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

Date: November 22, 2024 Fri

Time: 11:44 am

Results for immigration policy

124 results found

Author: Guterbock, Thomas M.

Title: Evaluation Study of Prince William County's Illegal Immigration Enforcement Policy: Final Report

Summary: This study found that Prince William County's immigration policy has cut the number of illegal immigrants and the rates of some crimes have fallen since the policy was implemented. The study estimates that the number of illegal immigrants in the county dropped by between 2,000 and 6,000 people from 2006 to 2008. The study also found that the policy created an ethnic divide in perceptions of the county, but that has been largely repaired. The study found that approximately 7,400 people who may have been in the country illegally have left Prince William County since 2007. 2,400 illegal immigrants were turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement during the study. The policy aimed to reduce the number of illegal immigrants, cut crime, reduce overcrowded housing problems and neighborhood nuisances and save the county money by delivering fewer services to illegal immigrants. The study concludes that while reports of some types of crime, such as hit-and-run accidents and aggravated assaults, fell after implementation of the policy, it did not affect crime overall and some of the neighborhood problems, such as overcrowded housing, were lessened in some areas.

Details: Charlottesville, VA: Center for Survey Research, University of Virginia: Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum, 2010. 322p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 27, 2010 at: http://www.pwcgov.org/docLibrary/PDF/13188.pdf

Year: 2010

Country: United States

URL: http://www.pwcgov.org/docLibrary/PDF/13188.pdf

Shelf Number: 120287

Keywords:
Illegal Aliens (Virginia)
Illegal Immigrants
Immigration Policy

Author: Padavan, Frank

Title: The Golden Door: Illegal Immigration, Terrorism and the Underground Economy: With a Focus on the Counterfeit Goods Trade and Analysis of the 2000 Census

Summary: In 1994, Senator Frank Padavan, then Chairman of the Senate Committee on Cities, released "Our Teeming Shore," a report reflecting extensive research and public hearings on "federal immigration policy and its impact on the City and State of New York." That report concluded that New York State and its localities were spending over $5.6 billion annually as a result of federal immigration policy: $2.1 billion in social service costs; $270 million for criminal justice and corrections; and $3.3 billion in elementary and secondary education expenditures, all unreimbursed by the federal government. As a result of Senator Padavan's landmark research -- New York State was among the first in the nation to document the impact of federal immigration policy at the state and local level -- the Senate Majority Task Force on Immigration was created. A second report, a year later, confirmed the findings of the first. In "The Golden Door: Illegal Immigration, Terrorism and The Underground Economy," Senator Padavan updates the topics discussed in the earlier reports, with a focus on the counterfeit goods trade, its link to terrorism, and its cost to taxpayers.

Details: Albany, NY: New York State Senate Majority Task Force on Immigration, 2005.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 28, 2011 at: http://www.nysl.nysed.gov/scandoclinks/ocm64195701.htm

Year: 2005

Country: United States

URL: http://www.nysl.nysed.gov/scandoclinks/ocm64195701.htm

Shelf Number: 121573

Keywords:
Counterfeit Goods
Illegal Aliens
Illegal Immigration
Immigrants
Immigration Policy
Terrorism

Author: Bandyopadhyay, Subhayu

Title: Immigration Policy and Counterterrorism

Summary: A terrorist group, based in a developing (host) country, draws unskilled and skilled labor from the productive sector to conduct attacks at home and abroad. The host nation chooses proactive countermeasures, while accounting for the terrorist campaign. Moreover, a targeted developed nation decides its optimal mix of immigration quotas and defensive counterterrorism actions. Even though proactive measures in the host country may not curb terrorism at home, it may still be advantageous in terms of national income. Increases in the unskilled immigration quota augment terrorism against the developed country; increases in the skilled immigration quota may or may not raise terrorism against the developed country. When the developed country assumes a leadership role, it strategically augments its terrorism defenses and reduces its unskilled immigration quota to induce more proactive measures in the host country. The influence of leadership on the skilled immigration quota is more nuanced.

Details: St. Louis, MO: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Research Division, 2011. 44p.

Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper Series; Working Paper 2011-012A: Accessed May 4, 2011 at: http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2011/2011-012.pdf

Year: 2011

Country: International

URL: http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2011/2011-012.pdf

Shelf Number: 121613

Keywords:
Counterterrorism
Economics
Immigrants
Immigration Policy
Terrorism
Terrorists

Author: Buentello, Tara

Title: Operation Streamline: Drowning Justice and Draining Dollars along the Rio Grande

Summary: Operation Streamline, a policy begun in 2005 by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in conjunction with the Department of Justice (DOJ), mandates that nearly all undocumented immigrants apprehended near the southern border in designated areas be detained and prosecuted through the federal criminal justice system, a dramatic departure from previous practices when most immigration cases were handled exclusively within the civil immigration system. According to the Department of Homeland Security’s Operation Streamline press release: “Those aliens who are not released due to humanitarian reasons will face prosecution for illegal entry. The maximum penalty for violation of this law is 180 days incarceration. While the alien is undergoing criminal proceedings, the individual will also be processed for removal from the United States.” Operation Streamline’s key component is that it mandates that immigrants crossing the border in designated areas be arrested, detained while awaiting trial, prosecuted with a misdemeanor or felony charge, incarcerated in the federal justice system, and finally deported. On December 16, 2005, The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) launched Operation Streamline along a section of the Texas-Mexico border near Del Rio, Texas, spanning a total of 210 miles. Operation Streamline has spread to other areas along the U.S.-Mexico border, including much of Arizona and Texas. Operation Streamline has exposed undocumented immigrants crossing the southern border to unprecedented rates of incarceration; overburdened the federal criminal justice system in the districts where it has been implemented; and added enormous costs to the American taxpayer while providing a boon to the for-profit private prison industry. The extent of the program is so sweeping that by 2009, 54% of all federal prosecutions nationwide were for immigration offenses. The effect is more pronounced in border districts. In April 2010, prosecutions of 1325 and 1326 alone accounted for 84% of all prosecutions in the Southern District of Texas, which includes Houston. Since Operation Streamline began in 2005, there has been a 136% in prosecutions for unauthorized entry and an 85% increase in prosecutions for unauthorized re-entry in the Western and Southern Districts of Texas. More than 135,000 migrants have been criminally prosecuted in these two border districts since 2005 under the two sections of the federal code that make unauthorized entry and re-entry a crime. Operation Streamline has funneled more than $1.2 billion into the largely for-profit detention system in Texas, driving the expansion of private prisons along the border. Operation Streamline has significantly increased the caseload of public defenders and federal judges while radically increasing the number of individuals incarcerated for petty immigration violations in for-profit private prisons and county jails throughout Texas. Data in this report show an increase in criminal prosecutions of undocumented border-crossers even as the estimated number of migrants to the United States has dropped. In 2009, two border districts in Texas prosecuted 46,470 immigrants, representing approximately 186 entry and re-entry prosecutions a day for federal courts along the border. Proponents of Operation Streamline argue that it has deterred illegal entry. However, research conducted amongst migrants in the United States indicates that the decreased migration has largely been caused by the economic downturn, while the ironic impact of beefed-up border enforcement has been to deter migrants from returning to their countries of origin during the recession. Operation Streamline: Drowning Justice and Draining Dollars along the Rio Grande presents facts, figures, and testimony highlighting the human and financial costs Operation Streamline exacts on migrants, the federal judiciary, and the detention system in Texas. The recommends report recommends the repeal of Operation Streamline. Successor policies to Operation Streamline addressing undocumented border crossers should return jurisdiction over immigration violations to civil immigration authorities, reduce the use of detention for border crossing violations, and promote and promote a pathway for legal and reasonable means for immigrants to obtain legal status in the United States.

Details: Charlotte, NC: Grassroots Leadership, 2010. 31p.

Source: Internet Resource: Green Paper: Accessed October 1, 2012 at:

Year: 2010

Country: United States

URL:

Shelf Number: 126536

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

Author: Lydgate, Joanna

Title: Assembly-Line Justice: A Review of Operation Streamline

Summary: The current administration is committed to combating the drug and weapon trafficking and human smuggling at the root of violence along the U.S.-Mexico border. But a Bush-era immigration enforcement program called Operation Streamline threatens to undermine that effort. Operation Streamline requires the federal criminal prosecution and imprisonment of all unlawful border crossers. The program, which mainly targets migrant workers with no criminal history, has caused skyrocketing caseloads in many federal district courts along the border. This Warren Institute study demonstrates that Operation Streamline diverts crucial law enforcement resources away from fighting violent crime along the border, fails to effectively reduce undocumented immigration, and violates the U.S. Constitution. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) began implementing Operation Streamline along the U.S.-Mexico border in 2005. The program has fundamentally transformed DHS’s border enforcement practices. Before Operation Streamline began, DHS Border Patrol agents voluntarily returned first-time border crossers to their home countries or detained them and formally removed them from the United States through the civil immigration system. The U.S. Attorney’s Office reserved criminal prosecution for migrants with criminal records and for those who made repeated attempts to cross the border. Operation Streamline removed that prosecutorial discretion, requiring the criminal prosecution of all undocumented border crossers, regardless of their history. Operation Streamline has generated unprecedented caseloads in eight of the eleven federal district courts along the border, straining the resources of judges, U.S. attorneys, defense attorneys, U.S. Marshals, and court personnel. The program’s voluminous prosecutions have forced many courts to cut procedural corners. Magistrate judges conduct en masse hearings, during which as many as 80 defendants plead guilty at a time, depriving migrants of due process. Indeed, in December 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that Operation Streamline’s en masse plea hearings in Tucson, Arizona violate federal law. By focusing court and law enforcement resources on the prosecution of first-time entrants, Operation Streamline also diverts attention away from fighting drug smuggling, human trafficking, and other crimes that create border violence. To examine Operation Streamline’s effects, the Warren Institute observed Operation Streamline court proceedings and conducted interviews with judges, U.S. attorneys, defense attorneys, Border Patrol representatives, and immigration lawyers in four border cities in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. This report outlines the Warren Institute’s findings. It concludes that Operation Streamline is not an effective means of improving border security or reducing undocumented immigration. Furthermore, Operation Streamline has unacceptable consequences for the agencies tasked with implementing the program, for the migrants it targets, and for the rule of law in this country. The administration should therefore eliminate Operation Streamline and restore U.S. attorneys’ discretion to prosecute serious crimes along the border. If the administration seeks to punish first-time border crossers, it need look no further than the civil system.

Details: Berkeley, CA: Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Race, Ethnicity & Diversity, University of California, Berkeley Law School, 2010. 16p.

Source: Internet Resource: Policy Brief: Accessed October 1, 2012 at: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Operation_Streamline_Policy_Brief.pdf

Year: 2010

Country: United States

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

Shelf Number: 126538

Keywords:
Border Security
Homeland Security
Illegal Aliens
Illegal Immigrants (U.S.)
Immigrant Detention
Immigration Policy
Operation Streamline
Prison Prisons

Author: Hanson, Gordon H.

