not allowed to read the documents before they signed them; 57.6 percent of the respondents did not receive their repatriation documents. What emerges from the survey data and testimonies is an alarming portrait of the way Mexican migrants are treated while in U.S. custody and through the deportation process. Often, migrants do not receive copies of deportation documents and have little understanding of the processes they have undergone and the related legal ramifications. When U.S. officials prevent migrants from accessing critical information and processes, they further deprive individuals of their possible legal opportunities to present immigration claims. While in U.S. custody and control, many migrants are deprived of legally required information, thwarted from contacting their consulates, compelled to sign documents they cannot read or understand, threatened with protracted detention, and blocked from applying for asylum and other legal claims - even in the face of serious danger. In short, these migrants are left in the dark during their deportations. Given the escalation of immigration enforcement, the problems identified in this report are only likely to multiply. If not addressed, the behavioral patterns leading to abuses could spawn mass constitutional rights violations.

Details: American Immigration Council, 2017. 27p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 9, 2017 at: https://americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/deportations_in_the_dark.pdf

Year: 2017

Country: United States

URL: https://americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/deportations_in_the_dark.pdf

Shelf Number: 148170

Keywords:
Deportations
Illegal Migrants
Immigrant Deportations
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy

Author: Obinna, Denise N.

Title: American Deportation and the 'Non-Criminal' Criminals

Summary: In recent years, a considerable amount of the socio-legal literature has focused on the rising rate of criminal deportation and more generally the intersection of the immigration and criminal justice systems. While the number of criminal removals in this decade is indeed unprecedented, deportation because of non-criminal conduct has far outnumbered criminal deportation. Yet, there are no empirical studies to date which have focused exclusively on non-criminal deportation. This dissertation fills this gap in the literature by providing an in-depth analysis of non-criminal deportations from 1908-2012. The study documents and explains historical variations in non-criminal deportation in the United States. Dividing the analyses into three distinct eras, this study looks at how noncriminal deportation has fluctuated with macro-level factors such as the economy, the political system and changing demographics. In addition, the study evaluates the impact of public opinion on non-criminal deportation for the period from 1964-2012. Results from descriptive analyses suggest that during the early years of the century, deportation was highly variable with removals based on the 'morality' of foreigners and whether or not they were likely to become dependent on the state as public charges. As the enforcement bureaucracy strengthens during the latter half of the century, non-criminal deportations become more administrative with majority of the deportees being visa violators and those who entered without proper documents. The statistical results suggest that during the period between 1908 and 1940 which coincides with the Great Depression, there was a strong association between the unemployment rate and non-criminal deportation. Unlike previous research which suggests that criminal deportation increased following the passage of punitive immigration laws in the 1980s, this study finds that non-criminal deportation increased in the 1990s following the passage of laws under the Democratic Clinton administration with support from a Republican Congress. The results also suggest that when Republican president in power, non-criminal deportations are more likely to increase than when there is a Democratic incumbent. These results are significant in all eras except the period from 1941 to 1986. With regards to public opinion, the results show that non-criminal deportations increase when the public has negative opinions towards immigrants during the post-1964 era. Thus, this study sheds light on how non-criminal removals have been classified and what this means for current immigration policy on deportation.

Details: Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, 2015. 120p.

Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed November 28, 2017 at: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=osu1437579909&disposition=inline

Year: 2015

Country: United States

URL: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=osu1437579909&disposition=inline

Shelf Number: 148524

Keywords:
Deportation
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy

Author: Collingwood, Loren

Title: Public Opposition to Sanctuary Cities in Texas: Criminal Threat or Latino Threat?

Summary: Sanctuary city policies forbid local officials and law enforcement from inquiring into residents' immigration status. Opponents of sanctuary cities, such as President Donald Trump, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and Texas Governor Gregg Abbott, frequently claim that sanctuary policies lead to higher crime rates, despite evidence to the contrary (Gonzalez et al., 2017; Lyons et al., 2013; Wong, 2017). Given this crime narrative, we might expect public opinion about sanctuary cities to be driven primarily by concern of and contextual experience with crime. However, given that sanctuary cities are associated with undocumented immigration, and that undocumented immigration is inextricably linked to Latino - and specifically Mexican - immigration, public opinion on sanctuary cities may instead be driven by experiences with racial and cultural threat embodied by rapid Latino growth. We analyze two polls from Texas, a state where the sanctuary debate is highly salient - not only because of its long border with Mexico, but because its governor has fought against such cities, signing highly controversial legislation. We find that opinion on sanctuary cities is unrelated to respondents' county crime rates but is strongly related to county Latino growth and Latino population size. We find some evidence that sanctuary city opinion is related to individual concerns about both immigration and crime. Overall, beyond partisan and ideological staples, we conclude that opinion on sanctuary cities is driven primarily by racial threat and not by actual crime exposure.

Details: Riverside, CA: Collingwood Research, 2017. 43p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 1, 2017 at: http://www.collingwoodresearch.com/uploads/8/3/6/0/8360930/collingwood_gonzalez_final.pdf

Year: 2017

Country: United States

URL: http://www.collingwoodresearch.com/uploads/8/3/6/0/8360930/collingwood_gonzalez_final.pdf

Shelf Number: 148666

Keywords:
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy
Sanctuary Cities
Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Gans, Judith

Title: The Border Patrol Checkpoint on Interstate 19 in Southern Arizona: A Case Study of Impacts on Local Real Estate Prices

Summary: This report examines impacts of the Border Patrol checkpoint along Interstate 19 in southern Arizona on communities located between the checkpoint and the U.S. border. In particular, the report examines the consequences of the checkpoint for real estate prices in the communities of Tubac and Rio Rico, which are located just to the south of the Checkpoint.

Details: Tucson: Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy The University of Arizona, 2012. 22p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 31, 2018 at: http://www.bsi.arizona.edu/cms/sites/default/files/gans_2012b_0.pdf

Year: 2012

Country: United States

URL: http://www.bsi.arizona.edu/cms/sites/default/files/gans_2012b_0.pdf

Shelf Number: 148954

Keywords:
Border Patrol
Border Security
Homeland Security
Housing
Illegal Immigration
Immigration Enforcement
Real Estate Prices

Author: Lasch, Christopher N.

Title: Understanding "Sanctuary Cities"

Summary: In the wake of Trump's election, a growing number of local jurisdictions around the country have sought to disentangle their criminal justice system from federal immigration enforcement initiatives. These localities have embraced a series of reforms that protect immigrants from deportation when they come into contact with the criminal justice system. In response, President Trump and his administration have labeled these jurisdictions "sanctuary cities" and promised to "end" them by cutting off federal funding. This Article is a collaborative project authored by law professors specializing in the intersection between immigration and criminal law. In it, we set forth the central features of the Trump administration's mass deportation plans and his recently-announced campaign to "crack down" on "sanctuary cities." We then outline the diverse ways in which localities have sought to protect their residents from deportation by refusing to participate in the Trump immigration agenda. Such initiatives include limiting compliance with immigration detainers, precluding participation in joint operations with the federal government, and preventing immigration agents from accessing local jails. Finally, we analyze the legal and policy justifications for sanctuary that local jurisdictions have advanced with increasing intensity since Trump's election. These insights have important implications for how sanctuary cities are understood and preserved in the age of Trump. As a complement to this Article, we have created a public online library of sanctuary policies that includes all the policies cited here and many more we considered in our research.

Details: Forthcoming in 58 BOSTON COLLEGE LAW REVIEW (2018). 62p.

Source: Internet Resource: UCLA School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 17-33 New England Law|Boston Research Paper No. 18-02: Accessed February 6, 2018 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3045527

Year: 2017

Country: United States

URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3045527

Shelf Number: 149009

Keywords:
Asylum
Crimigration
Illegal Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy
Sanctuary Cities
Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Lai, Annie

Title: Crimmigration Resistance And The Case of Sanctuary City Defunding

Summary: Transformations in the fields of immigration and criminal law have given rise to a cogent and vital body of literature examining the growing linkages between these two systems in recent years. In this article, we discern two broad strands of critique in the "crimmigration" literature. "Delineating" critiques seek to disrupt the conflation of immigration enforcement with crime control in the hopes of trying to reverse some of distorting, dignity-stripping effects of migrant criminalization. "Synthesizing" critiques, on the other hand, expand their gaze to probe some of the parallel logics, cultural values and environmental factors that may be driving practices in both systems. With this typology in mind, we explore resistance to the Trump Administration's attempts to withdraw funds from so-called "sanctuary" jurisdictions. We observe the limited extent to which delineation and synthesis critiques have been featured in litigation challenging the Administration's actions and sketch out a vision for more robust crimmigration resistance to sanctuary defunding. Additionally, we expand the framework by considering how delineation and synthesis critiques--and a spectrum of intermediate positions--might be understood as responses to a logical syllogism about crimmigration. Our case study leads us to ask whether jurisdictions confronted with the prospect of losing Department of Justice (DOJ) law enforcement grants may do better to reject those funding streams entirely. In concluding, we suggest that our framework might be productively applied to other contested issues at the intersection of immigration and criminal law.

Details: Irvine, CA: University of California, Irvine, School of Law, 2017. 72p.

Source: Internet Resource: UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper No. 2018-04; Criminal Justice, Borders and Citizenship Research Paper No. 3094952: Accessed February 22, 2018 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3094952##

Year: 2017

Country: United States

URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3094952##

Shelf Number: 149222

Keywords:
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Sanctuary Cities
Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Dominguez Villegas, Rodrigo

Title: Strengthening Mexico's Protection of Central American Unaccompanied Minors in Transit

Summary: In the summer of 2014, the number of unaccompanied children traveling from the Northern Triangle of Central America (El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras) through Mexico and on to the United States surged. Some undertook the dangerous journey to escape violence, endemic poverty, or recruitment by criminal gangs, while others hoped to reunite with family in the United States. To stem the flow of migrants through its territory, Mexico stepped up enforcement at its southern border and along popular routes through the country, apprehending more than 50,000 such children since 2014. The spike in the apprehension of unaccompanied children-a growing share of whom are girls and children under age 12-has raised questions about how well equipped Mexican immigration authorities are to uphold legal requirements for the protection of minors. This report draws on previously unpublished data from Mexican government agencies, interviews with key officials, and accounts from civil society to examine the legal framework for the protection of child migrants in Mexico, its implementation, and the gaps between the two during the apprehension, screening, and housing process. Despite a legal framework that emphasizes the best-interests-of-the-child principle and has a generous definition of who qualifies for refugee status, the author highlights a number of areas where further progress is needed if young migrants are to be adequately screened for international protection needs, housed in age-appropriate facilities, and informed of their right to apply for asylum.

Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2017. 36p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 27, 2018 at: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/strengthening-mexicos-protection-central-american-unaccompanied-minors-transit

Year: 2017

Country: Mexico

URL: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/strengthening-mexicos-protection-central-american-unaccompanied-minors-transit

Shelf Number: 149275

Keywords:
Immigrant Children
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy
Unaccompanied Children
Unaccompanied Minors

Author: Provera, Mark

Title: The Criminalisation of Irregular Migration in the European Union

Summary: This paper offers an academic examination of the legal regimes surrounding the criminalisation of irregular migrants in the EU and of acts of solidarity with irregular migrants, such as assisting irregular migrants to enter or remain in the EU, and other behaviour that is motivated by humanitarian instincts. The research analyses EU law and its relationship with national provisions regarding the criminalisation of irregular migration and of acts of solidarity vis-a-vis irregular migrants. A comparative analysis was made of the laws of the UK, France and Italy, supplemented by an analysis of the laws of Germany, the Netherlands and Spain. By considering the role of public trust in fostering compliance with the law, the paper explores the impact of criminalisation measures on institutions' authority to compel individuals to comply with the law (institutional legitimacy). The study finds that certain indicators question institutional legitimacy and reveals the varied nature and extent of penalties imposed by different member states. The paper concludes that there is an important role for public trust in immigration law compliance, not just in measures directed towards irregular migrants but also towards those acting in solidarity with irregular migrants.

Details: Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies, 2015. 53p.