Title: The Economics and Policy of Illegal Immigration in the United States

Summary: Policymakers across the political spectrum share a belief that high levels of illegal immigration are an indictment of the current immigration policy regime. An estimated 12 million unauthorized immigrants live in the United States, and the past decade saw an average of 500,000 illegal entrants per year. Until recently, the presence of unauthorized immigrants was unofficially tolerated. But since 2001, policymakers have poured huge resources into securing US borders, ports, and airports; and since 2006, a growing range of policies has targeted unauthorized immigrants within the country and their employers. Notwithstanding these efforts, no agreement has materialized on a system to replace the status quo and, in particular, to divert illegal flows to legal ones. Policy inaction is a result not only of a partisan divide in Washington, but also of the underlying economic reality that despite its faults, illegal immigration has been hugely beneficial to many US employers, often providing benefits that the current legal immigration system does not. Unauthorized immigrants provide a ready source of manpower in agriculture, construction, food processing, building cleaning and maintenance, and other low-end jobs, at a time when the share of low-skilled native-born individuals in the US labor force has fallen dramatically. Not only do unauthorized immigrants provide an important source of low-skilled labor, they also respond to market conditions in ways that legal immigration presently cannot, making them particularly appealing to US employers. Illegal inflows broadly track economic performance, rising during periods of expansion and stalling during downturns (including the present one). By contrast, legal flows for low-skilled workers are both very small and relatively unresponsive to economic conditions. Green cards are almost entirely unavailable to low-skilled workers; while the two main low-skilled temporary visa programs (H-2A and H-2B) vary little over the economic cycle and in any case represent scarcely 1 percent of the current unauthorized population, making them an inconsequential component of domestic low-skilled employment. Despite all this, illegal immigration’s overall impact on the US economy is small. Low-skilled native workers who compete with unauthorized immigrants are the clearest losers. US employers, on the other hand, gain from lower labor costs and the ability to use their land, capital, and technology more productively. The stakes are highest for the unauthorized immigrants themselves, who see very substantial income gains after migrating. If we exclude these immigrants from the calculus, however (as domestic policymakers are naturally inclined to do), the small net gain that remains after subtracting US workers’ losses from US employers’ gains is tiny. And if we account for the small fiscal burden that unauthorized immigrants impose, the overall economic benefit is close enough to zero to be essentially a wash. Where does this leave policymakers? Any new reform effort will have to take a stand on preventing versus facilitating inflows of low-skilled foreign labor. Legislation is expected to embrace aspects of two different strategies: enforcement strategies designed to prevent illegal immigration, and accommodation strategies designed to divert illegal flows through legal channels using legalization and expanded legal options for future prospective migrants. Since US spending on enforcement activities is already very high, sizeable increases in enforcement resources could easily cost far more than the tax savings they generated from reduced illegal presence in the United States. Because the net impact of illegal immigration on the US economy does not appear to be very large, one would be hard pressed to justify a substantial increase in spending on border and interior enforcement, at least in terms of its aggregate economic return. A more constructive immigration policy would aim to generate maximum productivity gains to the US economy while limiting the fiscal cost and keeping enforcement spending contained. Effectively, this means converting existing inflows of illegal immigrants into legal flows. It does not have to mean increasing the total number of low-skilled foreign workers in the labor force. Policies designed to achieve this would: • provide sufficient legal channels of entry to low-skilled workers by expanding legal options for immigration while maintaining reasonable enforcement of immigration laws; • allow inflows to fluctuate with the economy; • create incentives for both employers and immigrants to play by the rules by ensuring meaningful enforcement at US worksites and rewarding workers for their compliance by giving them the chance to seek legal permanent residence; and • mitigate the fiscal impact of low-skilled immigration by charging a fee for legal entry or taxing employers.

Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2009. 19p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 5, 2013 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/hanson-dec09.pdf

Year: 2009

Country: United States

URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/hanson-dec09.pdf

Shelf Number: 127480

Keywords:
Illegal Aliens
Illegal Immigrants (U.S.)
Immigration
Immigration Policy

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: Danielson, Michael S.

Title: Documented Failures: the Consequences of Immigration Policy on the U.S.-Mexico Border

Summary: This report presents systematic documentation of the experiences of migrant women, men and children repatriated from the United States to cities along Mexico's northern border, with particular emphasis on the Nogales, Arizona/Nogales, Sonora, Mexico area. The report addresses five common problems experienced by Mexican and Central American migrants before and during migration and upon apprehension, detention and deportation by U.S. migration authorities. The areas of investigation are: 1. The separation of migrants from family members they were traveling with when apprehended and deported by the U.S. Border Patrol. Migrants are often separated from their families, friends and loved ones during the process of deportation. This separation places migrants—the great majority of whom are from parts of Mexico very far from the northern border or Central American countries—in situations of unwarranted vulnerability in an increasingly dangerous region of Mexico. 2. Family separation as a driver of migration and a continuing complication for families of mixed-legal status. As the number of mixed immigration status families is steadily increasing, mothers, fathers, and guardians who are deported by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are often separated from their citizen children, who remain in the U.S. with their other parent, guardians, other family members, or in foster care. This section also examines how many of those deported by U.S. migration authorities were attempting to reunite with immediate family members already living in the United States. 3. Violence as a cause of migration and abuses and physical security threats experienced by migrants during northward journeys, border crossing, and after deportation from the United States. As levels of violence directly and indirectly related to drug trafficking have increased throughout Mexico and Central America in recent years, violence has become an increasingly common cause of migration. Furthermore, the growing prevalence of violence along the border means migrants are often the victims of theft and physical, verbal and sexual abuse at the hands of criminal gangs, human smugglers, human traffickers and thieves, risks that ought to be taken into consideration by U.S. migration authorities when deporting unauthorized immigrants to northern Mexico border towns. 4. Abuses and misconduct committed by the U.S. Border Patrol and other U.S.migration authorities. Based on multiple data sources, the report demonstrates that there is systematic abuse and misconduct in the process of apprehending, detaining and deporting undocumented migrants. One in four migrants surveyed (24.8%) reported being abused in some way by U.S. Border Patrol agents, and data show that Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and particularly the Border Patrol, systematically deny Mexican migrants the right to contact their consulate. 5. Abuses and misconduct committed by local police in Mexico.When traveling north, as well as after deportation, migrants are in a particularly vulnerable position and can be taken advantage of by local, state, and federal authorities in Mexico.This section provides estimates of the extent of these abuses, finding that men are more likely to be abused by Mexican police than women, and Central Americans are more likely to be abused by Mexican police than their Mexican migrant counterparts. Exploration of the five themes above reveals a complex set of distinct, but interrelated problems. The final section of the report provides a list of recommendations that, if implemented, would begin to address the most pressing problems faced by immigrants and their families.

Details: Washington, DC: Jesuit Refugee Services, 2013. 44p.

Source: Internet Resource: Report prepared for the Kino Border Initiative
Nogales, Arizona, U.S.A. and Nogales, Sonora, Mexico
with funding from Catholic Relief Services of Mexico: Accessed February 19, 2013 at: http://www.jesuit.org/jesuits/wp-content/uploads/Kino_FULL-REPORT_web.pdf

Year: 2013

Country: United States

URL: http://www.jesuit.org/jesuits/wp-content/uploads/Kino_FULL-REPORT_web.pdf

Shelf Number: 127652

Keywords:
Border Control
Border Security
Human Rights
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrant Detention
Immigration (U.S.)
Immigration Policy

Author: Thomas, Chantal

Title: Immigration Controls and 'Modern-Day Slavery'

Summary: Are immigration controls the single biggest legal factor contributing to modern‐day slavery? In a national and international political moment in which immigration law and policy are being hotly debated, participants in the debate should recognize the impact of strict migration controls – one of the clearest results of the current U.S. immigration law reform effort – is to exacerbate conditions of immiseration that are frequently associated by anti‐trafficking advocates and reformers with "modern‐day slavery." Conversely, those who are fighting to end modern‐day slavery might be best advised to focus on immigration reform that relaxes border control and increases the rights and remedies of undocumented migrants, as the measures that could most provide immediate redress.

Details: Ithaca, NY: Cornell Law School, 2013. 50p.

Source: Internet Resource: Cornell Legal Studies Research Paper No. 13-86 : Accessed August 8, 2013 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2294656

Year: 2013

Country: United States

URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2294656

Shelf Number: 129599

Keywords:
Border Control
Border Security
Human Trafficking
Illegal Immigrants
Immigration (U.S.)
Immigration Policy

Author: Owen, Candace G.

Title: Human Trafficking for Labor Purposes: An Analysis of Immigration Policy and Economic Forces within the Untied States

Summary: Human trafficking is an international crisis which has emerged as a human rights issue of the highest priority for many nations. This is not a new occurrence, although the onset of globalization has provoked increased intensity in this international crime. Recent studies, including the U.S. State Department's 2009 Trafficking in Persons Report have predicted that the recent global economic crisis will inflate these numbers to an even larger number of victims. This thesis will investigate these phenomena ultimately asking: Do immigration policies and economic conditions contribute to the recent proliferation in cases of human trafficking for labor purposes? Moreover with the recent global economic crisis, has consumer demand affected an increase in cheap migrant labor furthering vulnerabilities that create prime situations for human trafficking and forced labor? This thesis will investigate these questions by focusing on the geographic parameters of the United States and Mexico due to their physical proximity and the history of immigration between these neighboring countries

Details: Orlando, FL: University of Central Florida, 2011. 120p.

Source: Internet Resource: Thesis: Accessed May 3, 2014 at: http://etd.fcla.edu/CF/CFE0003908/Owen_Candace_G_201108_MA.pdf

Year: 2011

Country: United States

URL: http://etd.fcla.edu/CF/CFE0003908/Owen_Candace_G_201108_MA.pdf

Shelf Number: 132212

Keywords:
Forced Labor
Human Trafficking
Immigration Policy
Migrant Labor

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: Hasselberg, Ines

Title: An ethnography of deportation from Britain

Summary: In the past decades, immigration policies have been refined to broaden eligibility to deportation and allow easier removal of unwanted foreign nationals. Yet how people respond to a given set of policies cannot be fully anticipated. Studying the ways people interpret, understand and experience policies allows for a better understanding of how they work in practice. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork conducted in London, this thesis examines experiences of deportation and deportability of migrants convicted of a criminal offence in the UK. It finds that migrants' deportability is experienced in relation to official bodies, such as the Home Office, the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, Immigration Removal Centres and Reporting Centres, and becomes embedded in their daily lives, social relations and sense of self. The lived experience of deportation policies emphasizes the material and human costs associated with deportation and highlights its punitive and coercive effects. Deportability marks migrants' lives with chronic waiting and anxiety. As a result, migrants awaiting deportation make use of four coping strategies: enduring uncertainty, absenting and forming personal cues (Agard & Harder 2007), and also re-imagining their futures. In turn, migrants' understandings of their own removal appear incompatible with open political action and with the broader work of Anti-Deportation Campaign support groups. Resistance is thus enacted as compliance with state controls (such as surveillance and immobility), which are perceived as designed to make them fail, rendering them ever more deportable. By enduring this power over them, migrants are resisting their removal and fighting to stay. The thesis concludes that the interruption of migrants' existence in the UK is effected long before their actual removal from the territory. It is a process developing from the embodiment of their deportability as their present and future lives become suspended by the threat of expulsion from their residence of choice

Details: Brighton, UK: University of Sussex, 2012. 179p.

Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed September 24, 2014 at:http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/43788/1/Hasselberg%2C_Ines.pdf

Year: 2012

Country: United Kingdom

URL: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/43788/1/Hasselberg%2C_Ines.pdf

Shelf Number: 133402

Keywords:
Deportation (U.K.)
Immigrants
Immigrants and Crime
Immigration Policy

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: American Immigration Council

Title: Misplaced Priorities: Most Immigrants Deported by ICE in 2013 Were a Threat to No One

Summary: No one can say with certainty when the Obama administration will reach the grim milestone of having deported two million people since the President took office in 2008. Regardless of the exact date this symbolic threshold is reached, however, it is important to keep in mind a much more important fact: most of the people being deported are not dangerous criminals. Despite claims by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that it prioritizes the apprehension of terrorists, violent criminals, and gang members, the agency's own deportation statistics do not bear this out. Rather, most of the individuals being swept up by ICE and dropped into the U.S. deportation machine committed relatively minor, non-violent crimes or have no criminal histories at all. Ironically, many of the immigrants being deported would likely have been able to remain in the country had the immigration reform legislation favored by the administration become law. ICE's skewed priorities are apparent from the agency's most recent deportation statistics, which cover Fiscal Year (FY) 2013. However, it takes a little digging to discern exactly what those statistics mean. The ICE report containing these numbers is filled with ominous yet cryptic references to "convicted criminals" who are "Level 1," "Level 2," or "Level 3" in terms of their priority. But when those terms are dissected and analyzed, it quickly becomes apparent that most of these "criminal aliens" are not exactly the "worst of the worst."

Details: Washington, DC: American Immigration Council, Immigration Policy Center, 2014. 6p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 2, 2014 at: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/misplaced_priorities_march_2014.pdf

Year: 2014

Country: United States

URL: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/misplaced_priorities_march_2014.pdf

Shelf Number: 133553

Keywords:
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrants (U.S.)
Immigrants and Crime
Immigration Policy
Undocumented Immigrants

Author: American Immigration Council

Title: The Growth of the U.S. Deportation Machine: More Immigrants are being "Removed" from the United States than Ever Before

Summary: Despite some highly public claims to the contrary, there has been no waning of immigration enforcement in the United States. In fact, the U.S. deportation machine has grown larger in recent years, indiscriminately consuming criminals and non-criminals alike, be they unauthorized immigrants or long-time legal permanent residents (LPRs). Deportations under the Obama administration alone are now approaching the two-million mark. But the deportation frenzy began long before this milestone. The federal government has, for nearly two decades, been pursuing an enforcement-first approach to immigration control that favors mandatory detention and deportation over the traditional discretion of a judge to consider the unique circumstances of every case. The end result has been a relentless campaign of imprisonment and expulsion aimed at noncitizens - a campaign authorized by Congress and implemented by the executive branch. While this campaign precedes the Obama administration by many years, it has grown immensely during his tenure in the White House. In part, this is the result of laws which have put the expansion of deportations on automatic. But the continued growth of deportations also reflects the policy choices of the Obama administration. Rather than putting the brakes on this non-stop drive to deport more and more people, the administration chose to add fuel to the fire.

Details: Washington, DC: American Immigration Council, Immigration Policy Center, 2014. 8p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 2, 2014 at: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/deportation_machine_march_2014_final.pdf

Year: 2014

Country: United States

URL: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/deportation_machine_march_2014_final.pdf

Shelf Number: 133554

Keywords:
Deportations
Illegal Immigrants (U.S.)
Immigrant Detention
Immigration Policy
Immigration Reform

Author: Pew Research Center

Title: More Prioritize Border Security in Immigration Debate. How to Accommodate Undocumented Central American Children in the U.S.?

Summary: How to Accommodate Undocumented Central American Children in the U.S.? The national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted August 20-24 among 1,501 adults, finds that 33% say the priority should be on better border security and tougher enforcement of immigration laws, while 23% prioritize creating a way for people in the U.S. illegally to become citizens if they meet certain conditions. About four-in-ten (41%) say both should be given equal priority.

Details: Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, 2014. 12p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 6, 2014 at: http://www.people-press.org/files/2014/09/9-3-14-Immigration-Release.pdf

Year: 2014

Country: United States

URL: http://www.people-press.org/files/2014/09/9-3-14-Immigration-Release.pdf

Shelf Number: 133567

Keywords:
Border Security
Illegal Immigrants (U.S.)
Immigration Policy
Immigration Reform
Migrants
Undocumented Children

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: U.S. Government Accountability Office

Title: Immigration Detention: Additional Actions Needed to Strengthen Management and Oversight of Facility Costs and Standards

Summary: Within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) uses two different methods to collect and assess data on detention costs; however, these methods do not provide ICE with complete data for managing detention costs across facilities and facility types. One method uses the agency's financial management system to estimate total detention costs per detainee per day for the purposes of developing ICE's annual detention budget request. However, ICE identified errors in the entry of data into this system and limitations in the system make it difficult for ICE to accurately record expenditures for individual facilities. ICE's other method involves the manual tracking of monthly costs by individual facilities for the purposes of reviewing data on individual facility costs. However, this method does not include data on all costs for individual facilities, such as for medical care and transportation, and such costs are not standardized within or across facility types. Thus, ICE does not have complete data for tracking and managing detention costs across facilities and facility types. ICE has taken some steps to strengthen its financial management system, such as implementing manual work-arounds to, among other things, better link financial transactions to individual facilities. However, ICE has not assessed the extent to which these manual work-arounds position ICE to better track and manage costs across facilities or facility types and the extent to which additional controls are needed to address limitations in its methods for collecting and assessing detention costs, in accordance with federal internal control standards. Conducting these assessments could better position ICE to have more reliable data for tracking and managing costs across facility types. GAO's analysis of ICE facility data showed that ICE primarily used three sets of detention standards, with the most recent and rigorous standards applied to 25 facilities housing about 54 percent of ICE's average daily population (ADP) as of January 2014. ICE plans to expand the use of these standards to 61 facilities housing 89 percent of total ADP by the end of fiscal year 2014; however, transition to these standards has been delayed by cost issues and contract negotiations and ICE does not have documentation for reasons why some facilities cannot be transitioned to the most recent standards in accordance with internal control standards. Documenting such reasons could provide an institutional record and help increase transparency and accountability in ICE's management of detention facilities. GAO's analysis of ICE facility oversight programs showed that ICE applied more oversight mechanisms at facilities housing the majority of the ADP in fiscal year 2013. For example, 94 percent of detainees were housed in facilities that received an annual inspection. GAO's analysis of ICE's inspection reports showed that inspection results differed for 29 of 35 facilities inspected by both ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and Office of Detention Oversight (ODO) in fiscal year 2013. ICE officials stated that ODO and ERO have not discussed differences in inspection results and whether oversight mechanisms are functioning as intended. Assessing the reasons why inspection results differ, in accordance with internal control standards, could help ICE better ensure that inspection mechanisms are working as intended.

Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2014. 73p.

Source: Internet Resource: GAO-15-153: Accessed October 11, 2014 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/666467.pdf

Year: 2014

Country: United States

URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/666467.pdf

Shelf Number: 133931

Keywords:
Illegal Aliens
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrant Detention (U.S.)
Immigrants
Immigration
Immigration Policy

Author: Roth, Charles

Title: Order in the Court: Commonsense Solutions to Improve Efficiency and Fairness in the Immigration Court

Summary: The immigration court system is in crisis. Immigration judges with insufficient resources are forced to cope with an enormous and increasing backlog. Bona fide asylum seekers and other noncitizens with viable claims wait years to have their cases heard, and the hearings often are rushed and flawed. With the recently launched "rocket dockets" expediting cases of Central American children, many hearings will be delayed further and grow even more rushed and flawed. But unlike the humanitarian crisis driving these children to seek safety in the United States or the crisis of long overdue comprehensive immigration reform, the procedural crisis of the immigration courts can be readily addressed. With basic procedural reforms, the Department of Justice's (DOJ's) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which oversees the immigration courts, can increase the system's efficiency and provide a higher quality of adjudication at little or no additional cost to taxpayers. These reforms would reduce unnecessary hearing continuances and help administrative court judges to make more deliberate and informed rulings, thereby avoiding costly federal appeals. These recommendations draw on exhaustive research of the immigration court and other court systems and on the experience of attorneys at Heartland Alliance's National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC), who practice extensively in the immigration courts. The findings complement those of other recent reports on immigration adjudications by focusing on narrow improvements to the immigration court system that the DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can implement without substantial additional resources.