Source: Internet Resource: CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security in Europe, no. 80: Accessed March 15, 2018 at: https://www.ceps.eu/system/files/Criminalisation%20of%20Irregular%20Migration.pdf

Year: 2015

Country: Europe

URL: https://www.ceps.eu/system/files/Criminalisation%20of%20Irregular%20Migration.pdf

Shelf Number: 149478

Keywords:
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrant Detention
Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy
Migrants

Author: Johnson, Jennifer

Title: The Forgotten Border: Migration and Human Rights at Mexico's Southern Border

Summary: The nature of transborder migration and human rights violations against migrants at Mexico's southern border has received scant attention. The Forgotten Border: Migration & Human Rights at Mexico's Southern Border sheds light on the abuse and exploitation experienced by many transmigrants as they journey northward, as well as trends in Mexico's practices regarding immigration and border enforcement policies. The nature of transborder migration and human rights violations against migrants at Mexico's southern border has received scant attention. The Forgotten Border: Migration & Human Rights at Mexico's Southern Border sheds light on the abuse and exploitation experienced by many transmigrants as they journey northward, as well as trends in Mexico's practices regarding immigration and border enforcement policies. In 2008, the U.S. Congress will consider giving $1 billion in assistance to Mexico as part of the "Merida Initiative." As programs in this aid package are framed as support for human interdiction, border security and law enforcement activities, it is critical that policymakers and advocates gain a clearer understanding of the broader context in which human rights abuses take place in Mexico's southern border region to ensure that U.S. policy, and in particular, the Merida Initiative, does not aggravate a precarious situation any further.

Details: Washington, DC: Latin America Working Group, 2008. 24p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 20, 2018 at: http://www.lawg.org/storage/documents/forgotten%20border.pdf

Year: 2008

Country: Mexico

URL: http://www.lawg.org/storage/documents/forgotten%20border.pdf

Shelf Number: 149528

Keywords:
Border Security
Human Rights Abuses
Illegal Immigration
Immigration
Immigration Enforcement
Migration

Author: Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)

Title: Sanctuary Policies Across the U.S.

Summary: Cooperation between federal, state, and local governments is the cornerstone of effective immigration enforcement. State and local law enforcement officers are often the last line of defense against criminal aliens, and are far more likely to encounter illegal aliens during routine job activities than are federal agents. As such, the ability of state and local law enforcement and other government officials to freely cooperate and communicate with federal immigration authorities is not just important - but essential - to the enforcement of our immigration laws. Nonetheless, law enforcement agencies, local governments, and even states across the country are proactively enacting policies and practices to restrict or all together prohibit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Commonly referred to as "sanctuary policies," such ordinances, directives, and practices undermine enforcement of U.S. immigration law by impeding state and local officials, including law enforcement officers, from asking individuals about their immigration status, reporting them to the federal government, or otherwise cooperating with or assisting federal immigration officials. While many of these policies and practices are written, they may be unwritten as well, sometimes making them difficult to discover or verify. Most of the sanctuary policies and practices instituted since FAIR first issued its list of sanctuary jurisdictions in 2013 fall into the "anti-detainer" category. These generally refer to directives that inhibit or restrict the ability of state and local law enforcement to hold criminal aliens for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Some anti-detainer policies even go so far as to prohibit state and local law enforcement from simply notifying ICE that they are about to release a criminal alien back onto the streets or from otherwise assisting federal authorities. Sadly, most anti-detainer policies are put in place by the law enforcement agencies themselves, bullied by the illegal alien lobby into believing they must follow the open borders agenda or risk being sued. While some of the sanctuary policies noted in this report were enacted decades ago - such as the ones in New York City, Los Angeles, and San Francisco - the vast majority have been instituted since President Obama took office in 2009. Of the 300 jurisdictions cited in this report: 239 jurisdictions have sanctuary policies or practices instituted by law enforcement agencies; 23 jurisdictions have sanctuary resolutions; 15 jurisdictions have sanctuary laws or ordinances, including statewide laws in California, Connecticut, and Oregon; 5 jurisdictions have sanctuary executive orders; and 18 jurisdictions either have multiple forms of sanctuary policies or practices in place, or have a policy or practice that simply fit no other classification. Some of these policies or practices were very easy to discover and label. Others required a bit more digging to locate. As such, FAIR used a wide-variety of sources when compiling this list of jurisdictions and evidence. This included primary sources such as the actual resolutions, ordinances, and policy directives, as well as secondary sources such as the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Declined Detainer Outcome Report obtained by the Center for Immigration Studies, various academic or congressional reports, and even media coverage. FAIR has found that jurisdictions often justify their sanctuary policies by claiming that illegal aliens will be more likely to report crimes to law enforcement without fear of deportation. However, FAIR knows of no evidence demonstrating that sanctuary policies lead to increased crime reporting among illegal immigrant communities, and law enforcement officers already have the discretion to grant immunity to witnesses and victims of crime. Sanctuary jurisdictions also often lament that immigration is a "federal issue" and therefore they do not have a responsibility to cooperate with federal officials. This argument is belied by the fact that illegal immigration costs state and local governments roughly $84 billion annually - a significant majority of the estimated $113 billion annual price tag of illegal immigration on U.S. taxpayers. As such, the cost of illegal immigration in terms of government services, education, healthcare, crime, and impact on the labor market are far greater than any benefit that may accrue from a perceived increase in cooperation between illegal alien communities and law enforcement. Our comprehensive (but by no means exhaustive) list of sanctuary jurisdictions appears below. It includes jurisdictions with laws, resolutions, policies, or practices that obstruct cooperation with federal immigration authorities or assistance with federal immigration detainers. FAIR ceased conducting research activities for this report in November 2016; changes have already been made to the policies and practices in some jurisdictions, while additional sanctuary policies and practices have been instituted in others and will be added in the next edition. Indeed, dozens of city and county officials have doubled-down on their jurisdiction's sanctuary policy in the days and weeks following the 2016 election.

Details: Washington, DC: FAIR, 2017. 61p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 26, 2018 at: http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/Sanctuary_Policies_Across_America_Report.pdf

Year: 2017

Country: United States

URL: http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/Sanctuary_Policies_Across_America_Report.pdf

Shelf Number: 149573

Keywords:
Illegal Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy
Immigration Reform
Sanctuary Cities
Undocumented Citizens

Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office

Title: Border Security: Actions Needed to Strengthen Performance Management and Planning for Expansion of DHS's Visa Security Program

Summary: The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) manages the Visa Security Program (VSP), which provides an additional layer of review to the visa adjudication process; however, VSP agents are not consistently providing required training to consular officers. ICE implemented the Pre-Adjudicated Threat Recognition and Intelligence Operations Team (PATRIOT) in fiscal year 2014. PATRIOT screens 100 percent of nonimmigrant visa applications at VSP posts against U.S. databases, and U.S.-based analysts manually vet applications with potential matches to derogatory information. VSP agents at post then make recommendations to Department of State (State) consular officers on whether to refuse a visa. In fiscal year 2016, VSP screened over 2.1 million visa applications, and recommended over 8,000 visa refusals. In addition, VSP agents and VSP-funded locally employed staff dedicated approximately 43 percent of their work hours in fiscal year 2016 to non-VSP activities-such as assisting ICE investigations not directly related to visas. ICE increased the percentage of VSP posts providing quarterly training from 30 percent in fiscal year 2014 to 79 percent in fiscal year 2016. However, some trainings are not targeted to the specific post and do not address identified threats to the visa process, as required. Ensuring that VSP agents provide required training would help ensure consular officers have information that could assist them in adjudicating visas. ICE developed objectives and performance measures for VSP, but its measures are not outcome-based and limit the agency's ability to assess the effectiveness of VSP. As of fiscal year 2017, none of VSP's 19 established performance measures are outcome-based. For example, ICE measures its activities, such as number of visa refusals VSP agents recommended, rather than the outcomes of those recommendations. ICE officials stated that measuring VSP's outcomes is difficult due to the qualitative nature of the program's benefits; however, solely tracking activities, such as number of recommended refusals, does not allow ICE to evaluate VSP's effectiveness. Developing and implementing outcome-based performance measures, consistent with best practices for performance management, would help ICE determine whether VSP is achieving its objectives. ICE evaluated options for VSP expansion but its site selection process did not incorporate PATRIOT data or options for remote operations that, for example, use U.S.-based VSP agents. ICE has previously utilized PATRIOT to gather data to estimate program capacity, but ICE officials stated that they do not use PATRIOT to collect data on the potential number of ineligible visa applicants and workload for posts under consideration for VSP expansion. By incorporating PATRIOT data on posts under consideration into its site selection process, ICE could more effectively manage human capital and other resources. Further, ICE has implemented remote VSP operations in some posts, but does not consider such approaches during its annual site selection process. ICE documentation stated that ICE could successfully screen and vet applicants remotely through VSP, however the officials' preferred approach is to deploy agents to posts overseas. Incorporating remote options for VSP operations could help identify opportunities to further expand VSP and better utilize resources.

Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2018. 69p.

Source: Internet Resource: GAO-18-314: Accessed April 4, 2018 at: https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/690865.pdf

Year: 2018

Country: United States

URL: https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/690732.pdf

Shelf Number: 149678

Keywords:
Border Security
Homeland Security
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Immigration Enforcement
Visas

Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons

Title: Report on an unannounced inspection of Heathrow Immigration Removal Centre Harmondsworth Site

Summary: Harmondsworth immigration removal centre (IRC) is Europe's largest detention facility, holding up to 676 male detainees, close to Heathrow Airport. The centre is run for the Home Office by Care and Custody, a division of the Mitie Group. Since 2014, Harmondsworth has been under the same management as the neighbouring Colnbrook IRC, and the two centres are collectively known as the Heathrow IRC. However, they remain discrete sites and, in light of their size and complexity, we are continuing to inspect them separately. In addition to our normal methodology, we employed an enhanced methodology at this inspection which included hundreds of interviews and surveys. The main objectives were to give detainees and staff an opportunity to tell inspectors, in confidence, about any incidents or concerns relating to the safe and decent treatment of detainees; to identify cultural or structural issues affecting outcomes; and to identify areas of positive and progressive work. The last inspection of Harmondsworth in 2015 highlighted concerns in relation to safety, respect and provision of activities. This report describes a centre that had made some improvements, but not of the scale or speed that were required. In some areas, there had been a deterioration. The centre's task in caring for detainees was not made any easier by the profile of those who were held. There was a very high level of mental health need and nearly a third of the population was considered by the Home Office to be vulnerable under its at risk in detention policy. The continuing lack of a time limit on detention meant that some men had been held for excessively long periods: 23 men had been detained for over a year and one man had been held for over 4.5 years, which was unacceptable. Processes for safeguarding detainees were not good enough. Detention Centre Rule 35 reports, which are intended to give some protection to the most vulnerable detainees, lacked rigour. Worryingly, in nearly all of the cases we examined, the Home Office accepted evidence that detainees had been tortured, but maintained detention regardless. Insufficient attention was given to post-traumatic stress and other mental health problems. There were delays in referring potential trafficking victims to the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) and our staff interviews confirmed widespread ignorance of the NRM. The first night unit had been relocated since our last visit and now provided a much calmer environment for newly arrived detainees. However, reception and first night processes were superficial and left many detainees feeling anxious and ill-informed. Violence was not high but violence management processes were weak and a high number of detainees felt unsafe. Detainees told us this was because of the uncertainty associated with their cases, but also because a large number of their fellow detainees seemed mentally unwell, frustrated or angry. Many detainees on the newer and more prison-like units found being locked into their cells at night upsetting and stressful, and drug use was becoming an increasing problem. Self-harm was low compared with other centres and detainees at risk of self-harm were often positive about staff efforts to support them, although those who spoke little English were less well served. The governance of use of force was generally good and we noted that managers had identified an illegitimate use of force by a member of staff on CCTV cameras and dismissed the person concerned. Neither detainees nor staff told us of a pernicious or violent subculture, but some aspects of security would have been disproportionate in a prison and were not acceptable in an IRC. For example, detainees taken to the separation unit were routinely handcuffed and then strip-searched, regardless of individual risk. Harmondsworth is the centre where, in 2013, we identified the disgraceful treatment of an ill and elderly man who was kept in handcuffs as he died in hospital. A more proportionate approach to handcuffing was subsequently put in place by the Home Office and followed by the centre contractor. It is with concern, therefore, that at this inspection we found detainees once again being routinely handcuffed when attending outside appointments without evidence of risk. Only 58% of detainees in our survey said that most staff treated them with respect, well below the average figure for IRCs. Staffing levels were low and neither staff nor detainees felt that there were enough officers to effectively support detainees. Around a third of staff told us themselves that they did not have sufficient training to do their jobs well. Few had an adequate understanding of whistleblowing procedures. Physical conditions had improved since our last inspection, but the environment remained below acceptable standards in much of the centre. Many areas were dirty and bedrooms, showers and toilets were poorly ventilated. It was particularly unacceptable that two years after we raised bed bugs as a serious concern, they remained endemic in the centre and continued to affect detainees' physical and mental well-being. Detainees were often critical of health services, but we found generally adequate health care provision. A significant exception was the inability of health services to meet the very high level of mental health need. Communication with detainees by health care staff was also weak but starting to improve. An important aspect of well-being is activity, but only 29% of detainees in our survey said they could fill their time while in the centre and many described a sense of purposelessness and boredom. Few detainees were able to work, and the education provision was underused and did not meet the needs of detainees. There were a number of positive areas of work. For example, the on-site immigration team made considerable efforts to engage with detainees, faith provision was good and complaints were managed well. The dedicated and well-organised welfare services were impressive and there was positive engagement with third sector groups. The charity Hibiscus Initiatives provided support to many detainees before release or removal and the local visitors' group was active and well supported. However, our overall finding was that the centre had failed to progress significantly since our last visit in 2015. For the third consecutive inspection, we found considerable failings in the areas of safety and respect. Detainees, many identified as vulnerable, were not being adequately safeguarded. Some were held for unacceptably long periods. Mental health needs were often not met. Detainees were subject to some disproportionate security restrictions and living conditions were below decent standards. It is time for the Home Office and contractors to think again about how to ensure that more substantial progress is made by the time that we return.