Details: Chicago: National Immigrant Justice Center, 2014. 50p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 15, 2014 at: http://immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/Order%20in%20the%20Courts%20-%20Immigration%20Court%20Reform%20White%20Paper%20October%202014%20FINAL.pdf

Year: 2014

Country: United States

URL: http://immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/Order%20in%20the%20Courts%20-%20Immigration%20Court%20Reform%20White%20Paper%20October%202014%20FINAL.pdf

Shelf Number: 133915

Keywords:
Asylum Seekers
Court Reform
Illegal Immigrants
Immigration Courts (U.S.)
Immigration Policy
Immigration Reform

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: 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: European Commission. Directorate-General for Home Affairs

Title: Technical Study on Smart Borders: Final Report

Summary: The "Smart Borders Package" was proposed by the Commission in February 2013. It follows the European Commission (EC) Communication of February 2008 suggesting the establishment of an Entry/Exit System (EES) and a Registered Traveller Programme (RTP). The Smart Borders Package is constituted of three legislative proposals. It aims to improve the management of the external borders of the Schengen Member States (MS), fight against irregular immigration and provide information on overstayers, as well as facilitate border crossings for pre-vetted frequent third country national (TCN) travellers. During the first examination of the Smart Borders Package, which was completed in February 2014, the Council and the European Parliament (EP) voiced technical, operational and cost concerns, mainly related to the overall feasibility of the proposed new systems and of some of their features. Concerns related especially to the impact on the actual border control process, the RTP token, the data retention period in the EES, the choice of biometric identifiers, the extent to which national Entry/Exit Systems could be integrated and/or reused, the need for enhanced synergies and/or interoperability with existing border control systems, and the possibility for law enforcement authorities to access the EES. In order to further assess the technical, organisational and financial impacts of the various possible ways to address these issues, the Commission subsequently initiated - with the support of both co-legislators - a proof of concept exercise aimed at identifying options for implementing the Smart Borders package. This exercise consists of two stages: 1. A Commission-led Technical Study (this report) aimed at identifying and assessing the most suitable and promising options and solutions. Based on this Study, the options and solutions to be tested through a pilot project should be identified by the end of 2014. 2. A Pilot project to be entrusted to the Agency for the Operational Management of large-scale IT Systems in the area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA), aimed at verifying the feasibility of the options identified in the Technical Study and validating the selected concepts for both automated and manual border controls. This Study addressed a series of questions raised in 20 Thematic Files (TFs) that were jointly agreed between the EC's Directorate General for Home Affairs (DG HOME), the MS and EP representatives in February 2014. These questions focused on six domains: 1. Statistics 2. Biometrics 3. Border control processes 4. Data 5. Architecture 6. Costs. The Study's methodological approach was primarily based on stakeholders' consultations through workshops, phone interviews and feedback from MS on the draft deliverables. The stakeholders consulted included MS, the EP, the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), DG HOME, DG Justice (DG JUST), DG Taxation and Customs Union (DG TAXUD), eu-LISA, Frontex and representatives from industry. The Study also built upon extensive desk research, literature review and various on-site visits. In addition, a specific data collection survey was carried out at the external borders of the Schengen Area by the MS at the end of May 2014. This survey allowed collecting up-to-date quantitative data concerning border crossings, including their number and type (air, land and sea), and the categories of travellers (i.e. EU/EEA/CH - abbreviated as EU-citizens, third country nationals either visa-exempt (TCNVE) or visa holders (TCNVH)).

Details: Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2014. 416p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 30, 2014 at: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/smart-borders/docs/smart_borders_technical_study_en.pdf

Year: 2014

Country: Europe

URL: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/smart-borders/docs/smart_borders_technical_study_en.pdf

Shelf Number: 133834

Keywords:
Border Control
Border Law Enforcement
Border Security (Europe)
Illegal Immigrants
Illegal Immigration
Immigration Policy

Author: American Immigration Council

Title: Children in Danger: A guide to the Humanitarian Challenge at the Border

Summary: The American Immigration Council has prepared this guide in order to provide policymakers, the media, and the public with basic information surrounding the current humanitarian challenge the U.S. is facing as thousands of young migrants show up at our southern border. This guide seeks to explain the basics. Who are the unaccompanied children and why are they coming? What basic protections are they entitled to by law? What happens to unaccompanied children once they are in U.S. custody? What has the government done so far? What additional responses have been proposed to address this issue? The children's reasons for coming to the United States, their care, our obligations to them as a nation, and the implications for foreign and domestic policies are critical pieces we must understand as we move toward solutions. Acknowledging the complexity of the situation, President Obama declared an "urgent humanitarian situation" along the southwest border requiring a coordinated federal effort by a range of federal agencies. The government's subsequent response has ignited a vigorous debate between advocates for refugees and unaccompanied minors and the government. We hope that this guide helps those engaging in the debate to understand the key concepts and America's laws and obligations related to unaccompanied children.

Details: Washington, DC: American Immigration Council, 2014. 20p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 30, 2014 at: http://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/docs/children_in_danger_a_guide_to_the_humanitarian_challenge_at_the_border_final.pdf

Year: 2014

Country: United States

URL: http://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/docs/children_in_danger_a_guide_to_the_humanitarian_challenge_at_the_border_final.pdf

Shelf Number: 128069

Keywords:
Border Control
Child Immigrants
Illegal Immigration
Immigration Policy
Unaccompanied Children (U.S.)

Author: Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service

Title: Locking Up Family Values, Again

Summary: 2009, the Obama Administration closed what then was the United States� largest family immigration detention facility after years of controversy, media exposure, and a lawsuit. Conditions at T. Don Hutto Family Detention Facility, and the impact of detention on families and children, proved that family detention could not be carried out humanely. In the summer of 2014, with an increase in the number of mothers and children fleeing violence and persecution in Central America, the Administration has returned to this widely discredited and costly practice. Part of a strategy to �stem the flow� through detention and expedited removal, the expansion of family detention continues even with a high percentage of families seeking protection and posing no flight or security risks. With the conversion of existing detention facilities and plans for an additional facility, the United States will soon have roughly 40 times as many family detention beds as there were in spring 2014. Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (LIRS) and the Women�s Refugee Commission (WRC), leading experts on the intersection of families and immigration, have collaborated to show the harm family detention causes and outline sensible alternatives. The findings in Locking Up Family Values, Again are informed by our tours of the Artesia and Karnes facilities as well as interviews with facility and government officials, detained families, and legal and social service providers. Much like in our 2007 report, Locking Up Family Values, our findings again illustrate that large-scale family detention results in egregious violations of our country�s obligations under international law, undercuts individual due process rights, and sets a poor example for the rest of the world. Locking Up Family Values, Again documents that most of the families detained � such as 98% at the Karnes facility based on September 2014 statistics � are seeking protection in the United States. The average age of children in the government�s Artesia facility as of October 2014 was six years old, and more than half of all children who entered family detention in Fiscal Year 2014 were six years or younger. Infants, pregnant women, and toddlers are detained at both locations. Families are detained on a �no bond, no release� policy. Thousands of women and children fleeing violence are at risk of permanent psychological trauma and return to persecution if these policies continue. In addition to inadequate access to child care, medical and mental health care, and legal assistance, we find that family detention remains as rife for abuse � especially given the vulnerability of this population � as we observed with Hutto. In October 2014, the Karnes facility was at the center of allegations of sexual assault by guards threatening or bribing detained women. In another example, a detained young mother at a family facility was suddenly accused of abuse, torn apart from her two small children and transferred to an adult facility without explanation or information on her children�s welfare or whereabouts. Our conclusion is simple: there is no way to humanely detain families. This report recommends that the government close Artesia and Karnes and halt plans for opening a new facility, improve its screening procedures, and revise its policy of no or high bonds for families. The report calls on the government to implement the vast array of cost-effective alternatives to detention that are successful in ensuring participants appear for scheduled court hearings.

Details: Baltimore, MD: Lutheran Immigration & Refugee Service, 2014. 28p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 4, 2014 at: http://lirs.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LIRSWRC_LockingUpFamilyValuesAgain_Report_141030.pdf

Year: 2014

Country: United States

URL: http://lirs.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LIRSWRC_LockingUpFamilyValuesAgain_Report_141030.pdf

Shelf Number: 133966

Keywords:
Families
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrant Detention
Immigrants (U.S.)
Immigration Policy

Author: Hoekstra, Mark

Title: Illegal Immigration, State Law, and Deterrence

Summary: A critical immigration policy question is whether state and federal policy can deter undocumented workers from entering the U.S. We examine whether Arizona SB 1070, arguably the most restrictive and controversial state immigration law ever passed, deterred entry into Arizona. We do so by exploiting a unique data set from a survey of undocumented workers passing through Mexican border towns on their way to the U.S. Results indicate the bill's passage reduced the flow of undocumented immigrants into Arizona by 30 to 70 percent, suggesting that undocumented workers from Mexico are responsive to changes in state immigration policy. In contrast, we find no evidence that the law induced undocumented immigrants already in Arizona to return to Mexico.

Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2014. 31p.

Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working Paper No. 20801: Accessed January 31, 2015 at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w20801

Year: 2014

Country: United States

URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w20801

Shelf Number: 134510

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

Author: Meyer, Maureen

Title: On the Front Lines: Border Security, Migration, and Humanitarian Concerns in South Texas

Summary: In December 2014, WOLA paid its third visit in two years to the Rio Grande Valley, the part of the U.S.-Mexico border closest to the Gulf of Mexico, in south Texas. This region made headlines in summer 2014 as tens of thousands of unaccompanied Central American children crossed the border here. This crisis has declined somewhat, but 2015 is still on track to be the second-largest year on record for Central American child and family migration to the United States, most of it in the Rio Grande Valley. But this is just one crisis that this region is suffering. The Rio Grande Valley now records the highest number of migrants dying of dehydration and exposure as they walk through its arid ranch lands. It sits across from what is today the most violent segment of Mexico's border zone. This segment receives the largest portion of Mexican citizens deported by the United States, who face acute safety concerns upon their return. The situation on both sides of the border is extremely difficult: for migrants, for residents on the Mexican side, and for U.S. and Mexican law enforcement personnel who have to contend with it. It requires Washington and Mexico City to take bold and humane actions. This report recommends several.

Details: Washington, DC: Washington Office on Latin America, 2015. 33p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 9, 2015 at: http://www.wola.org/sites/default/files/MX/WOLA%20Report_South%20Texas%20Border%202015.pdf

Year: 2015

Country: United States

URL: http://www.wola.org/sites/default/files/MX/WOLA%20Report_South%20Texas%20Border%202015.pdf

Shelf Number: 134763

Keywords:
Border Security (U.S.)
Deportation
Illegal Migration
Immigration Policy
Migrants

Author: United States Sentencing Commission

Title: Illegal Reentry Offenses

Summary: This report analyzes data collected by the United States Sentencing Commission1 concerning cases in which offenders are sentenced under USSG �2L1.2 - commonly called "illegal reentry" cases. Such cases are a significant portion of all federal cases in which offenders are sentenced under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. In fiscal year 2013, for instance, illegal reentry cases constituted 26 percent of all such cases. As part of its ongoing review of the guidelines, including the immigration guidelines, the Commission examined illegal reentry cases from fiscal year 2013, including offenders' criminal histories, number of prior deportations, and personal characteristics. Part I of this report summarizes the relevant statutory and guideline provisions. Part II provides general information about illegal reentry cases based on the Commission's annual datafiles. Part III presents the findings of the Commission's in-depth analysis of a representative sample of illegal reentry cases. Part IV presents key findings.

Details: Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission, 2015. 32p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 20, 2015 at: http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-projects-and-surveys/immigration/2015_Illegal-Reentry-Report.pdf

Year: 2015

Country: United States

URL: http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-projects-and-surveys/immigration/2015_Illegal-Reentry-Report.pdf

Shelf Number: 135259

Keywords:
Illegal Immigration
Illegal Reentry (U.S.)
Immigrants
Immigration Policy
Sentencing Guidelines

Author: Wasem, Ruth Ellen

Title: Unaccompanied Alien Children: Demographics in Brief

Summary: The number of children coming to the United States who are not accompanied by parents or legal guardians and who lack proper immigration documents has raised complex and competing sets of humanitarian concerns and immigration control issues. This report focuses on the demographics of unaccompanied alien children while they are in removal proceedings. Overwhelmingly, the children are coming from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. The median age of unaccompanied children has decreased from 17 years in FY2011 to 16 years during the first seven months of FY2014. A greater share of males than females are represented among this population. However, females have steadily increased in total numbers and as a percentage of the flow since FY2011. The median age of females has dropped from 17 years in FY2011-the year that was the median age across all groups of children-to 15 years in the first seven months of FY2014.

Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2014. 13p.

Source: Internet Resource: R43734: Accessed April 29, 2015 at: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43734.pdf

Year: 2014

Country: United States

URL: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43734.pdf

Shelf Number: 135420

Keywords:
Child Protection
Immigration Policy
Unaccompanied Alien Children
Unaccompanied Children (U.S.)
Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Donnelly, Robert

Title: Transit Migration in Mexico: Domestis and International Policy Implications

Summary: The recent surge in Central American migration has challenged Mexico to implement policies that uphold human rights for migrants (especially unaccompanied children) who are passing through the country while also deterring unauthorized crossings at the southern border and cracking down on human smuggling and trafficking. However, finding the appropriate balance for these policies - with a humanitarian focus on the one hand and meeting larger "security concerns" on the other hand - has been elusive for the Mexican government. This essay discusses the historical and political context of Mexico's various policy responses to the spike in Central American migration through Mexico toward the United States and analyzes related implications for the country's relationships with the United States and its Central American neighbors.

Details: Houston, TX: James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy, Rice University, 2014. 20p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 21, 2015 at: http://bakerinstitute.org/media/files/files/4a32803e/MC-pub-TransitMigration-120214.pdf

Year: 2014

Country: Mexico

URL: http://bakerinstitute.org/media/files/files/4a32803e/MC-pub-TransitMigration-120214.pdf

Shelf Number: 135741

Keywords:
Border Security
Human Rights
Human Smuggling
Human Trafficking
Immigrants
Immigration
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: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

Title: Unlocking Human Dignity: A Plan to Transform the U.S. Immigrant Detention Systems

Summary: The US immigrant detention system grew more than fivefold between 1994 and 2013. During these years, the average daily detained population rose from 6,785 to 34,260 (Figure 1). The number of persons detained annually increased from roughly 85,000 persons in 1995 to 440,557 in 2013 (Kerwin 1996, 1; Simansky 2014, 6). Since the beginning of the Obama administration's detention reform initiative in 2009, annual detention numbers have reached record levels (Figure 2). More persons pass through the U.S. immigrant detention system each year than through federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) facilities (Meissner et al. 2013, 131). This growth has occurred in what may be the most troubled institution in the vast U.S. immigration enforcement system. The numbers only hint at the toll that this system exacts in despair, fractured families, human rights violations, abandoned legal claims, and diminished national prestige. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) lacks the authority to imprison criminals and does not hold anybody awaiting trial or serving a criminal sentence. Congress and DHS use the anodyne language of "processing" and "detention" to describe this system. Yet each year DHS's Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) holds hundreds of thousands of non-citizens and the occasional U.S. citizen (Carcamo 2014), many for extended periods, in prisons, jails, and other secure facilities where their lives are governed by standards designed for criminal defendants. Detention brands immigrants as criminals in the public's eye and contributes to the sense that they deserve to be treated as such. In many respects, immigrant detainees are treated less favorably than criminal defendants. U.S. mandatory detention laws cover broad categories of non-citizens, including lawful permanent residents (LPRs), asylum-seekers, petty offenders, and persons with U.S. families and other strong and longstanding ties to the United States. Sixty percent of the unauthorized have resided in the United States for 10 years or more and 17 percent for at least 20 years (Warren and Kerwin 2015, 86-87, 99). Moreover, DHS has interpreted the laws to preclude the release of mandatory detainees, even release coupled with the most intensive restrictions and monitoring. By way of contrast, most criminal defendants receive custody hearings by judicial officers shortly after their apprehension and they can be released subject to conditions that will reasonably ensure their court appearance and protect the public. Detention is treated as a pillar of the U.S. immigration enforcement system akin to border control or removal, but in fact it is a means to an end that would be far better served by a more humane, less costly system. Its purpose is to ensure that non-citizens in removal proceedings appear for their hearings and, if they are removable and lack legal relief, that their removal can be effected. Detention is also justified as a tool to protect others, although this consideration is more relevant to the criminal justice system. In fact, there are tested, effective, and humane ways to accomplish these goals short of detention. Supervised or conditional release programs have long been a mainstay of the criminal justice system, but have only recently begun to gain traction in the immigration context. Moreover, detention makes it far less likely that indigent and low-income immigrants will be able to secure legal counsel and, thus, to present their claims for relief and protection.

Details: Washington, DC: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2015. 44p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 4, 2015 at: http://www.usccb.org/about/migration-and-refugee-services/upload/unlocking-human-dignity.pdf

Year: 2015

Country: United States

URL: http://www.usccb.org/about/migration-and-refugee-services/upload/unlocking-human-dignity.pdf

Shelf Number: 135887

Keywords:
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrant Detention
Immigration
Immigration Policy
Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Kesete, Nisan Zerai

Title: Destitution Domestic Violence Concession - Monitoring Research Report

Summary: In the UK, many migrant women who are victims of domestic violence have insecure immigration status and some have the restriction of 'no recourse to public funds' even when they have a valid leave to stay in the county. The No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) rule is a condition attached to a residence permit in the UK, showing that a person who is subject to immigration control or without secure immigration status has no entitlement to most welfare benefits, tax credits or housing assistance measures that are paid by the state. This rule applies to many migrants including those on spousal or partner visas, people on student visas and their dependants, people on work visa and their dependants, refused asylum seekers and over-stayers. The NRPF restriction, therefore, has made it very difficult for many women who are victims of domestic violence to leave abusive situations. In most cases these women are forced to either remain in the abusive relationship or face destitution. Since 1992, Southall Black Sisters (SBS), a women's organisation working for and with ethnic minority women, have led an extensive national campaign calling for reforms to the immigration rules and the NRPF requirement so that women experiencing violence are not facing the stark choice between abuse, deportation and destitution. Following this campaign, in 1999, the Government announced a concession, the Domestic Violence rule, to allow those on spousal or partner visa and whose relationship has broken down as a result of domestic violence, to obtain Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) if they can prove that the relationship actually broke down due to domestic violence. Although this concession was a positive step forward, in terms of solving the immigration side of the problem, it still did not address the problem of destitution as the women concerned continue to have to find ways of supporting themselves financially as they remain under the NRPF rule whilst applying and waiting for an ILR decision to be made. To address this problem the Government set up the Sojourner pilot project in November 2009, a project run by Eaves, to provide financial support to those fleeing domestic violence while applying for ILR under the DV rule. In April 2012, a new scheme, the Destitution Domestic Violence (DDV) Concession scheme replaced Sojourner, mainstreaming the financial support provided to those applying for ILR under the DV rule. Following the introduction of the DDV Concession scheme, Eaves obtained funding from Unbound Philanthropy to monitor the implementation of the scheme and to provide training to professionals who work with women using the Concession across the UK. The DDV Concession scheme monitoring research project focused on four key areas: - Regularising immigration status through the scheme - Accessing financial support and benefits through the scheme - The support needs of women and the organisations supporting them through the DDV Concession scheme - Providing recommendations for future policy and practice.

Details: London: Eaves For Women, 2013. 93p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 4, 2015 at: http://i2.cmsfiles.com/eaves/2013/12/DDV-Concession-Scheme-Monitoring-Report-Final-f14013.pdf

Year: 2013

Country: United Kingdom

URL: http://i2.cmsfiles.com/eaves/2013/12/DDV-Concession-Scheme-Monitoring-Report-Final-f14013.pdf

Shelf Number: 135891

Keywords:
Domestic Violence
Family Violence
Immigration Policy
Intimate Partner Violence
Migrants
Violence Against Women

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: 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: 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: 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: Human Impact Partners

Title: Family Unity, Family Health. How Family-Focused Immigration Reform Will Mean Better Health for Children and Families

Summary: A sense of safety is critical to a child's health and well-being. Constant fear and anxiety harm a child's physical growth and development, emotional stability, self-confidence, social skills and ability to learn. Yet for millions of children in America, fear is a constant companion. The lives of children with undocumented immigrant parents or guardians in the United States are saturated with fear - fear that the people they love and depend on will be arrested and taken away from them at any moment without warning. Many of these children were born here and are U.S. citizens. But under current immigration policy, their families can be torn apart with an arrest and deportation with little regard for their well-being or futures. This important and timely report documents the profound and unjust impacts of deportation - and fear of deportation - on the children of undocumented immigrants. These children didn't choose their circumstance. But our misguided policies leave these children more likely to suffer from mental health issues and post-traumatic stress disorder than the children of documented immigrant parents. These children are more likely to experience aggression, anxiety and withdrawal and less likely to do well in school. If a parent is deported, they are at increased risk of going hungry, falling into poverty and dropping out of school. When one fifth of our nation's children are poor, the last thing we need are policies that will push more children into poverty and lives of despair without hope and opportunity.

Details: Oakland, CA: Human Impact Partners, 2013. 75p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 10, 2016 at: http://www.familyunityfamilyhealth.org/uploads/images/FamilyUnityFamilyHealth.pdf

Year: 2013

Country: United States

URL: http://www.familyunityfamilyhealth.org/uploads/images/FamilyUnityFamilyHealth.pdf

Shelf Number: 137830

Keywords:

Children of Immigrants
Immigrant Detention
Immigration Policy
Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Argueta, Carla N.