Details: London: HMIP, 2018. 103p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 24, 2018 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/03/Harmondsworth-Web-2017.pdf

Year: 2018

Country: United Kingdom

URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/03/Harmondsworth-Web-2017.pdf

Shelf Number: 149878

Keywords:
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrant Detention
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy
Prison Conditions

Author: Isacson, Adam

Title: Lessons from San Diego's Border Wall: The limits to using walls for migration, drug trafficking challenges

Summary: The prototypes for President Trump's proposed border wall are currently sitting just outside San Diego, California, an area that serves as a perfect example of how limited walls, fences, and barriers can be when dealing with migration and drug trafficking challenges. As designated by Customs and Border Protection, the San Diego sector covers 60 miles of the westernmost U.S.-Mexico border, and 46 of them are already fenced off. Here, fence-building has revealed a new set of border challenges that a wall can't fix. The San Diego sector shows that: - Fences or walls can reduce migration in urban areas, but make no difference in rural areas. In densely populated border areas, border-crossers can quickly mix in to the population. But nearly all densely populated sections of the U.S.-Mexico border have long since been walled off. In rural areas, where crossers must travel miles of terrain, having to climb a wall first is not much of a deterrent. A wall would be a waste of scarce budget resources. - People who seek protected status aren't deterred by walls. Some asylum-seekers even climbed existing fence at the prototype site while construction was occurring. In San Diego, they include growing numbers of Central American children and families. Last year in the sector, arrivals included thousands of Haitians who journeyed from Brazil, many of whom now live in Tijuana. The presence or absence of a fence made no difference in their decision to seek out U.S. authorities to petition for protection. - Fences are irrelevant to drug flows. Of all nine border sectors, San Diego leads in seizures of heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine, and probably fentanyl. Authorities find the vast majority of these drugs at legal border crossings-not in the spaces between where walls would be built. Interdicting more drugs at the border would require generous investment in modern, well-staffed ports of entry-but instead, the Trump administration is asking Congress to pay for a wall. - The border doesn't need a wall. It needs better-equipped ports of entry, investigative capacity, technology, and far more ability to deal with humanitarian flows. In its current form, the 2018 Homeland Security Appropriations bill is pursuing a wrong and wasteful approach. The experience of San Diego makes that clear.

Details: Washington, DC: WOLA, 2017. 14p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 28, 2018 at: https://www.wola.org/analysis/wola-report-lessons-san-diegos-border-wall/

Year: 2017

Country: United States

URL: https://www.wola.org/analysis/wola-report-lessons-san-diegos-border-wall/

Shelf Number: 149951

Keywords:
Border Security
Drug Trafficking
Homeland Security
Illegal Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement

Author: Bier, David J.

Title: Extreme Vetting of Immigrants: Estimating Terrorism Vetting Failures

Summary: President Donald Trump has promised to implement "extreme vetting" of immigrants and foreign travelers, asserting that widespread vetting failures had allowed many terrorists to enter the United States. This policy analysis provides the first estimate of the number of terrorism vetting failures, both before and after the vetting enhancements implemented in response to the September 11, 2001, attacks. Vetting failures are rare and have become much rarer since 9/11. A terrorism vetting failure occurs when a foreigner is granted entry to the United States who had terrorist associations or sympathies and who later committed a terrorism offense including support for terrorist groups abroad. This analysis defines vetting failure broadly to include individuals who had privately held extremist views before entry. Moreover, unless evidence exists to the contrary, it assumes that anyone who entered the United States legally either as an adult or older teenager, and who was charged with a terrorism offense within a decade of entry, entered as a result of a vetting failure, even without any evidence that he or she was radicalized prior to entry. By this definition, only 13 people - 2 percent of the 531 individuals convicted of terrorism offenses or killed while committing an offense since 9/11 - entered due to a vetting failure in the post-9/11 security system. There were 52 vetting failures in the 15 years leading up to 9/11, four times as many as in the 15 years since the attacks. From 2002 to 2016, the vetting system failed and permitted the entry of 1 radicalized terrorist for every 29 million visa or status approvals. This rate was 84 percent lower than during the 15-year period leading up to the 9/11 attacks. Only 1 of the 13 post-9/11 vetting failures resulted in a deadly attack in the United States. Thus, the rate for deadly terrorists was 1 for every 379 million visa or status approvals from 2002 through 2016. During this same period, the chance of an American being killed in an attack committed by a terrorist who entered as a result of a vetting failure was 1 in 328 million per year. The risk from vetting failures was 99.5 percent lower during this period than during the 15-year period from 1987 to 2001. The evidence indicates that the U.S. vetting system is already "extreme" enough to handle the challenge of foreign terrorist infiltration.

Details: Washington, DC: CATO Institute, 2018. 64p.

Source: Internet Resource: Policy Analysis No. 838: Accessed May 17, 2018 at: https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa-838.pdf

Year: 2018

Country: United States

URL: https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa-838.pdf

Shelf Number: 150249

Keywords:
Homeland Security
Immigration Enforcement
Terrorism
Terrorists

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:
Gangs
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrant Deportation
Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Undocumented 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 Deportation
Immigrant Detention
Immigration Enforcement
Undocumented Immigrants
Undocumented Migrants

Author: Kanics, Jyothi, ed.

Title: Migrating Alone: Unaccompanied and Separated Children's Migration to Europe

Summary: The independent migration of children, while having several characteristics and many links in common with that of adults, has emerged as a specific phenomenon all over the world. The planned, forced or spontaneous decision to abandon the household and country of origin takes on a new dimension when the people involved in a long and often dangerous migration adventure are sometimes just in their early teens. Since the early 1990s, most European countries have been destination or transit points (sometimes both) for these young migrants. When confronted with the migration of unaccompanied and separated children, European national legal frameworks and government policies are known to be in continual conflict between the more or less repressive enforcement of their asylum and/or immigration rules and an ambiguous (but timid) interpretation of the international and national legal instruments created for the care of children 'in need', regardless of their origin or nationality. There is often a marked discrepancy between, on the one hand, the rights to which migrants in general, and child migrants in particular, are entitled according to international legal standards and, on the other, the effective protection they receive and the difficulties they experience in the countries where they live and work and through which they travel. This disparity between the principles agreed to by governments and the reality of individual lives underscores the vulnerability of migrants in terms of dignity and human rights. A major problem for children is that they are considered as migrants before they are considered as children - this automatically lowers their legal protection, as international standards regarding children are much more elaborated and more widely ratified than those regarding migrants. Migrants have rights under two sets of international instruments: first, the core human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the provisions of which apply universally and thus protect migrants; and second, the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (ICRMW) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) Conventions that apply specifically to migrants, and to migrant workers in particular. Furthermore, children have rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). But, as with migrants generally, there is no international or regional legislative framework dealing directly with child migrants. Nonetheless, in addition to the ICCPR and ICESCR, norms regarding children's welfare in general and the protection of children from economic exploitation and harmful work are directly or indirectly relevant to children, accompanied or unaccompanied, who are in a process of forced or voluntary movement. Similarly, the protective measures within the CRC, the ILO Conventions on child labour, the UN Protocols on trafficking, and regional instruments are also relevant. Within the European Union (EU) legal framework, the protection of child migrants is very limited and no regional legal framework that adequately addresses this issue is in place. Generally, the ability to migrate or travel legally without an adult is quite limited for children, especially internationally. This means that children migrating alone are more likely to do so irregularly, thus increasing the risk of exploitation or abuse. Research into independent child migration suggests that it is usually older children who are involved in this phenomenon; that child migration is usually highest in regions where adult migration is also high; that independent child migration can be, and often is, a positive decision taken by the child with the aim of improving life opportunities; and that child migrants, like adults, rely on their social and financial resource networks when migrating. The current dominant debate in most European countries is still restricted to the national level and sometimes even to national/regional or local levels. The double or even triple level of competences in most of the national territories implies a significant spread of diverging national practices that shape the treatment of migrant children. The competences regarding immigration and asylum issues (access to the territory, identification, asylum process, immigration status) are generally assumed at national level. However, aspects relating to the care of children (evaluation of the individual situation, reception and care, guardianship or fostering) are often within the competence of regional or local authorities and practices therefore vary widely. This dispersion and confusion, combined with a lack of adequate responses to the main objectives of migrant children, mean that a significant number remain outside the control of the relevant authorities and care institutions. As a result, these unprotected migrant children live in situations of increasing vulnerability and instability as victims of trafficking and exploitation networks or simply surviving on their own, sometimes by committing illicit or unlawful activities. Despite the completion of various research studies on this issue, this reality remains broadly unidentified. The central issues of understanding how this migration is constructed in the contexts of origin, and the different factors playing a role in the migration of these children, require a more extensive examination. To date, hardly any research has been carried out on the children's main countries and regions of origin, which might indicate the main 'push factors' and the motivation behind the increasing number of departures. The main migrant children's profiles, the social and economic situation of their families and the role played by the household and the communities in the migration decision, the choice of the migration route and the function of those encountered during the journey are all key points that remain largely unknown. A better knowledge of these factors will allow not only an understanding of the migration fluxes and phenomena on a more abstract or academic level, but will prove essential if effective protection and respect for these children are to be secured. The desire to find answers to all these questions and uncertainties lay behind the organization of an international conference, 'The Migration of Unaccompanied Minors in Europe: the Contexts of Origin, the Migration Routes and the Reception Systems'. This conference, organized by the research centre MIGRINTER, University of Poitiers-CNRS and the International Juvenile Justice Observatory (based in Belgium) with the support of UNESCO's Social and Human Sciences Sector, was held in Poitiers (France) in October 2007 with the aim of creating a forum for discussion between researchers and practitioners in this field. Experts from over twenty countries participated and exchanged information on three main issues: - a comparative approach to the different legislative frameworks, policies and practices in various European countries and an overview and analysis of the protection offered at European level on the basis of international obligations; - an overview of the situation of children who lack protection in the destination countries; and - an analysis of the situation and definition of childhood and the different profiles of migrant and potential migrant children in the main countries of origin. The present publication brings together the main conclusions of the Poitiers conference. From a selection of the most relevant contributions, it seeks to provide an extensive overview of the main questions and issues outlined above. The contributors come from a wide variety of disciplines, combining mainly legal, sociological and anthropological backgrounds. They generally provide an analytical approach to the different issues from both a descriptive and a critical perspective. The three original parts of the conference have been condensed into two main parts in the book: the first five chapters describe the situation and treatment of unaccompanied and separated migrant and asylum-seeking children in the destination societies; and the following chapters analyse the main contexts of origin of migrant children and the different factors playing a role in migration choices.

Details: Paris: UNESCO, 2010. 197p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 26, 2018 at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001907/190796e.pdf

Year: 2010

Country: Europe

URL: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001907/190796e.pdf

Shelf Number: 150926

Keywords:
Asylum Seekers
Child Labor
Child Migrants
Child Trafficking
Immigration Enforcement
Refugees
Unaccompanied Children
Unaccompanied Minors

Author: Penn State Law Center for Immigrants' Rights

Title: Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

Summary: Project South and the Penn State Law Center for Immigrants' Rights Clinic (on its behalf) have released a report titled "Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigration Detention Centers." The report is focused on the Stewart Detention Center and the Irwin County Detention Center and is based on interviews with scores of detained immigrants as well as immigration attorneys, tours of both facilities, and review of contracts and other relevant documents. The investigation was completed over the course of one year. Stewart and Irwin had previously been identified in national reports as among the worst in the country. "As the accounts in the report demonstrate, little has changed at Stewart and Irwin. Life at these facilities for detained immigrants is still a living nightmare," said Azadeh Shahshahani. "It is high time for Stewart and Irwin to be shut down." As detailed in the report, the conditions in these detention facilities are deplorable and include: threats of force-feeding for participation in hunger strikes, sexual abuse, lack of clean drinking water, lack of adequate access to legal materials or attorneys, and labor for just $1 per day. Additionally, detained immigrants report they are served rotten and spoiled food with occasional foreign particles inside. Further, detained immigrants at both facilities lack adequate medical care and mental health services are minimal. Some detained immigrants also complained of not receiving dietary accommodations for religious beliefs and practices or health concerns. The use of solitary is also rampant. Several detained immigrants reported being put in segregation for expressing suicidal thoughts or as retaliation for complaining about detention conditions. As described by one detained immigrant at Stewart who suffers from mental health issues: "Segregation is like hell. It is total isolation."

Details: Atlanta: Project South, 2017. 65p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 15, 2018 at: https://projectsouth.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Imprisoned_Justice_Report-1.pdf

Year: 2017

Country: United States

URL: https://projectsouth.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Imprisoned_Justice_Report-1.pdf

Shelf Number: 151137

Keywords:
Human Rights Abuses
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrant Detention
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy
Migrants
Solitary Confinement
Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Penn State Law Center for Immigrants' Rights

Title: To File or Not to File a Notice to Appear: Improving the Government's Use of Prosecutorial Discretion

Summary: Prosecutorial discretion in the immigration context involves Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officers deciding whether or not to enforce the immigration laws to their full extent against specific noncitizens who might otherwise be subject to immigration enforcement, detention, and/or deportation. Through numerous policy memoranda, DHS has urged its officers to exercise favorable prosecutorial discretion (i.e., refrain from taking enforcement action) in appropriate cases. DHS has additionally mandated that its officers exercise prosecutorial discretion favorably as much and as early in a case as possible for both humanitarian purposes and for achieving cost-effective and focused law enforcement. This report focuses on decisions to issue, cancel, or file a Notice to Appear (NTA), a form of prosecutorial discretion that has not yet been given the attention it deserves. An NTA is not a mere piece of paper but is the key that initiates removal proceedings against a noncitizen. The earliest stages of the removal process involve the most discretion-for example, decisions on whether to apprehend and detain noncitizens, issue NTAs, and to initiate removal proceedings. DHS's exercise of prosecutorial discretion in the process of issuing and filing NTAs plays an important role in meeting the agency's enforcement goals: by deciding early on not to issue or file an NTA to a noncitizen who should be deemed a low priority for immigration enforcement, DHS may choose not to initiate removal proceedings against someone who has many positive equities, such as being the parent of U.S. citizen children or having deep roots in the United States, and may allocate its limited resources to enforcing the law against noncitizens who merit a prioritized enforcement response, such as dangerous felons. This report argues that DHS should consistently consider prosecutorial discretion possibilities and should increase its use of favorable prosecutorial discretion in the issuance and filing of NTAs in appropriate cases. To study the rate and circumstances around which DHS exercises prosecutorial discretion during the NTA process, the authors circulated a survey requesting attorneys and advocates to share specific examples of cases involving the issuance and filing of NTAs and to identify related trends; filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and requests for specific information pertaining to NTAs with various DHS units; and interviewed attorneys, advocates, and scholars about their individual experiences with NTA issuance and/or efforts to obtain related data from the agency.

Details: University Park, PA: Penn State Law School, 2013. 89p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 16, 2018 at: https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdfs/NTAReportFinal.pdf

Year: 2013

Country: United States

URL: https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdfs/NTAReportFinal.pdf

Shelf Number: 151139

Keywords:
Homeland Security
Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Prosecutorial Discretion
Prosecutors

Author: Global Detention Project

Title: Immigration Detention in Finland: Limited Use of "Alternatives," Restrictive Detention Review, Divisive Political Debate

Summary: Finland does not detain as many migrants and asylum seekers as do neighbouring Sweden and other nearby European countries. However, the country's authorities rarely grant "alternatives to detention," instead deeming detention to be the most efficient and cost-effective method for removing non-citizens from the country. District court detention decisions tend to be very brief, and hearings often last less than ten minutes. Although conditions in the country's two specialised immigration detention centres are generally adequate, Finland continues to use police and border guard stations for immigration detention purposes.

Details: Geneva, Switzerland: Global Detention Project, 2018. 27p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 8, 2018 at: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/immigration-detention-in-finland-limited-use-of-alternatives-restrictive-detention-review-divisive-political-debate

Year: 2018

Country: Finland

URL: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/GDP-Immigration-Detention-in-Finland-2018.pdf

Shelf Number: 151433

Keywords:
Border Guards
Immigrant Detention
Immigrants
Immigration
Immigration Enforcement

Author: Global Detention Project

Title: Immigration Detention in Libya: "A Human Rights Crisis"

Summary: Libya is notoriously perilous for refugees, asylum seekers, and migrants, who often suffer a litany of abuses, including at the country's numerous detention facilities. Conditions at these facilities, many of which are under the control of militias, are deplorable. There are frequent shortages of water and food; over-crowding is endemic; detainees can experience physical mistreatment and torture; forced labour and slavery are rife; and there is a stark absence of oversight and regulation. Nevertheless, Italy and the European Union continue to strike controversial migration control deals with various actors in Libya aimed at reducing flows across the Mediterranean. These arrangements include equipping Libyan farces to "rescue" intercepted migrants and refugees at sea, investing in detention centres, and paying militias to control migration. KEY CONCERNS Refugees, asylum seekers, and migrants are regularly exposed to indefinite detention in centres run by the Interior Ministry's Department for Combating Illegal Immigration or local militias; Detention conditions across the country are a matter of "grave concern," according to the UN, as detainees are forced to live in severely overcrowded facilities with little food, water, or medical care, and suffer physical abuse, forced labour, slavery, and torture; The automatic placement of asylum seekers and migrants intercepted at sea in detention centres places them at risk of human rights abuses, which could be attenuated by expanding the use of shelters and other non-custodial measures that have been proposed by international experts; There do not appear to be any legal provisions regulating administrative forms of immigration detention and there is an urgent need for the country to develop a sound legal framework for its migration polices that is in line with international human rights standards; There is severely inadequate data collection by national authorities concerning the locations and numbers of people apprehended by both official agencies and non-state actors; Women and children are not recognised as requiring special attention and thus they remain particularly vulnerable to abuse and ill-treatment, including rape and human trafficking; Italy and the European Union continue to broker deals with various Libyan forces to control migration despite their involvement in severe human rights abuses and other criminal activities.

Details: Geneva, Switzerland: Global Detention Project, 2018. 54p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 8, 2018 at: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/countries/africa/libya

Year: 2018

Country: Libya

URL: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/immigration-detention-in-libya-a-human-rights-crisis

Shelf Number: 151434

Keywords:
Asylum Seekers
Human Rights Abuses
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrant Detention
Immigrants
Immigration
Immigration Detention
Immigration Enforcement
Refugees

Author: Villazor, Rose Cuison

Title: Sanctuary Networks

Summary: Resistance to the Trump administration's immigration enforcement policies in the form of sanctuary has increased and spread. In addition to the traditional types of sanctuary such as "sanctuary cities" and churches, the past year has witnessed the proliferation of novel sites of sanctuary - workplaces, school districts, universities, corporations, private homes, and social media - that collectively seek to protect vulnerable immigrants against immigration enforcement. To date, however, legal scholarship on sanctuary has focused almost exclusively on states and municipalities that limit participation with federal immigration authorities. Accordingly, doctrinal and theoretical discussion has centered on sanctuary's constitutional dimensions, solely focused on Tenth Amendment and federalism concerns. This narrow framing is myopic. It fails to capture the varied legal and policy issues that surround the innovative and evolving concept of sanctuary today. This Article is the first to comprehensively describe and theorize both conventional and emerging types of sanctuary. Adopting network governance theories developed by political theorists, this Article coins the term "sanctuary network" to argue that current public and private examples of sanctuary are best understood as part of a broader system of legal resistance characterized by a decentralized and distributed set of actors. By reframing sanctuary in this way, this Article makes three points. First, doctrinally, this framework forces a rethinking of the legal issues that animate these sanctuaries. Our recasting moves the sanctuary debate beyond federalism and draws attention to several underappreciated common law, statutory, and constitutional sources that support these variegated claims. Second, as a normative claim, this Article argues that when operating as a networked sanctuary, public and private actors are more effectively able to instantiate an alternative set of norms to challenge the federal government's enforcement scheme. Finally, as a prescriptive matter, this Article concludes that sanctuary networks are desirable because they democratize our national debate over immigration policy, allowing multiple institutions and individuals to calibrate immigration enforcement. Ultimately, this new way of understanding modern day sanctuary networks encourages novel methods of legal resistance.

Details: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3038943, 2018. 50p.

Source: Internet Resource: Santa Clara Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper, No. 2017-14: Accessed September 12, 2018 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3038943

Year: 2018

Country: United States

URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3038943

Shelf Number: 151502

Keywords:
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy
Sanctuary Cities
Sanctuary Policy
Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Hing, Bill Ong

Title: Entering the Trump Ice Age: Contextualizing the New Immigration Enforcement Regime

Summary: During the early stages of the Trump ICE age, we seem to be witnessing and experiencing an unparalleled era of immigration enforcement. But is it unparalleled? Didn't we label Barack Obama the "Deporter-in-Chief?" Wasn't it George Bush who used the authority of the Patriot Act to round up nonimmigrants from Muslim and Arab countries and didn't his ICE commonly engage in armed raids a factories and other worksites? Aren't there strong parallels that can be drawn between Trump enforcement plans and actions and those of other eras? What about the fear and hysteria that seems to really be happening in immigrant communities? Is the fear unparalleled? Why is there so much fear? Is the fear justified? Why do things seem different, in spite of rigorous immigration enforcement that has occurred even in recent years? This article begins with a comparison of what the Trump administration has done in terms of immigration enforcement with the enforcement efforts of other administrations. For example, I compare (1) the attempted Muslim travel bans with post-9/11 efforts by George W. Bush and Iranian student roundups by Jimmy Carter, (2) the Border Wall proposal with the Fence Act of 2006 and Operation Gatekeeper in 1994, (3) restarting Secure Communities (fingerprint sharing program) with Obama's enforcement program of the same name, (4) expanding INA S 287(g) agreements with Bush efforts under the same statute, (5) the threat of raids by an ICE deportation army with Bush gun-toting raids, (6) extreme vetting of immigrants and refugees with what already existed under Bush and Obama, (7) threatening to cut off federal funds to sanctuary cities with the prosecution of sanctuary workers in the 1980s, (8) prioritizing "criminal" immigrants with Obama's similar prioritization, and (9) expedited removal in the interior with Bush and Obama expedited removals along the border. Then I turn to the fear and hysteria in immigrant communities that has spread throughout the country. I ask why that fear has occurred and whether the fear has a reasonable basis. I close with a personal reflection on the parallels I have seen and experienced since I began practicing immigration law as a legal services attorney in 1975 and contemplate why enforcement and the resulting fear are different today.

Details: California, 2017. 69p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 14, 2018 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3032662

Year: 2017

Country: United States

URL: file:///C:/Users/AuthUser/Downloads/SSRN-id3032662.pdf

Shelf Number: 151533

Keywords:
Customs Enforcement
Immigrants and Crime
Immigration
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy
Sanctuary Cities

Author: Smith, Hillel R.

Title: Expedited Removal of Aliens: Legal Framework

Summary: The federal government has broad authority over the admission of non-U.S. nationals (aliens) seeking to enter the United States. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government may exclude such aliens without affording them the due process protections that traditionally apply to persons physically present in the United States. Instead, aliens seeking entry are entitled only to those procedural protections that Congress has expressly authorized. Consistent with this broad authority, Congress established an expedited removal process for certain aliens who have arrived in the United States without permission. In general, aliens whom immigration authorities seek to remove from the United States may challenge that determination in administrative proceedings with attendant statutory rights to counsel, evidentiary requirements, and appeal. Under the streamlined expedited removal process created by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and codified in Section 235(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), however, certain aliens deemed inadmissible by an immigration officer may be removed from the United States without further administrative hearings or review. INA Section 235(b)(1) applies only to certain aliens who are inadmissible into the United States because they either lack valid entry documents or have attempted to procure their admission through fraud or misrepresentation. The statute generally permits the government to summarily remove those aliens if they are arriving in the United States. The statute also authorizes, but does not require, the government to apply this procedure to aliens who are inadmissible on the same grounds if they have been physically present in the country for less than two years. As a matter of practice, however, immigration authorities have applied expedited removal in more limited fashion than potentially authorized by statute-in general, the process is applied strictly to (1) arriving aliens apprehended at a designated port of entry; (2) aliens who arrived in the United States by sea without being admitted or paroled into the country by immigration authorities, and who have been physically present in the United States for less than two years; or (3) aliens who are found in the United States within 100 miles of the border within 14 days of entering the country, who have not been admitted or paroled into the United States by immigration authorities. Nevertheless, expedited removal accounts for a substantial portion of the alien removals each year. And in January 2017, President Trump issued an executive order directing the Department of Homeland Security to expand expedited removal within the broader framework of INA Section 235(b)(1). The agency has yet to promulgate regulations implementing this directive. In some circumstances, however, an alien subject to expedited removal may be entitled to certain procedural protections before he may be removed from the United States. For example, an alien who expresses a fear of persecution may obtain administrative review of his claim, and if his fear is determined credible the alien will be placed in formal removal proceedings where he can pursue asylum and related protections. Additionally, an alien may seek administrative review of a claim that he is a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident, admitted refugee, or asylee. Unaccompanied alien children also are statutorily exempted from expedited removal. Given the streamlined nature of expedited removal and the broad discretion afforded to immigration officers to implement that process, challenges have been raised contesting the procedure�s constitutionality. In particular, some have argued that the procedure violates aliens' due process rights because aliens placed in expedited removal do not have the opportunity to seek counsel or contest their removal before a judge or other arbiter. Reviewing courts have largely dismissed such challenges for lack of jurisdiction, or, in the alternative, rejected the claims on the grounds that aliens seeking entry into the United States generally do not have constitutional due process protections. But such cases have concerned aliens arriving at the U.S. border or designated ports of entry, and such aliens may be entitled to lesser constitutional protections than aliens located within the United States. Expanding the expedited removal process to aliens located within the interior could compel courts to tackle questions involving the relationship between the federal government's broad power over the entry and removal of aliens and the due process rights of aliens located within the United States.

Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2018. 53p.

Source: Internet Resource: R45314: Accessed September 25, 2018 at: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R45314.pdf

Year: 2018

Country: United States

URL: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R45314.pdf

Shelf Number: 151661

Keywords:
Deportation
Illegal Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy
Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Fekete, Liz

Title: Humanitarianism: the unacceptable face of solidarity

Summary: In 2015, the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants warned that war, violence and persecution were leading to �'n age of unprecedented mass displacement' and it was time for the world to prepare. Though the publication of a photograph of the body of 3-year-old Alan Kurdi, washed ashore and lying lifeless on a beach near Bodrum, was to momentarily shock the global media out of its complacency, many ordinary Europeans were already alert to the UN's message, and had been busy mobilising the largest humanitarian voluntary effort since the second world war. For such humanitarians, the belief that all humankind should be treated humanely and equally is not some abstraction - assisting those in great need and responding to emergencies are what you simply get on with. That humanity is under an obligation to intervene in the face of suffering, is a principle embodied in religious teaching, as well as humanist and secular thought. From time immemorial, fishermen and mariners have come to the aid of those at peril on the seas. Medical ethics, too, from the Hippocratic Oath onwards, have been influenced by principles that later would be defined as humanitarian. In the wake of the first and second world wars, humanitarian principles were codified in the Geneva Conventions on the laws of war and on refugees, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The code of conduct of organisations like the International Red Cross, founded in 1863, and later the Red Crescent, to provide assistance to victims of armed conflict and strife, as well as those of other more modern disaster relief committees, also flowed from well-established humanitarian principles. Such codes of conduct stress that humanitarian assistance must be impartial, not based on nationality, race, religion or political point of view, but solely on need. But whether today's Europe respects and upholds that humanitarian tradition on land and sea is now in question. Humanitarianism: the unacceptable face of solidarity is the product of a six-month research project into the hostile political and legal environment facing humanitarian actors who seek to protect life at Europe's sea and land borders. Drawing on the work of advocacy organisations across Europe, it provides a sample of twenty-six case studies involving prosecutions of 45 individual humanitarian actors under anti-smuggling or immigration laws since September 2015.

Details: London: Institute of Race Relations, 2017. 68p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 5, 2018 at: http://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/wpmedia.outlandish.com/irr/2017/11/10092853/Humanitarianism_the_unacceptable_face_of_solidarity.pdf

Year: 2017

Country: Europe

URL: http://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/wpmedia.outlandish.com/irr/2017/11/10092853/Humanitarianism_the_unacceptable_face_of_solidarity.pdf

Shelf Number: 152844

Keywords:
Asylum Seekers
Human Rights
Humanitarian Aid
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy
Migrants

Author: Rivera, Laura

Title: No End in Sight: Why Migrants Give Up on Their U.S. Immigration Cases

Summary: When the Trump administration began separating children from their families at the U.S.-Mexico border, it exposed the horrific conditions within the nation's immigrant detention centers: people locked in cages, sleeping on floors and denied their basic humanity. But harsh detention conditions are nothing new. Every day, thousands of people are locked away in these detention centers - essentially prisons - as they pursue their immigration cases and the hope of a new life in the United States. Many have fled violence and bodily harm in their home countries. But all too often, detained immigrants, particularly in the Deep South, give up on their cases because their conditions of confinement are too crushing to bear. As this report demonstrates, these prisons and immigration courts are part of a system seemingly designed to make immigrants give up. They face courts - many without counse - where relief is not only a long shot but may be a virtual impossibility as some judges deny asylum at rates nearing 100 percent. And, in the meantime, they may be held on civil immigration charges for months, even years, before their cases are resolved. It's a situation that leaves them feeling as if there's no end in sight to their oppression. "In jail, you get your sentence and you know when you are free, but detention is endless," said one man who was detained for more than 800 days. Belief in the immigration courts also fades for the detained as their cases - and their confinement - drag on. "I have no trust that there will be justice in my case," one detained immigrant said. The goal of the system seemed clear through his eyes: "[The judges'] work is to deny everything. This journey [to the United States] was about saving my life. Three or six months in detention, I can take, but one-and-a-half years in detention is too unjust." At the Stewart Detention Center in Georgia, where many of the people sharing their stories for this report were held, 93.8 percent of detained immigrants were deported or gave up on their cases and left the country. At the LaSalle ICE Processing Center in Louisiana, the rate was 93.5 percent. Both rates far exceed the national average of 67.5 percent - evidence of how immigrants detained in the Deep South face especially long odds in a system already stacked against them. The stories and findings presented in this report reflect more than a year of work by the Southern Poverty Law Center's Southeast Immigrant Freedom Initiative (SIFI), a project launched in 2017 to ensure detained immigrants have access to pro bono counsel. Though President Trump has greatly exacerbated the situation, the issues encountered by immigrants and the advocates who try to assist them are not solely the result of one president who has relentlessly demonized immigrants. They are the result of a detention and deportation machine built by decades of increasingly harsh immigration policy. This punitive approach to immigration policy effectively mirrors the failed "War on Drugs" that propelled the United States to become the world's leader in incarceration.

Details: Montgomery, AL: Southern Poverty Law Center, 2018. 48p.

Source: Internet Resource: accessed October 12, 2018 at: https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/leg_ijp_no_end_in_sight_2018_final_web.pdf

Year: 2018

Country: United States

URL: https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/leg_ijp_no_end_in_sight_2018_final_web.pdf

Shelf Number: 152905

Keywords:
Immigrant Detention
Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy
Migrants
Undocumented Migrants

Author: Global Detention Project

Title: Harm Reduction in Immigration Detention: A Comparative Study of Detention Centres in France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland

Summary: It seems to be an inexorable quality of immigration detention that it causes the individual to experience pain or injury. From a human rights perspective, is it possible to talk about "best practices"? This Global Detention Project Special Report systematically compares conditions and operations at detention centres in five European countries-Norway, France, Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland-to identify practices that may be used to develop "harm reducing" strategies in detention. Commissioned by the Norwegian Red Cross as part of its efforts to promote reforms of Norway's detention practices, the report addresses several key questions: In what ways has the Norwegian system met or exceeded internationally recognised standards? In what ways has it fallen short, especially when compared to detention practices of peer countries? And what are the key reform priorities going forward that may help reduce the harmful impact of detention? In Norway's Trandum Detention Centre, multiple reports have highlighted an overzealously punitive and restrictive detention regime where detainees consider themselves to be "treated as criminals" even though they are not serving criminal prison sentences. Despite repeated recommendations from relevant experts, including the country's Parliamentary Ombudsman, many important reforms have not been implemented. To complete the study, GDP researchers sought to assess Trandum in a comparative context that would highlight conditions and procedures in other European countries. The analysis of centres in Norway, France, Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland reveals that Trandum has embraced a carceral model for immigration detention to a much greater extent than centres elsewhere in Europe, falling short of standards provided in international law and promoted by national and regional human rights bodies. The report highlights several key areas for promoting reforms, both at Trandum and in other facilities across Europe, including: placing immigration detainees in the custody of social welfare institutions rather than public security agencies; reforming operating rules on everything from food preparation to electronic communications; and shedding detention centres of carceral elements, including the aspect of guards and staff members and the internal layout and regime of detention centres. Many of these suggestions have been highlighted by the Norwegian Red Cross in a statement urging the country's authorities to reform its immigration detention system.

Details: Geneva, SWIT: GDP, 2018. 86p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 2, 2018 at: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/harm-reduction-immigration-detention

Year: 2018

Country: Europe

URL:

Shelf Number: 153146

Keywords:
Human Rights Abuses
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrant Detention
Immigration Enforcement

Author: Kandel, William A.

Title: The Trump Administration's "Zero Tolerance" Immigration Enforcement Policy

Summary: For the last several years, Central American migrant families have arrived at the U.S.-Mexico border in relatively large numbers, many seeking asylum. While some request asylum at U.S. ports of entry, others do so after entering the United States "without inspection" (i.e., illegally) between U.S. ports of entry. On May 7, 2018, the Department of Justice (DOJ) implemented a zero tolerance policy toward illegal border crossing both to discourage illegal migration into the United States and to reduce the burden of processing asylum claims that Administration officials contend are often fraudulent. Under the zero tolerance policy, DOJ prosecutes all adult aliens apprehended crossing the border illegally, with no exception for asylum seekers or those with minor children. DOJ's policy represents a change in the level of enforcement for an existing statute rather than a change in statute or regulation. Prior Administrations prosecuted illegal border crossings relatively infrequently. Criminally prosecuting adults for illegal border crossing requires detaining them in federal criminal facilities where children are not permitted. While DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have broad statutory authority to detain adult aliens, children must be detained according to guidelines established in the Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA), the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. A 2015 judicial ruling held that children remain in family immigration detention for no more than 20 days. If parents cannot be released with them, children are treated as unaccompanied alien children and transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS's) Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) for care and custody. The widely publicized family separations are a consequence of the Trump Administration's 100 percent prosecution policy, not the result of any family separation policy. Since that policy was implemented, up to 3,000 children may have been separated from their parents. Following mostly critical public reaction, President Trump ordered DHS to maintain custody of alien families during the pendency of any criminal trial or immigration proceedings. DHS Customs and Border Protection (CBP) subsequently stopped referring most illegal border crossers to DOJ for criminal prosecution. A federal judge then mandated that all separated children be promptly reunited with their families. Another rejected DOJ's request to modify the FSA to extend the 20-day child detention guideline. DHS has since reverted to some prior immigration enforcement policies. Family unit apprehensions, which increased from just over 11,000 in FY2012 to 68,560 in the first nine months of FY2018, are occurring within relatively low historical levels of total alien apprehensions. The national origin of recently apprehended aliens and families has shifted from mostly Mexican to mostly Central American. Administration officials and immigration enforcement advocates argue that measures like the zero tolerance policy are necessary to discourage migrants from coming to the United States and submitting fraudulent asylum requests. They maintain that alien family separation resulting from the prosecution of illegal border crossers mirrors that occurring under the U.S. criminal justice system policy where adults with custody of minor children are charged with a crime and held in jail, effectively separating them from their children. Immigrant advocates contend that migrant families are fleeing legitimate threats from countries with exceptionally high rates of gang violence, and that family separations resulting from the zero tolerance policy are cruel and violate fundamental human rights - such as the ability to request asylum. They maintain that the zero tolerance policy was hastily implemented and lacked planning for family reunification following criminal prosecutions. Some observers question the Trump Administration's capacity to marshal sufficient resources to prosecute all illegal border crossers without additional resources. Others criticize the family separation policy in light of less expensive alternatives to detention.

Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2018, 24p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 11, 2019: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R45266.pdf

Year: 2018

Country: United States

URL: https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=814001

Shelf Number: 154108

Keywords:
Asylum Seekers
Border Security
Customs and Border Protection
Family Separation
Homeland Security Act of 2002
Illegal Immigrants
Immigration
Immigration Enforcement
Migrants
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act

Author: Global Detention Project

Title: Immigration Detention in France: Longer, More Widespread, and Harder to Contest

Summary: France has one of Europe's oldest - and largest - administrative immigration detention regimes. Since 1981, the year it adopted its first law explicitly providing for immigration detention, the country has passed some 30 immigration laws. In 2017, the country placed 46,857 people in immigration detention, 42 percent of whom were held in overseas territories (by way of comparison, in the United Kingdom, during the year ending in March 2018, approximately 29,000 people "entered detention"). Detainees in France spent on average 12.8 days in detention, far below the 45 days legal limit in place at that time. France operates 24 long-term immigration detention centres, euphemistically labelled centres de retention administrative ("administrative retention centres"), which have a total capacity of 1,543 beds. The country also operates 26 short-term administrative detention facilities called locaux de retention administrative. In 2018, the Interior Ministry announced plans to boost bed space in CRAs by 450 during 2019. Although European Union (EU) law allows member states to detain migrants for up to 18 months for deportation purposes, France retained - until recently - one of the lowest limits among EU member states (along with Iceland [42 days] and Spain [60 days]). In 2018, however, the situation changed significantly - prompted by Europe's "migration crisis" - with the adoption of controversial new legislation which, inter alia, doubles the detention limit to 90 days and reduces the time frame to apply for asylum from 120 days to 90 days. Many civil society organisations and national human rights institutions challenged the new law, with some critics calling it the Code de la honte ("code of shame"). The French ombudsman said, "Contrary to the discourse that everything should be done in favour of asylum seekers, they are in fact badly treated by this project." According to the ombudsman, the accelerated asylum procedures will "impose impossible deadlines on asylum seekers - which risks causing asylum seekers to lose their rights to appeal." Another recently adopted law, the March 2018 asylum bill, also came under sharp criticism because of fears that it may lead to widespread detention of asylum seekers who are awaiting transfer to another EU country under the Dublin III procedure. The law, which allows for the detention of people who have not yet been served an expulsion order, represents a major departure from previous French asylum protection policies. French NGOs are present on a daily basis inside the centres de retention administrative (CRAs) to provide legal and other forms of advice to detainees. Each year, they publish joint authoritative analyses of laws, policies, and practices, as well as detailed information on every detention facility. While having a permanent civil society presence in immigration detention centres is not wholly unique to France (in Lebanon, for instance, Caritas has had an office in the country�s main immigration detention centre), the French system seems to stand apart from others in the breadth of involvement of NGOs inside its 24 long-term facilities. As a result, there is a tremendous amount of readily available information about operations at detention centres, which is exceedingly rare. In the French overseas territory of Mayotte (part of the Comoros archipelago in the Indian Ocean), the French Constitution and successive immigration laws authorise important derogations to the application of immigration law. Local authorities expelled some 60 people a day from Mayotte during 2016 (with most denied access to a lawyer or judge before their expulsion)11 in defiance of the French ombudsman's recommendations as well as the European Court of Human rights' jurisprudence on the right to access an effective remedy. Although it has a population of less than 250,000, Mayotte manages to deport nearly 20,000 people each year: 17,934 in 2017 and 19,488 in 2016. In many countries the language of immigration detention can appear to be opaque or misleading. In the case of France, it crafted the terminology retention administrative ("administrative retention") as early as 1981, when it adopted its first immigration detention provisions. While some countries, including Argentina, have adopted this language, French-speaking countries like Belgium, Canada, and Switzerland continue to employ the word detention. A joint ministerial audit in 2005 found that this language created a "paradoxical" situation because "the alien placed in retention remains a free person, against whom no charge has been laid; he is only momentarily 'retained,' for the time required for organising his return. The whole paradox of retention lies in this principle. Before the judge of liberty and detention (JLD) the procedure is civil even if it borrows aspects of criminal law, in particular because the JLD can challenge the conditions of the arrest and the regularity of the custody." While many leading French advocates and academics have argued that detention centres should be called "camps" and denounced the use of euphemistic language when referring to places of deprivation of liberty, French civil society for the most part seems not to have specifically challenged the use of the word retention. However, the impact of this "paradoxical" phrasing is often clear in public and official discourse. For instance, during the debate over the 2018 legislation, the Minister of Justice misleadingly characterised the detention of families as allowing "children to be in an administrative centre with their parents." Civil society protest against immigration detention is common. Non-violent silence protests (cercles de silences) have been regularly held in many French cities since 2011. Many NGOs have argued that detention is a disproportionate response to irregular migration and that it largely fails in its stated purpose of enabling removal since less than half of the country's detainees are expelled following detention (40 percent of immigration detainees in mainland France were expelled in 2017, 42 percent of whom were expelled to another EU country). In contrast, officials bemoan that the high proportion of expulsion orders cancelled by judges creates obstacles, even though these judgments are based on respect for the rule of law.

Details: Geneva, Switzerland: Global Detention Project, 2018.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 17, 2019 at: https://reliefweb.int/report/france/immigration-detention-france-longer-more-widespread-and-harder-contest

Year: 2018

Country: France

URL: https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Immigration-Detention-in-France-October-2018.pdf

Shelf Number: 154243

Keywords:

Asylum Seekers
Deportation
Human Rights Abuses
Immigration
Immigration Detention
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy
Migration
Refugees

Author: Lund, Nelson

Title: The Constitutionality of Immigration Sanctuaries and Anti-Sanctuaries: Originalism, Current Doctrine, and a Second-Best Alternative

Summary: The Supreme Court's immigration jurisprudence is fundamentally misguided, in the sense that it has little basis in the original meaning of the Constitution. In this essay, I will explain why I think so, and what the Court might do to ameliorate the effects of its past mistakes without overruling a raft of settled precedents. Part I analyzes the text of the Constitution, which offers a reasonably clear allocation of authority over immigration between the state and federal governments. The Foreign Commerce Clause empowers Congress to limit the entry of aliens onto American soil, and the Naturalization Clause authorizes Congress to set uniform criteria for admission to American citizenship. Nothing on the face of the Constitution permits Congress to displace the states' residual authority over aliens, which includes the power to exclude or expel unsuitable persons from their own territory. Part II reviews early debates in Congress about the scope and nature of federal power over immigration. There were important disagreements, some of which resemble today's policy debates, but Congress generally refrained from going much beyond what the text of the Constitution pretty clearly authorizes. Part III traces the evolution of Supreme Court doctrine. The Court began by rooting federal immigration authority primarily in the Foreign Commerce Clause, where it belongs, but then misinterpreted that Clause. In the late nineteenth century, the Justices made a dramatic and largely unexplained shift to a non-textual theory under which broad federal authority over immigration and aliens is treated as an inherent aspect of American sovereignty. Part IV shows that this doctrinal shift may not have had much practical significance. In non-immigration contexts, the Court eventually interpreted the Commerce Clause itself in a way that gave Congress practically the same far-reaching authority that the inherent power theory bestows in the immigration field. Thus, even if the Court had stuck with the Foreign Commerce Clause as the primary source of federal authority over immigration, the result would likely have been much the same as what the Court has mistakenly put in its place. Part V assumes that the Court is very unlikely to reconsider the well-established inherent power theory. In recent decades, however, the Justices have been experimenting with doctrinal devices designed to put some limits on the almost unlimited Commerce Clause authority that previous cases had mistakenly conferred on Congress. The paper concludes with two examples showing how these limiting doctrines can and should be used to resolve recent controversies in which some states have desired to pursue policy objectives to which federal officials object.

Details: Fairfax, VA: Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University, 2019. 33p.

Source: Internet Resource: George Mason Legal Studies Research Paper No. LS 18-37: Accessed February 14, 2019 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3302818

Year: 2018

Country: United States

URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3302818

Shelf Number: 154606

Keywords:
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy

Author: Congressional Research Service

Title: Immigration: U.S. Asylum Policy

Summary: Asylum is a complex area of immigration law and policy. While much of the recent debate surrounding asylum has focused on efforts by the Trump Administration to address asylum seekers arriving at the U.S. southern border, U.S. asylum policies have long been a subject of discussion. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952, as originally enacted, did not contain any language on asylum. Asylum provisions were added and then revised by a series of subsequent laws. Currently, the INA provides for the granting of asylum to an alien who applies for such relief in accordance with applicable requirements and is determined to be a refugee. The INA defines a refugee, in general, as a person who is outside his or her country of nationality and is unable or unwilling to return to that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Under current law and regulations, aliens who are in the United States or who arrive in the United States, regardless of immigration status, may apply for asylum (with exceptions). An asylum application is affirmative if an alien who is physically present in the United States (and is not in removal proceedings) submits an application to the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS's) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). An asylum application is defensive when the applicant is in standard removal proceedings with the Department of Justice's (DOJ's) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) and requests asylum as a defense against removal. An asylum applicant may receive employment authorization 180 days after the application filing date. Special asylum provisions apply to aliens who are subject to a streamlined removal process known as expedited removal. To be considered for asylum, these aliens must first be determined by a USCIS asylum officer to have a credible fear of persecution. Under the INA, credible fear of persecution means that "there is a significant possibility, taking into account the credibility of the statements made by the alien in support of the alien's claim and such other facts as are known to the officer, that the alien could establish eligibility for asylum." Individuals determined to have a credible fear may apply for asylum during standard removal proceedings. Asylum may be granted by USCIS or EOIR. There are no numerical limitations on asylum grants. If an alien is granted asylum, his or her spouse and children may also be granted asylum, as dependents. A grant of asylum does not expire, but it may be terminated under certain circumstances. After one year of physical presence in the United States as asylees, an alien and his or her spouse and children may be granted lawful permanent resident status, subject to certain requirements. The Trump Administration has taken a variety of steps that would limit eligibility for asylum. As of the date of this report, legal challenges to these actions are ongoing. For its part, the 115th Congress considered asylum-related legislation, which generally would have tightened the asylum system. Several bills contained provisions that, among other things, would have amended INA provisions on termination of asylum, credible fear of persecution, frivolous asylum applications, and the definition of a refugee. Key policy considerations about asylum include the asylum application backlog, the grounds for granting asylum, the credible fear of persecution threshold, frivolous asylum applications, employment authorization, variation in immigration judges' asylum decisions, and safe third country agreements

Details: Washington, DC: CRS, 2019. 46p.

Source: Internet Resource: R45539: Accessed February 28, 2019 at: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R45539.pdf

Year: 2019

Country: United States

URL: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R45539.pdf

Shelf Number: 154787

Keywords:
Asylum Seekers
Immigrants
Immigration
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy

Author: Bradley, Gracie Mae

Title: Care Don't Share: Hostile Environment Data-Sharing: Why We Need A Firewall Between Essential Public Services and Immigration Enforcement

Summary: The Government's use of data in the context of its "hostile environment" for migrants tells us a cautionary tale. The hostile environment is a sprawling web of immigration controls operating far from ports and border controls and in the heart of our public services and communities. Its effects reverberate well beyond the Government's stated target group to affect migrants with regular status, and black and minority ethnic (BAME) communities. Requirements on public servants and private citizens to check people's entitlements to goods and services, as well as the racially discriminatory impacts routinely felt by people who are subjected to the checks, damages the very fabric of the society we live in. Public servants and landlords, employers and bank clerks have come to view people they should support with suspicion, and especially BAME people of all immigration statuses, as measures such as skin colour and 'foreign-sounding names' become a crude proxy for immigration status. In turn, trust in essential public services is undermined, undocumented people are made destitute and vulnerable to exploitation, and each of us is conditioned to show ID and have our interactions with the State logged in the course of mundane interactions. In the context of a hostile environment, many aspects of the lives of undocumented migrants, such as working or driving, or simply being present in the UK without the requisite permission, are criminalised, primarily by sections 24 and 24A of the Immigration Act 1971, as amended by more recent measures such as the Immigration Act 2016. These offences include knowingly entering the UK without leave; overstaying leave; failure to observe reporting conditions; obtaining leave to enter or remain by deception, and avoiding immigration enforcement by deception. The Government relies heavily on the existence of these criminal offences coupled with the crime exemption set out at Schedule 2, paragraph 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (formerly Section 29 of the Data Protection Act 1998) in conjunction with a mix of statutory and common law powers to share data, to operate a series of bulk data-sharing agreements. These agreements see confidential personal information collected by essential public services shared with Home Office immigration enforcement teams, all too often without a person having the right to know about this sharing, or to consent or object to it.