Title: Border Security Metrics Between Ports of Entry

Summary: Understanding the risks present at the U.S. borders and developing methods to measure border security are key challenges for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the U.S. Border Patrol, the agency within DHS charged with securing the border between ports of entry. Metrics for border security are used at both the strategic level, by DHS, and at the operational level by Customs and Border Protection (Border Patrol). This report reviews DHS's and the Border Patrol's use of metrics in evaluating their objective to secure the border between ports of entry. DHS and the Border Patrol can use metrics to measure their performance and estimate risks at the border. Additionally, metrics provide Congress with an understanding of DHS's and Border Patrol's progress in securing the border. At a strategic level, DHS uses performance metrics to understand its ability to meet border security objectives. However, DHS has struggled to create a comprehensive measure of border security. Most recently, DHS has labored to create a new generation of performance metrics, through the estimation of unauthorized entry of migrants into the United States. This measure represents the volume of migration entering the United States and can be influenced by factors outside of DHS's control, and therefore may not directly speak on border security. Congress may want to consider whether this is an adequate performance metric for border security and whether additional and/or more comprehensive and targeted metrics are required. DHS's Annual Performance Report for FY2014-FY2016 reported two other performance metrics used to measure its progress in securing the border. First, the percentage of people apprehended multiple times along the Southwest border, or the recidivism rate, is used to capture the ability of the Border Patrol to deter migrants from re-entering the United States. Second, the rate of interdiction effectiveness along the Southwest border between ports of entry, or the effectiveness rate, measures the Border Patrol's ability to apprehend unauthorized migrants. In the past, DHS has used several different performance metrics. For example, from 2001 to 2004, DHS, and the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), used optimum deterrence as a measure for border security, defining it as the level where applying more border security would not significantly increase apprehensions or deterrence. In 2005, DHS began to use operational control as a new measure, describing it as the miles along the border where the Border Patrol had the ability to detect, identify, respond to, and interdict cross-border unauthorized activity. When operational control was retired as a metric, migrant apprehensions became the interim measure for border security from 2011 to 2013. At an operational level, the Border Patrol uses metrics within its risk assessments At an operational level, the Border Patrol uses metrics within its risk assessments. The estimation of risk at the sector level assists the Border Patrol in making day-to-day decisions with regard to how to best align its resources against different threats. The agency determines risk through its "State of the Border Risk Methodology." A secured border is characterized as low risk. The Border Patrol's methodology estimates the magnitude of risk by gathering and understanding intelligence information, developing a detailed awareness of threats at the border, and applying a standardized measurement of risk. These assessments are not used as metrics themselves. However, the Border Patrol's methodology monitors certain metrics at the sector level, such as the recidivist rate and effectiveness rate, which may be able to speak to the Border Patrol's performance. Metrics can provide an understanding of the state of the border. In reviewing border security metrics, Congress may be interested in issues surrounding the oversight of DHS's measurement practices, the determination of acceptable levels of risk for each metric, and the implementation of strategic and operational metrics and how they relate to one another. Moreover, Congress may consider how metrics can be used to inform decisions on expenditures and whether additional data and methodologies are needed to provide a more holistic view of border issues. Lastly, with migrant demographics shifting and some transit countries conducting their own enforcement of unauthorized migration, Congress may consider how these practices affect data and outcomes and what can be done to account for these changes.

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

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 22, 2016 at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R44386.pdf

Year: 2016

Country: United States

URL: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R44386.pdf

Shelf Number: 137930

Keywords:
Border Security
Homeland Security
Illegal Immigration
Immigration Policy
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: 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: 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: 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: U.S. Government Accountability Office

Title: Immigration Detention: Additional Actions Needed to Strengthen DHS Management of Short-Term Holding Facilities

Summary: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is responsible for providing safe, secure, and humane confinement for detained aliens who may be subject to removal or have been ordered removed from the United States. For example, during fiscal years 2014 and 2015, Border Patrol apprehended 823,768 aliens and held them temporarily in holding facilities. GAO was asked to examine DHS's management and oversight of holding facilities. This report examines the extent to which DHS has (1) standards in place for the short-term custody of aliens and monitors compliance with established standards and (2) processes in place for obtaining and addressing complaints from aliens in holding facilities. GAO reviewed CBP and ICE data on time in custody and complaints. GAO also interviewed agency officials and visited 32 holding facilities selected based on geographical location and facility type, among other factors. The visit results are not generalizable, but provided insight to the oversight of holding facilities and management of complaints. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that DHS establish a process to assess time in custody data for all individuals in holding facilities; issue guidance on how and which complaint mechanisms should be communicated to individuals in short-term custody; include a classification code in all complaint tracking systems related to DHS holding facilities; and develop a process for analyzing trends related to holding facility complaints. DHS concurred with the recommendations and identified planned actions.

Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2016. 41p.

Source: Internet Resource: GAO-16-514: Accessed May 27, 2016 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/677484.pdf

Year: 2016

Country: United States

URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/677484.pdf

Shelf Number: 139230

Keywords:
Homeland Security
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrant Detention
Immigration
Immigration Policy
Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Al-Faris, Khamael Hasan Naji

Title: Immigration policy and the role of political discourses in the relationship between foreign nationals and crime in England and wales

Summary: Significant criminological attention has been given to the relationship between immigration and crime. However, this relationship has not been researched in the UK to any great extent, and consequently the information on the UK context is limited. This research investigates how the criminality of foreign nationals have been constructed by examining the nature of immigration policy, foreign criminality discourses, and the media in the UK to understand how crime in particular has been used to define, refine, and inform control of immigrants. This study refers to the legislative, policy, and political factors that underpin this process, and particularly explains how immigration policy and political debates have emphasised the criminality of foreign nationals in the UK. In order to achieve these goals, this research reviews a brief history of British immigration policy and legislation and outlines the connections made between foreign nationals and non-immigration criminal offences. In addition, secondary data from different British institutions and data collected via the Freedom of Information Act 2000 have been used to illustrate the level of foreigners' criminality as well as the type of crimes compared to the British representation. Finally, Parliamentary debates and related political discourses have been used to examine the role of politics has in reinforcing the relationship between foreign nationals and crime and elevating negative public sentiment and the relationship with media reports. This research highlights the limitations of existing data relating to the criminality of foreign nationals in offending records in England and Wales, partly due to the disorganised recording of offender nationality. This study reveals that nationality is the new racism; whilst immigration has become a central focus in political and public discourses on crime they as a group in statistical terms exhibit low levels of offending but are more likely to be imprisoned for less serious crimes. The relationship between foreign nationals and crimes is thus a political issue rather than a legal one. As such, foreign nationals supposed criminality has been used to control immigration, avoid the blame of failing policies, gain electoral votes, and facilitate changes in immigration and crime policies.

Details: Plymouth, UK: Plymouth University, 2016. 366p.

Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed August 30, 2016 at: https://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk/handle/10026.1/4576

Year: 2016

Country: United Kingdom

URL: https://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk/handle/10026.1/4576

Shelf Number: 140081

Keywords:
Foreign Criminals
Immigrants and Crime
Immigration Policy

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: Fasani, Francesco

Title: Immigrant Crime and Legal Status: Evidence from Repeated Amnesty Programs

Summary: Do general amnesty programs lead to reductions in the crime rate among immigrants? We answer this question by exploiting both cross-sectional and time variation in the number of immigrants legalized generated by the enactment of repeated amnesty programs between 1990 and 2005 in Italy. We address the potential endogeneity of the "legalization treatment" by instrumenting the actual number of legalized immigrants with alternative predicted measures based on past amnesty applications patterns and residential choices of documented and undocumented immigrants. We find that, in the year following an amnesty, regions in which a higher share of immigrants obtained legal status experienced a greater decline in non-EU immigrant crime rates, relative to other regions. The effect is statistically significant but relatively small and not persistent. In further results, we fail to find any evidence of substitution in the criminal market from other population groups - namely, EU immigrants and Italian citizens - and we observe a small and not persistent reduction in total offenses.

Details: Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), 2016. 53p.

Source: Internet Resource: IZA Discussion Paper No. 10235 : Accessed October 12, 2016 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2846326

Year: 2016

Country: Europe

URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2846326

Shelf Number: 145422

Keywords:
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrants and Crime
Immigration Policy

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: 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: National Immigration Law Center

Title: States Reject Immigration Enforcement Measures and Advance Inclusive Policies in 2016

Summary: 2016 marked a departure from earlier years, with a high-pitched partisan battle between state elected officials and President Barack Obama on immigration and refugee policy, as well as backlash against localities that had chosen to limit their entanglement with immigration enforcement efforts. Despite significant challenges, the groundwork built by immigrant rights advocates and allies proved effective in defeating virtually all the restrictive bills that were introduced. Thanks to strategic organizing by advocates, directly affected communities, faith-based groups and businesses, and to the testimony of municipal and law enforcement leaders, almost all of the anti-immigrant proposals died.

Details: Los Angeles: NILC, 2016. 16p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 7, 2016 at: https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/states-advance-inclusive-policies-2016-10.pdf

Year: 2016

Country: United States

URL: https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/states-advance-inclusive-policies-2016-10.pdf

Shelf Number: 145307

Keywords:
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrants
Immigration Law 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: Kandel, William A.

Title: Interior Immigration Enforcement: Criminal Alien Programs

Summary: Congress has long supported efforts to identify, detain, and remove criminal aliens, defined as noncitizens who have been convicted of crimes in the United States. The apprehension and expeditious removal of criminal aliens has been a statutory priority since 1986, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and one of its predecessor agencies have operated programs targeting criminal aliens since 1988. Investments in DHS’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) interior enforcement programs since 2004 have increased the number of potentially removable aliens identified within the United States. Inconsistencies in data quality, collection, and definitions prevent a precise enumeration of total criminal aliens and key subgroups such as criminal aliens convicted of removable offenses and aggravated felonies. It is also not known what portion of these groups consists of legally present noncitizens and unauthorized aliens. Noncitizens incarcerated in federal and state prisons and local jails—a subset of all criminal aliens—totaled 142,463 in 2013 (the most recent year for which complete data are available), with state prisons and local jails each accounting for more incarcerations than federal prisons. Until recently, the proportion of noncitizens incarcerated in U.S. prisons and jails corresponded closely to that of noncitizens in the U.S. population, but unreported incarceration data since 2013 has hindered such comparisons. To direct immigration enforcement efforts toward the criminal alien population, ICE operates the Criminal Alien Program (CAP), an umbrella program for marshaling agency resources to identify and remove criminal and other removable aliens. CAP is guided by the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP), which represents a set of immigration enforcement priorities that describe which foreign nationals should be removed and in what priority order. PEP also employs “interoperability,” which is a data sharing infrastructure between DHS and the Department of Justice that screens individuals for immigration-related violations when they pass through law enforcement jurisdictions. PEP replaced the former Secure Communities, which many jurisdictions with large foreign-born populations had opposed. ICE also uses the §287(g) program, which allows the agency to delegate certain immigration enforcement functions to specially trained state and local law enforcement officers, under federal supervision. PEP and the §287(g) program both screen for immigration violations as people pass through the criminal justice system. The National Fugitive Operations Program (NFOP) pursues known at-large criminal aliens and fugitive aliens outside of controlled settings (i.e., administrative offices or custodial settings). NFOP is not part of CAP, although ICE officers in its workforce use the same DHS resources and databases as ICE officers working for CAP. PEP, its predecessor Secure Communities, and the §287(g) program have all contributed to DHS removing large numbers of aliens in the past decade. Yet, these programs also have been controversial. Because interoperability screens all people passing through law enforcement jurisdictions, critics often charged ICE with removing many people who either committed minor crimes or who had no criminal record apart from unauthorized presence in the United States. Other critics charge that revisions to the set of enforcement priorities through PEP have since contributed to declining numbers of enforcement actions. The §287(g) program has raised concerns over inconsistent policies and practices among jurisdictions and allegations of racial profiling, among other issues. Such concerns caused ICE to revise the program in FY2012 and allow certain §287(g) agreements with law enforcement agencies to expire. Since then, immigration enforcement advocates have questioned why ICE has curtailed the program’s use. ICE has recently expressed interest in expanding it.

Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2016. 28p.

Source: Internet Resource: R44627: Accessed November 15, 2016 at: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R44627.pdf

Year: 2016

Country: United States

URL: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R44627.pdf

Shelf Number: 141163

Keywords:
Criminal Aliens
Deportation
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrant Detention
Immigrants and Crime
Immigration Policy
Undocumented Immigrants

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: 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: Wong, Tom K.

Title: The Effects of Sanctuary Policies on Crime and the Economy

Summary: As the Trump administration begins to implement its immigration policy agenda, the issue of local assistance with federal immigration enforcement officials is back in the spotlight. So-called sanctuary jurisdictions are one focus of that debate. Sanctuary counties - as defined by this report - are counties that do not assist federal immigration enforcement officials by holding people in custody beyond their release date. Using an Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, dataset obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, the analyses in this report provide new insights about how sanctuary counties perform across a range of social and economic indicators when compared to nonsanctuary counties. To understand the effects of having a sanctuary policy, we statistically match counties based on a broad range of demographic characteristics and then compare sanctuary counties to nonsanctuary counties to better understand the effects that sanctuary policies have on a local jurisdiction. The data are clear: Crime is statistically significantly lower in sanctuary counties compared to nonsanctuary counties. Moreover, economies are stronger in sanctuary counties - from higher median household income, less poverty, and less reliance on public assistance to higher labor force participation, higher employment-to-population ratios, and lower unemployment. Among the main findings: There are, on average, 35.5 fewer crimes committed per 10,000 people in sanctuary counties compared to nonsanctuary counties. Median household annual income is, on average, $4,353 higher in sanctuary counties compared to nonsanctuary counties. The poverty rate is 2.3 percent lower, on average, in sanctuary counties compared to nonsanctuary counties. Unemployment is, on average, 1.1 percent lower in sanctuary counties compared to nonsanctuary counties. While the results hold true across sanctuary jurisdictions, the sanctuary counties with the smallest populations see the most pronounced effects. Altogether, the data suggest that when local law enforcement focuses on keeping communities safe, rather than becoming entangled in federal immigration enforcement efforts, communities are safer and community members stay more engaged in the local economy. This in turn brings benefits to individual households, communities, counties, and the economy as a whole.

Details: Washington, DC: Center for American Progress; National Immigration Law Center, 2017. 28p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 6, 2017 at: https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Effects-Sanctuary-Policies-Crime-and-Economy-2017-01-26.pdf

Year: 2017

Country: United States

URL: https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Effects-Sanctuary-Policies-Crime-and-Economy-2017-01-26.pdf

Shelf Number: 146030

Keywords:
Economics and Crime
Immigrants and Crime
Immigration Policy
Sanctuary Policy
Undocumented Immigrants

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: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)

Title: Current migration situation in the EU: separated children

Summary: Although official figures on the phenomenon are lacking, it is clear that children arriving in the European Union (EU) are often accompanied by persons other than their parents or guardians. Such children are usually referred to as "separated" children. Their identification and registration bring additional challenges, and their protection needs are often neglected. On arrival, these children are often "accompanied", but the accompanying adult(s) may not necessarily be able, or suitable, to assume responsibility for their care. These children are also at risk of exploitation and abuse, or may already be victims. Their realities and special needs require additional attention. The lack of data and guidance on separated children poses a serious challenge. This focus section outlines the specific protection needs of separated children, and highlights current responses and promising practices among EU Member States.

Details: Vienna: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2016. 21p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 16, 2017 at: http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-december-2016-monthly-migration-report-separated-childr.pdf

Year: 2016

Country: Europe

URL: http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-december-2016-monthly-migration-report-separated-childr.pdf

Shelf Number: 146279

Keywords:
Asylum Seekers
Child Protection
Immigrants
Immigration Policy
Separated Children

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: Wilsher, Daniel

Title: Immigration Detention, the Right to Liberty, and Constitutional Law

Summary: The right to personal liberty is one of the oldest recognized rights in liberal democracies, which raises fundamental constitutional questions about the use of detention as an immigration measure. Nevertheless, in the United Kingdom and other common law countries, lengthy immigration detention on a large scale has become the norm and is largely regarded as constitutional. Because migration power in these countries is framed as a power to detain pending expulsion, courts have struggled to draw clear boundaries around detention, thereby enabling the expansion of detention systems. Constitutions in continental Europe, on the other hand, have viewed immigration detention as a heterodox exercise of police power requiring greater judicial control and legislative time limits. For those in common law countries seeking to prevent excessive immigration detention, the legislative route appears to offer the most promise.

Details: Geneva, SWIT: Global Detention Project, 2017. 14p.

Source: Internet Resource: Global Detention Project Working Paper No. 22: Accessed April 3, 2017 at: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/immigration-detention-the-right-to-liberty-and-constitutional-law

Year: 2017

Country: Europe

URL: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/immigration-detention-the-right-to-liberty-and-constitutional-law

Shelf Number: 144697

Keywords:
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrant Detention
Immigration
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy

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: Rietig, Victoria

Title: Stopping the Revolving Door: Reception and Reintegration Services for Central American Deportees

Summary: In the past five years, hundreds of thousands of Central American migrants deported from Mexico and the United States -including tens of thousands of children - have arrived back in the Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. For many deportees, the conditions upon arrival are worse than those that compelled them to leave in the first place. They and their families may be in crippling debt after having paid smugglers, and many return to communities that are even less safe than when they left. Thus, a significant number are in danger of entering a revolving door of migration, deportation, and remigration. Efforts to break this cycle center on providing more and better opportunities for Central America's people, especially its youth - an effort that includes reception programs and reintegration services for deportees once they return. Governments of Central America acknowledge the need for comprehensive policies and programs to help their deported citizens anchor themselves again upon return. All three countries offer reception services to most deportees, but reintegration services are far more limited and serve only a few. This report offers a detailed profile of the organization, funding sources, capacity, and the numbers of deportees served in reception and reintegration programs in the Northern Triangle. While the relevance of reintegration programs is largely unquestioned, knowledge is limited about what services are already in place, and how existing programs can be leveraged effectively. The authors note that there is little in the way of program evaluation or monitoring. This report attempts to fill these knowledge gaps by describing the types of reception and reintegration services, and analyzing common challenges to building successful initiatives in the region. An appendix provides further details on the programs surveyed, including relevant actors, organizations, budgets, evaluations, numbers of beneficiaries, and challenges.

Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2015. 45p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 10, 2017 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/stopping-revolving-door-reception-and-reintegration-services-central-american-deportees

Year: 2015

Country: Central America

URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/stopping-revolving-door-reception-and-reintegration-services-central-american-deportees

Shelf Number: 144765

Keywords:
Asylum Seekers
Deportees
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrant Deportation
Immigration
Immigration Policy

Author: Collingwood Research

Title: The Politics of Refuge: Sanctuary Cities, Crime, and Undocumented Immigration

Summary: This paper assesses the claim that sanctuary cities - defined as cities that expressly forbid city officials or police departments from inquiring into immigration status - are associated with post-hoc increases in crime. We employ a causal inference matching strategy to compare similarly situated cities where key variables are the same across the cities except the sanctuary status of the city. We find no statistically discernible difference in violent crime rate, rape, or property crime across the cities. Our findings provide evidence that sanctuary policies have no effect on crime rates, despite narratives to the contrary. The potential benefits of sanctuary cities, such as better incorporation of the undocumented community and cooperation with police, thus have little cost for the cities in question in terms of crime.

Details: Riverside, CA: Collingwood Research, 2016. 52p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 2, 2017 at: http://www.collingwoodresearch.com/uploads/8/3/6/0/8360930/shelter_nopols_blind_final.pdf

Year: 2016

Country: United States

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

Shelf Number: 145231

Keywords:
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrants
Immigration Policy
Sanctuary Cities
Undocumented Migrants

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: Capps, Randy

Title: Advances in U.S.- Mexico Border Enforcement: A Review of the Consequence Delivery System

Summary: Questions about how to best secure the U.S.-Mexico border are central to U.S. immigration policy and debates around reforming U.S. immigration laws. In fiscal year (FY) 2011, the U.S. Border Patrol began implementing what it terms the Consequence Delivery System (CDS), its first systematic attempt to employ metrics of effectiveness and efficiency to the different forms of removal and other enforcement consequences that migrants face after being apprehended at the Southwest border. This report presents findings from a year-long study that included analysis of previously unpublished CDS data provided to MPI by the Border Patrol as well as fieldwork in the Tucscon and Rio Grande Valley sectors, discussing which consequence measures may be most effective in deterring illegal migration. As the Border Patrol has shifted towards greater use of formal removal and away from voluntary return, its use of consequences and allocation of resources-including expedited removal, lateral repatriation, and criminal prosecution via Streamline - have been measured and guided by CDS. Overall, the share of migrants apprehended more than once in the same fiscal year fell from 29 percent in FY 2007 to 14 pecent in FY 2014. Ultimately, while CDS has become an important tool that informs Border Patrol priorities, the authors find that some of its underlying assumptions about effectiveness and deterrence may be less applicable to the U.S.-Mexico border today than in the past. The shift from majority Mexican arrivals to new and diverse migrant groups, particularly women and children fleeing violence in Central America, has both limited the consequences the Border Patrol can impose and revealed limitations in data collection. Tackling these challenges will be essential to future enforcement strategy and policy-making.

Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2017. 39p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 4, 2017 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/advances-us-mexico-border-enforcement-review-consequence-delivery-system

Year: 2017

Country: United States

URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/advances-us-mexico-border-enforcement-review-consequence-delivery-system

Shelf Number: 145309

Keywords:
Border Enforcement
Border Security
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrant Deportation
Immigration Policy

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: 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: 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: Johnson, Olivia

Title: Policing Bodies in Transit: Borders, Detention and Migrant Narratives Along the Balkan Route

Summary: In summer 2016, I travelled along the Balkan route conducting semi-structured interviews with local organizations (n=24) and refugees (n=16) in an effort to explore the consequences of stasis within mobility. Through hearing about the personal impacts of closed borders, marginalization and deportations I realized that the policies in place to aid refugees instead contributed to a larger system of confinement and detention. In this thesis I explore the expansion of the carceral state through the criminalization of asylum seekers and the consequent detention and deportation they face. I look at the role of surveillance technology and physical barriers (i.e. fences) as potential inhibitors to accessing asylum. I theorize how EU asylum policy facilitates this process and incorporate narratives from asylum seekers along the Balkan route to humanize this analysis

Details: Durham, NC: Duke University, 2017. 96p.