Details: London: Liberty, 2018. 88p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed march 6, 2019 at: https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/sites/default/files/Liberty%20%27Care%20Don%27t%20Share%27%20Report%20280119%20RGB.pdf

Year: 2018

Country: United Kingdom

URL: https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/sites/default/files/Liberty%20%27Care%20Don%27t%20Share%27%20Report%20280119%20RGB.pdf

Shelf Number: 154830

Keywords:
Immigrant Enforcement
Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy
Migrants
Undocumented Migrants

Author: Peck, Sarah Herman

Title: The "Flores Settlement" and Alien Families Apprehended at the U.S. Border: Frequently Asked Questions

Summary: Reports of alien minors being separated from their parents at the U.S. border have raised questions about the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS's) authority to detain alien families together pending the aliens' removal proceedings, which may include consideration of claims for asylum and other forms of relief from removal. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) authorizes-and in some case requires-DHS to detain aliens pending removal proceedings. However, neither the INA nor other federal laws specifically address when or whether alien family members must be detained together. DHS's options regarding the detention or release of alien families are significantly restricted by a binding settlement agreement from a case in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California now called Flores v. Sessions. The "Flores Settlement" establishes a policy favoring the release of alien minors, including accompanied alien minors, and requires that those alien minors who are not released from government custody be transferred within a brief period to non-secure, state-licensed facilities. DHS indicates that few such facilities exist that can house adults and children together. Accordingly, under the Flores Settlement and current circumstances, DHS asserts that it generally cannot detain alien children and their parents together for more than brief periods. Following an executive order President Trump issued that addressed alien family separation, the Department of Justice filed a motion to modify the Flores Settlement to allow for the detention of alien families in unlicensed facilities for longer periods. The district court overseeing the settlement rejected that motion, much as it has rejected similar motions to modify the settlement filed by the government in recent years. (The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed the earlier rulings but has not yet reviewed the most recent ruling.) In its most recent motion, the government has argued, among other things, that a preliminary injunction entered in a separate litigation, Ms. L v. ICE, which generally requires the government to reunite separated alien families and refrain from separating families going forward, supports a modification of the Flores Settlement to allow indefinite detention of alien minors alongside their parents. On a separate track, DHS and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have announced that they intend to seek termination of the Flores Settlement through the promulgation of new regulations that, according to the agencies, would adopt the substantive terms of the agreement with certain modifications. Significantly, the proposed regulations would allow DHS to detain families together until immigration proceedings were completed by creating an alternative federal licensing scheme for family residential centers. That federal scheme would impose facility standards that purport to mimic the standards set forth in the Flores Settlement, which calls for the exclusive use of state-licensed facilities for the detention of minors. A legal dispute seems likely to arise over whether the proposed regulations adequately implement the Flores Settlement, including whether the regulations are consistent with the agreement's general policy favoring the release of minors from immigration custody. Congress, for its part, could largely override the Flores Settlement legislatively, although constitutional considerations relating to the rights of aliens in immigration custody may inform the permissible scope and effect of such legislation.

Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2018. 20p.

Source: Internet Resource: R45297: Accessed March 7, 2019 at: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R45297.pdf

Year: 2018

Country: United States

URL: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R45297.pdf

Shelf Number: 154839

Keywords:
Detained Children
Flores Settlement
Immigrant Detention
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy
Migrant Children
Unaccompanied Migrant Children

Author: Fekete, Liz

Title: When witnesses won't be silenced: citizens' solidarity and criminalisation

Summary: Chronicling 17 cases involving 99 people in 2018 and the first months of 2019, this second report [1] on the criminalisation of humanitarian actors, shows the expansion and escalation of states' prosecutions during the 'migrant crisis'. For example, 2018 saw charges include: Membership of a criminal network or gang as well as, in the Stansted 15 case, terrorism-related offences In some cases, individuals and organisations have had phones tapped and bank accounts frozen In the case of search and rescue NGOs investigation and/or prosecution has been accompanied by 'smear campaigns' which seem to be spearheaded by the Italian government to delegitimize, slander and obstruct aid associations

Details: London: Institute of Race Relations. 2019. 30p.

Source: Internet Resource: Briefing Paper No. 13: Accessed April 26, 2019 at: http://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/wpmedia.outlandish.com/irr/2019/04/24131900/When-witnesses-wont-be-silenced-FINAL.pdf

Year: 2019

Country: Europe

URL: http://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/wpmedia.outlandish.com/irr/2019/04/24131900/When-witnesses-wont-be-silenced-FINAL.pdf

Shelf Number: 155555

Keywords:
Asylum Seekers
Human Rights
Humanitarian Aid
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy
Migrants

Author: Global Detention Project

Title: Global Detention Project Annual Report 2018

Summary: As representatives from countries around the world prepared to meet in Marrakesh to adopt the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration in December 2018, a first-of-its-kind global agreement for humanely managing migration, negotiations became overshadowed by the news that a handful of states-including, notably, the United States, Australia, and a host of European countries-would refuse to sign it. The naysayers worried that the agreement would threaten their sovereignty and that its mention of the human rights of migrants would limit their ability to ramp up border security. "No to Marrakesh! - The UN's Sinister Blueprint for Globalist Migration Hell," clamoured the headline of one widely circulated oped in the United States. Although the compact was approved by the vast majority of states, the widespread fear-mongering spurred by the non-binding agreement reveals the hostility that migrants, asylum seekers, and refugees continue to face across the globe, even as many "crises" have faded. States continue to rely heavily on detention and deportation in their response to irregular migration, including using detention as a deterrent, despite a lack of evidence showing its effectiveness. From the de facto detention centres in Hungary's transit zones and Malaysia's grim migration "depots" where hundreds have died of preventable diseases in recent years, to Libya's nightmarish EU-financed migrant prisons and Mexico's burgeoning network of estaciones migratorias, countless thousands are locked behind bars and placed in extreme vulnerability every day across our planet solely because of their immigration status. Consider this: As of 21 December 2018, Saudi Arabia had arrested 1,996,069 people during the year as part of its "Homeland Without Illegals Campaign." Who knows about this? All too often, authorities fail to disclose information and statistics concerning their detention operations, and facilities are operated under deceptive forms and guises-they can be called "residential centres," "guesthouses," "hotspots," "shelters." This lack of transparency shields states from scrutiny and reforms. The need for detailed, systematic information about who is being deprived of their liberty, where they are locked up, and the conditions they face in detention are greater than ever. And the Global Detention Project's work holding governments to account and promoting effective, meaningful reforms remains pivotal. It was the recognition of these needs more than a decade ago that spurred the founding of the Global Detention Project at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva. Motivated by the goal of measuring the worldwide spread of immigration detention, GDP researchers developed a first-of-its-kind methodology for documenting where people are deprived of their liberty for migration-related reasons.

Details: Geneva, SWIT: Author, 2019. 40p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 26, 2019 at: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/GDP-AR-2018-Online-V2_compressed.pdf

Year: 2019

Country: International

URL: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/GDP-AR-2018-Online-V2_compressed.pdf

Shelf Number: 155558

Keywords:
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrant Detention
Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy
Migration
Refugees

Author: Peck, Sarah Herman

Title: "Sanctuary" Jurisdictions: Federal, State, and Local Policies and Related Litigation

Summary: There is no official or agreed-upon definition of what constitutes a "sanctuary" jurisdiction, and there has been debate as to whether the term applies to particular states and localities. Moreover, state and local jurisdictions have varied reasons for opting not to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement efforts, including reasons not necessarily motivated by disagreement with federal policies, such as concern about potential civil liability or the costs associated with assisting federal efforts. But traditional sanctuary policies are often described as falling under one of three categories. First, so-called "don�t enforce" policies generally bar state or local police from assisting federal immigration authorities. Second, "don't ask" policies generally bar certain state or local officials from inquiring into a person's immigration status. Third, "don't tell" policies typically restrict information sharing between state or local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. One legal question relevant to sanctuary policies is the extent to which states, as sovereign entities, may decline to assist in federal immigration enforcement, and the degree to which the federal government can stop state measures that undermine federal objectives. The Tenth Amendment preserves the states' broad police powers, and states have frequently enacted measures that, directly or indirectly, address aliens residing in their communities. Under the doctrine of preemption-derived from the Supremacy Clause-Congress may displace many state or local laws pertaining to immigration. But not every state or local law touching on immigration matters is necessarily preempted; the measure must interfere with, or be contrary to, federal law to be rendered unenforceable. Further, the anti-commandeering doctrine, rooted in the Constitution's allocation of powers between the federal government and the states, prohibits Congress from forcing state entities to perform regulatory functions on the federal government's behalf, including in the context of immigration. A series of Supreme Court cases inform the boundaries of preemption and the anti-commandeering doctrine, with the Court most recently opining on the issue in Murphy v. NCAA. These dueling federal and state interests are front and center in numerous lawsuits challenging actions taken by the Trump Administration to curb states and localities from implementing sanctuary-type policies. Notably, Section 9(a) of Executive Order 13768, "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States," directs the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General to withhold federal grants from jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. S 1373-a statute that bars states and localities from prohibiting their employees from sharing with federal immigration authorities certain immigration-related information. The executive order further directs the Attorney General to take "appropriate enforcement action" against jurisdictions that violate Section 1373 or have policies that "prevent or hinder the enforcement of federal law." To implement the executive order, the Department of Justice added new eligibility conditions to the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG) Program and grants administered by the Justice Department's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS). These conditions tied eligibility to compliance with Section 1373 and other federal immigration priorities, like granting federal authorities access to state and local detention facilities housing aliens and giving immigration authorities notice before releasing from custody an alien wanted for removal. Several lawsuits were filed challenging the constitutionality of the executive order and new grant conditions. So far the courts that have reviewed these challenges-principally contending that the executive order and grant conditions violate the separation of powers and anti-commandeering principles-generally agree that the Trump Administration acted unconstitutionally. For instance, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a permanent injunction blocking enforcement of Section 9(a) against California. Additionally, two separate district courts permanently enjoined the Byrne JAG conditions as applied to Chicago and Philadelphia. In doing so, these courts concluded that the Supreme Court's most recent formulation of the anti-commandeering doctrine in Murphy requires holding Section 1373 unconstitutional. These lawsuits notwithstanding, the courts still recognize the federal government's pervasive, nearly exclusive role in immigration enforcement. This can be seen in the federal government's lawsuit challenging three California measures governing the state's regulation of private and public actors' involvement in immigration enforcement within its border. Although a district court upheld several measures as lawful exercises of the state's police powers, it also struck down some measures as preempted or unlawful under the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity.

Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2019. 43p.

Source: Internet Resource: R44795: Accessed April 26, 2019 at: https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20190416_R44795_0676c96b77aa4ef33380f9012e22eb0b2128a49e.pdf

Year: 2019

Country: United States

URL: https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20190416_R44795_0676c96b77aa4ef33380f9012e22eb0b2128a49e.pdf

Shelf Number: 155564

Keywords:
Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy
Sanctuary Cities
Sanctuary Facilities
Sanctuary Policies

Author: ICE Out of Courts Coalition

Title: Safeguarding the Integrity of Our Courts: The Impact of ICE Courthouse Operations in New York State

Summary: The ICE Out of Courts Coalition (the Coalition) is comprised of over 100 organizations and entities across New York State. As community- based organizations, unions, civil legal services providers, public defenders, family defenders, anti-violence advocates, law schools, and civil rights and liberties groups serving New Yorkers of all ages, races, and immigration statuses, we have been alarmed and appalled by Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) increasing dependence on our State's court system as its preferred venue for surveilling and detaining immigrant New Yorkers. For over two years, the Coalition has gathered qualitative and quantitative data from affected stakeholders across issue areas and roles within the justice system. Following meetings with the Chief Judge and the Chief Administrative Judge, the Coalition has spent significant energy compiling the data collected in this report. The data collected in this report demonstrates the full breadth of the negative impact ICE courthouse operations have had on the administration of justice, as well as equal access to justice, in New York State. This report demonstrates just how widespread this problem is - affecting not just New York City but the whole state, affecting not just criminal but problem -solving and civil courts as well. Information presented here attests to how systemic this issue has become in the fair and efficient administration of justice, and how ICE courthouse operations have had an outsized effect on the most vulnerable New York State residents, including victims and survivors of domestic and gender-based violence, single mothers, those eligible for problem-solving courts and youth. The report begins with an overview of the astronomical increase (1700%) in ICE courthouse operations since 2016 and shows the negative impact of this increase on countless stakeholders. Statewide, law enforcement agencies, from district attorney offices to the Attorney General's Office, have publicly condemned ICE for disrupting the trust between New York�s immigrant residents and law enforcement. District attorney offices that participated in the Coalition's data-gathering describe how victims, survivors, and witnesses were often too fearful to pursue justice in courts or to participate in their services geared toward immigrant residents. Advocates similarly point out a pronounced chilling effect among victims, survivors, and witnesses in reporting abuses to law enforcement or pursuing legal claims. Most disturbingly, advocates also reported how ICE�s highly publicized tactics have emboldened abusers, who use threats of deportation to keep their clients from seeking legal redress. Public defender organizations recount how disruptive ICE's recent tactics have been to not just their attorneys� daily work but also to their resource allocation and morale. The report highlights how ICE courthouse operations thwart the intended outcomes of problem-solving courts and those designed for trafficking victims, youth, and other vulnerable populations. ICE's targeting of relief-eligible individuals induces fear around court-related activities, including alternatives to incarceration and other rehabilitation focused programs run by the Center for Court Innovation. This atmosphere of fear has spread beyond criminal courts to civil courts. ICE�s courthouse operations hinder these problem-solving and civil courts from carrying out their missions of providing opportunity and redress to vulnerable New Yorkers. As recounted here, the widespread corrosive impact of ICE courthouse operations on New York State Courts has been documented and condemned by legal professional associations at the city, state, and national level. Numerous sitting and retired judges as well as elected officials have spoken up against ICE's tactics. Given the insidious and pervasive impact ICE courthouse operations have had on the function and mission of the New York justice system, the Coalition urges the Office of Court Administration to adopt two rules to address the problems identified in this report: 1. Employees of the Unified Court System shall not: i. Assist with federal immigration enforcement activities in the course of their employment, in any courthouse of the New York State Unified Court System except to the extent they are described in Section (2). ii. Inquire into the immigration status of any individual within any courthouse of the Unified Court System unless such information about a person's immigration status is necessary for the determination of program, service, or benefit eligibility or the provision of services. iii. Provide any information to immigration enforcement officers regarding persons appearing before the court, except information regarding citizenship or immigration status, as required by 8 U.S.C. � 1373, and then only if known. 2. Civil arrests without judicial warrants: Civil arrests may only be executed within a courthouse of the Unified Court System when accompanied by a judicial warrant or judicial order authorizing that the person who is the subject of such warrant be subjected to a civil arrest. "Judicial warrant" is defined as a warrant issued by a magistrate sitting in the judicial branch of local, state, or federal government. "Judicial order" is defined as an order issued by a magistrate sitting in the judicial branch of local, state, or federal government. These rules will help protect New Yorkers' access to the courts and ensure increased public safety and legal protections for all.

Details: New York, NY: Ice out of Our Courts Coalition, 2019. 88p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 27, 2019 at: https://www.immigrantdefenseproject.org/wp-content/uploads/Safeguarding-the-Integrity-of-Our-Courts-Final-Report.pdf

Year: 2019

Country: United States

URL: https://www.immigrantdefenseproject.org/ice-courts-nys/

Shelf Number: 155583

Keywords:
Courts
Criminal Court
ICE
Immigrants
Immigration
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Immigration Court
Immigration Enforcement

Author: Bolt, David

Title: An inspection of the Home Office's approach to illegal working

Summary: Publishing the report, David Bolt said: The ability of migrants who are not legally entitled to work in the UK to find paid employment is seen by the Home Office as key to why many migrants remain in the UK without leave or work here in breach of the terms of their leave. Equally, the belief that they will be able to find work is seen as a significant "pull factor" for migrants seeking to reach the UK. Illegal working also raises other issues, for example migrants working illegally in the UK are vulnerable to exploitation and abuse by unscrupulous employers, and businesses employing illegal workers can undercut and damage legitimate businesses, deprive HM Government of revenue in the form of taxes and national insurance payments, and adversely affect the employment prospects of others. For these reasons, tackling illegal working has been a Home Office priority for some years. Because of its hidden nature, estimating the size of the problem with any confidence has been difficult. However, since at least 2015, when I last inspected this topic, the Home Office has understood it to be "greater than our capacity to enforce it through traditional arrest activity". My 2015 report noted a then relatively new shift in emphasis towards encouraging employer compliance through 'educational visits' by Immigration Compliance and Enforcement (ICE) teams, rather than continuing to rely primarily on enforcement visits to locate and arrest offenders. In this latest inspection, I therefore looked to see how this approach had developed, as well as at the measures introduced since 2015 under the umbrella of the 'compliant environment' to strengthen the powers of ICE teams and the penalties for non-compliant employers. I found that efforts had been made to develop strategies and encourage partnerships and collaborations with other government departments and with large employers and employer groups in particular sectors, but there were no metrics to show what this had achieved. Meanwhile, 'on the ground' there was little evidence that the shift of emphasis trailed in 2015 had 'stuck', and ICE teams were doing (for the most part professionally and properly from what inspectors observed) what they had always done - deploying in response to 'allegations' received from members of the public, in the majority of cases to restaurants and fast food outlets, and with a focus on a handful of 'removable' nationalities. The lessons from the Windrush scandal are the subject of an independent review, due to report shortly, and there is a compensation scheme for those affected. Therefore, I did not look specifically at how Windrush generation individuals had been impacted by Immigration Enforcement's illegal working measures. However, it was evident that Windrush had had a significant effect on Immigration Enforcement, operationally (as a result of the 'pausing' of data sharing with other departments) and psychologically (with IE perceiving that other departments and agencies, employers and the general public were now less supportive, and that having dispensed with removals targets it was no longer clear, at least to ICE teams, what success looked like). My report, which was sent to the Home Secretary on 6 February 2019, made six recommendations. The majority focus on improving the mechanics of illegal working compliance and enforcement but, while important and necessary, these are not enough by themselves to answer the criticism that the Home Office�s efforts are not really working and may have had the unintended consequence of enabling exploitation and discrimination by some employers.

Details: London: Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, 2019. 92p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 14, 2019 at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/800641/An_inspection_of_the_Home_Office_s_approach_to_Illegal_Working_Published_May_2018.PDF

Year: 2019

Country: United Kingdom

URL: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/800641/An_inspection_of_the_Home_Office_s_approach_to_Illegal_Working_Published_May_2018.PDF

Shelf Number: 155831

Keywords:
Border Security
Illegal Immigrants
Illegal Workers
Immigration
Immigration Enforcement
Migrants
Worker Exploitation

Author: Aliverti, Ana

Title: Making home safe? The role of criminal law and punishment in British immigration controls

Summary: This thesis is an enquiry into the regulation of immigration through criminal law and its institutions. It looks at the range of immigration offences in British legislation, and whether and how they are being used in practice. The criminalisation of immigration status has historically served functions of exclusion and control against those who defy the state's powers over its territory and population. In the last two decades, the prerogatives to exclude and punish have been enhanced by the expansion of the catalogue of immigration offences and the more systematic enforcement of these powers. The great reliance on the criminal law to regulate immigration is distinctive of a period in which crime and immigration have been increasingly politicised. As a consequence, more offences have been created and more individuals have been subject to the hybrid immigration and criminal justice system. While immigration offences largely remain under-enforced, some of them - particularly those penalising document fraud and identity stripping- are used against foreign nationals who cannot be removed from the country. In this thesis I explain what I consider to be the most pernicious consequences of this expansion of formal and substantive criminalisation of immigration breaches. The existence of a parallel system of sanctions allows enforcement agencies wide margins of discretion. Therefore, similar cases may be dealt with in very different ways. When the criminal route is chosen, the use of criminal law in the vast majority of cases reaching the criminal courts is unnecessary, disproportionate and extremely harmful. Both the decision to prosecute and the sanction eventually imposed are justified by preventive and regulatory purposes. The actual practice of criminalisation reveals that the criminal procedural safeguards are weakened and those accused of immigration crimes are likely to be convicted and imprisoned for these offences. I conclude that the formal and substantive criminalisation of immigration represents a departure from liberal criminal law principles and the purposes of criminal punishment. These conclusions cast doubts about the pragmatic, non-principled use of criminal law to regulate immigration flows, and call for the need to look at other, more humane alternatives in the treatment of 'unwelcome' migrants.

Details: Oxford, UK: University of Oxford, 2011. 294p.

Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed June 14, 2019 at: https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:c3659f2f-679e-464e-a12a-282c85ebac94

Year: 2011

Country: United Kingdom

URL: https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:c3659f2f-679e-464e-a12a-282c85ebac94

Shelf Number: 156427

Keywords:
Illegal Immigrants
Illegal Migrants
Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Offences
Immigration Policy
Migrants

Author: Ciancio, Alberto

Title: The Political Economy of Immigration Enforcement: Conflict and Cooperation under Federalism

Summary: We study how the shared responsibilities over immigration enforcement by local and federal levels in the US shape immigration enforcement outcomes, using detailed data on the Secure Communities program (2008-2014). Tracking the movement of arrested unlawfully present immigrants along the several steps of the immigration enforcement pipeline, and exploiting a large shift in federal enforcement priorities in mid 2011, we disentangle the three key components of the variation in deportation rates: federal enforcement efforts, local enforcement efforts, and the composition of the pool of arrestees. This decomposition allows us to recover the local (county) level response to changes in federal enforcement intensity. Among urban counties, 80 percent, mostly Democratic but with small shares of Hispanics, exhibit strategic substitutabilities. The inverse relationship between federal and local efforts allowed most counties to reduce opposition to the policy, and was accompanied by an increased alignment of local and federal preferences. The federal level was very effective in directing its enforcement efforts towards counties where it expected local collaboration, but conflict was mostly driven by a change in the types of unlawfully present immigrants it prioritized for removal.

Details: Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2019. 68p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 17, 2019 at: https://www.nber.org/papers/w25766.pdf

Year: 2019

Country: United States

URL: https://www.nber.org/papers/w25766

Shelf Number: 156366

Keywords:
Deportation
Illegal Aliens
Illegal Immigration
Immigration Enforcement

Author: Kolb, Joseph J.

Title: Feasibility of a Border Patrol Auxiliary

Summary: Key Points: President Trump signs Executive Order pledging 5,000 more U.S. Border Patrol agents. Current Border Patrol staffing levels are the lowest in seven years. Current staffing levels compromise border security. More than a third of Border Patrol agents have been relegated to non-patrol duties. Former sector chief confirms viability of a civilian auxiliary division. Effectiveness of federal auxiliaries has been demonstrated through the Civil Air Patrol and the Coast Guard Auxiliary. A civilian Border Patrol auxiliary would be a cost-effective force multiplier and could potentially enhance agent safety.

Details: Washington, DC: Center for Immigration Studies, 2017. 5p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 17, 2019 at: https://cis.org/Feasibility-of-a-Border-Patrol-Auxiliary

Year: 2017

Country: United States

URL: https://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/kolb-bp-auxiliary.pdf

Shelf Number: 156376

Keywords:
Border Patrol
Border Security
Immigration Enforcement

Author: Arthur, Andrew R.

Title: The Massive Increase in the Immigration Court Backlog, Its Causes, and Solutions

Summary: On Thursday, June 1, 2017, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued its long-awaited report on the management of the immigration court system by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). In particular, GAO found: The immigration courts' "case backlog - cases pending from previous years that remain open at the start of a new fiscal year - more than doubled from fiscal years (FY) 2006 through 2015...primarily due to declining cases completed per year." The courts' backlog increased from approximately 212,000 cases pending at the start of FY 2006, when the median pending time for those cases was 198 days, to 437,000 pending cases at the start of FY 2015, when the median pending time was 404 days. "[C]ontinuances increased by 23 percent from [FY] 2006 to [FY] 2015," and "immigration judge-related continuances increased by 54 percent from about 47,000 continuances issued in [FY] 2006 to approximately 72,000 continuances issued in [FY] 2015." Department of Homeland Security (DHS) attorneys and others complained that the "frequent use of continuances resulted in delays and increased case lengths that contributed to the backlog." The number of cases the immigration courts "completed annually declined by 31 percent between [FY] 2006 and [FY] 2015 - from 287,000 cases completed in [FY] 2006 to about 199,000 completed in [FY] 2015". Total case completions declined, even though the number of immigration judges (IJs) increased 17 percent.

Details: Washington, DC: Center for Immigration Studies, 2017. 21p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 17, 2019 at: https://cis.org/sites/default/files/2017-07/arthur-court-backlog.pdf

Year: 2017

Country: United States

URL: https://cis.org/Report/Massive-Increase-Immigration-Court-Backlog

Shelf Number: 156377

Keywords:
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Immigration Court
Immigration Enforcement

Author: Department of Homeland Security. Office of Inspector General

Title: Concerns about ICE Detainee Treatment and Care at Four Detention Facilities

Summary: This report summarizes findings on our latest round of unannounced inspections at four detention facilities housing ICE detainees. Because we observed immediate risks or egregious violations of detention standards at the Adelanto and Essex facilities, we issued individual reports to ICE after our visits to these two facilities and recommended ICE conduct a full review of the facilities to ensure compliance with ICE's 2011 PBNDS. Overall, our inspections of the four detention facilities revealed violations of ICE's detention standards and raised concerns about the environment in which detainees are held.

Details: Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector General, 2019. 28p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 19, 2019 at: https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2019-06/OIG-19-47-Jun19.pdf

Year: 2019

Country: United States

URL: https://www.oversight.gov/report/dhs/concerns-about-ice-detainee-treatment-and-care-four-detention-facilities

Shelf Number: 156911

Keywords:
Detainees
Detention
Immigration
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Immigration Enforcement

Rutgers - School of Law, Newark

Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.

Results for immigration enforcement