Source: Internet Resource: Thesis: Accessed September 1, 2017 at: https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/15350/thesis_JohnsonOlivia%20.pdf?sequence=1

Year: 2017

Country: Europe

URL: https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/15350/thesis_JohnsonOlivia%20.pdf?sequence=1

Shelf Number: 146997

Keywords:
Asylum Seekers
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrant Detention
Immigration
Immigration Policy

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: Crosby, Andrew

Title: Governing immigration through crime at the street level: The Metamorphosis of an Immigration Detention Centre in Belgium

Summary: Based on ethnographic research in an immigration detention centre in Belgium I discuss the evolution of the regime to which the detainees are subjected. In the official language of the Immigration Office, this evolution is called humanisation of detention. A reconstruction of the changes shows that instead the regime was changed for the well-being of the staff. In fact, immigration detention must be understood as a result of the rise of warehousing practices of the penal state. The staff of the centres has the task of executing the punitive measure of detention. However, this became too burdensome for the staff and so the regime was gradually humanised without change in legislation. All levels of staff were implicated in this change. I argue that the changes were made to account to different actors: inside the Immigration Office accountability was directed to the staff, while externally this process was called humanisation.

Details: Cartografie sociali. Rivista di sociologia e scienze umani, 1(2), 2016, pp. 145-166.

Source: Internet Resource: Criminal Justice, Borders and Citizenship Research Paper No. 2921116: Accessed September 2, 2017 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2921116

Year: 2016

Country: Belgium

URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2921116

Shelf Number: 147016

Keywords:
Immigrant Detention
Immigration
Immigration Policy

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: 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: 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: Cervantes, Wendy

Title: Our Children's Fear: Immigration Policy's Effects on Young Children

Summary: This study from CLASP was motivated by widespread reports that children and families are being harmed by the Trump Administration's immigration policy priorities. We confirmed many of these reports after speaking with 150 early childhood educators and parents in six states-California, Georgia, Illinois, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. Children of immigrants matter to America's future, so our public policies must be designed to ensure that all children are able to achieve their full potential. Without changing course, we as a nation will also pay a heavy price as our future prosperity will be largely determined by the extent to which our increasingly diverse U.S. child population is able to succeed.

Details: Washington, DC: CLASP, 2018. 40p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed march 9, 2018 at: https://www.clasp.org/sites/default/files/publications/2018/03/2018_ourchildrensfears.pdf

Year: 2018

Country: United States

URL: https://www.clasp.org/sites/default/files/publications/2018/03/2018_ourchildrensfears.pdf

Shelf Number: 149419

Keywords:
Immigrant Children
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy
Undocumented Immigrants

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: Human Rights Watch

Title: In the Freezer: Abusive Conditions for Women and Children in US Immigration Holding Cells

Summary: Migrant women and children detained along the US border with Mexico usually spend one to three nights, and sometimes longer, in frigid holding cells, sleeping on floors or concrete benches before immigration authorities transfer them to other detention facilities. These holding cells are so notorious for their uncomfortably low temperatures that migrants and border agents alike refer to them as hieleras ("freezers"). Women and children are usually not allowed to shower and often have no access to soap, meaning that they are not able to wash their hands with soap before and after eating or feeding infants, after using the toilet, and after changing diapers. Families are often separated while in immigration holding cells, a practice that harms women and children's mental well-being and may complicate their efforts to seek asylum. All immigration detainees have the right to be treated with dignity and humanity, and children, unaccompanied or with family members, are entitled to additional safeguards. Conditions in immigration holding cells do not meet these standards, and the shortcomings identified in this report in many respects match those that US courts have found to violate immigration authorities' obligations. To address these serious concerns, immigration holding cells should be used for very short periods of confinement only. Detention overnight in holding cells should be employed only when it is unavoidable, and never for children. Those who are held overnight should receive sleeping mats, blankets, hygiene materials, and access to showers. Temperatures in holding cells should be set at reasonable and comfortable levels. US immigration authorities should also avoid splitting up families. Instead, authorities should identify and implement alternatives to detention that keep families together.

Details: New York; HRW, 2018. 50p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 16, 2018 at: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/uscrd0218_web.pdf

Year: 2018

Country: United States

URL: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/uscrd0218_web.pdf

Shelf Number: 149484

Keywords:
Human Rights Abuses
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrant Detention
Immigration Policy
Migrants
Violence Against Women, Children

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: Peck, Sarah Herman

Title: Immigration Consequences of Criminal Activity

Summary: Congress's power to create rules governing the admission of non-U.S. nationals (aliens) has long been viewed as plenary. In the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended, Congress has specified grounds for the exclusion or removal of aliens, including on account of criminal activity. Some criminal offenses, when committed by an alien who is present in the United States, may render that alien subject to removal from the country. And certain criminal offenses may preclude an alien outside the United States from being either admitted into the country or permitted to reenter following an initial departure. Further, criminal conduct may disqualify an alien from certain forms of relief from removal or prevent the alien from becoming a U.S. citizen. In some cases, the INA directly identifies particular offenses that carry immigration consequences; in other cases, federal immigration law provides that a general category of crimes, such as "crimes involving moral turpitude" or an offense defined by the INA as an "aggravated felony," may render an alien ineligible for certain benefits and privileges under immigration law. The INA distinguishes between the treatment of aliens who have been lawfully admitted into the United States and those who are either seeking admission into the country or are physically present in the country without having been lawfully admitted. Aliens who have been lawfully admitted into the country may be removed if they engage in conduct that renders them deportable, whereas aliens who have not been legally admitted into the United States-including both aliens seeking initial entry into the United States as well as those who are physically present in the country but were never lawfully admitted-may be excluded or removed from the country if they have engaged in conduct rendering them inadmissible. Although the INA designates certain criminal activities and categories of criminal activities as grounds for inadmissibility or deportation, the respective grounds are not identical. Moreover, a conviction for a designated crime is not always required for an alien to be disqualified on criminal grounds from admission into the United States. But for nearly all criminal grounds for deportation, a "conviction" (as defined by the INA) for the underlying offense is necessary. Additionally, although certain criminal conduct may disqualify an alien from various immigration-related benefits or forms of relief, the scope of disqualifying conduct varies depending on the particular benefit or form of relief at issue. This report identifies the major criminal grounds that may bar an alien from being admitted into the United States or render an alien within the country removable. The report also discusses additional immigration consequences of criminal activity, including those that make an alien ineligible for certain relief from removal, including cancellation of removal, voluntary departure, withholding of removal, and asylum. The report also addresses the criminal grounds that render an alien ineligible to adjust to lawful permanent resident (LPR) status, as well as those grounds barring LPRs from naturalizing as U.S. citizens. The report also discusses the scope of several general criminal categories referenced by the INA, including "crimes involving moral turpitude," "aggravated felonies," and "crimes of violence.

Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2018. 34p.

Source: Internet Resource: R45151: Accessed April 17, 2018 at: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R45151.pdf

Year: 2018

Country: United States

URL: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R45151.pdf

Shelf Number: 149839

Keywords:
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrant Deportation
Immigrants and Crime
Immigration
Immigration Policy

Author: Park, Maki

Title: Responding to the ECEC Needs of Children of Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Europe and North America

Summary: In Europe and North America, the arrival of heightened numbers of refugees and asylum seekers in recent years has challenged the ability of governments and service providers to both meet initial reception needs and provide effective long-term integration services. Young children make up a significant share of these newcomers. As a result, there is a pressing need for early childhood education and care (ECEC) programs equipped to serve culturally and linguistically diverse learners and their families, including by supporting the healthy development of children who have experienced trauma. his report explores the findings of a nine-country study of ECEC policies and practices designed to serve young children of refugees and asylum seekers. It draws on fieldwork conducted in Belgium, Canada, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, Turkey, and the United States-major host countries with varied refugee and asylum-seeker populations, migration-management policies, and ECEC systems-to highlights both common challenges and promising practices. In many of the countries studied, country-wide responses to the ECEC needs of this population have been weak or nonexistent, as has support for the local government actors charged with ECEC service provision. And while many ECEC programs recognize the importance of trauma-informed care, few feel they have the training or resources to adequately provide it. Nonetheless, some countries and individual ECEC programs have developed strategies to better serve these children-from expanding services and language supports, to offering health and educational services in one location, to boosting stakeholder coordination through interagency and community partnerships.

Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2018. 65p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 19, 2018 at: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/responding-ecec-needs-children-refugees-asylum-seekers-europe-north-america

Year: 2018

Country: International

URL: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/responding-ecec-needs-children-refugees-asylum-seekers-europe-north-america

Shelf Number: 149857

Keywords:
Asylum Seekers
Children of Immigrants
Immigration Policy
Refugees

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: Bruni, Vittorio

Title: Study on Migration Routes in West and Central Africa

Summary: This report provides an overview of the complex migration trends in West and Central Africa. Based on a desk review of the existing literature and data, the report presents the main drivers and trends of migration in the region, the main routes migrants take to move from the region to get to Europe, migrant vulnerabilities, and the policy and programme responses to migration (multilateral and inter-regional frameworks, regional organizations, and bilateral agreements). The migration contexts of thirteen countries in West and Central Africa are examined: Burkina Faso, the Central African Republic, Chad, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Cote d'Ivoire, Mali, Mauritania, Nigeria, Nigeria, Senegal, and Sierra Leone. These countries are, to different extents, all origin, transit, and/or destination countries of migrants. In West and Central Africa, asylum seekers, refugees, and economic migrants move within the region and beyond it, motivated by different and often overlapping factors, including conflicts, political and socio-economic conditions, and environmental causes. Economic migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers, tend to use similar migration routes and modes of travel. Among the group of migrants originating from the focus countries there are also irregular migrants and victims of human trafficking. For most "irregular" West-African migrants, migration is "regular" in the sense that movements of citizens of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) are prescribed by the freedom of movement protocols of ECOWAS. However, while citizens in this region have the right to free movement, they often lack the correct or recognised documents for movement, making them "irregular" migrants in the region. Even with the ECOWAS free movement protocol in place, there are many barriers to regular migration for prospective migrants, including administrative and bureaucratic challenges and a lack of governmental ability to implement ECOWAS legislations. Corruption is also a major impediment to regular migration, as paying bribes to border patrols is, in many countries, an institutionalised norm. Bribes are often required even when migrants are in possession of proper documentation. Most migrants in the West and Central African region move within the region, and they largely do so by travelling by highways in private cars or buses. Contrary to popular belief, the minority of people that migrate from the region seek to reach Europe. Among those migrants that seek to reach Europe, most rely for the last part of their journey on smugglers that will bring them from some northern Nigerien or Malian cities to either Algeria or, more commonly, Libya. Generally, the complex nature of migration in the region makes it a challenge to identify different types of migrants and their specific vulnerabilities and needs. For these reasons, the flows of migration in the region are often referred to as mixed or complex migration.

Details: Maastricht, Netherlands: Maastricht Graduate School of Governance, 2017. 170p.

Source: Internet Resource: accessed April 27, 2018 at: https://www.merit.unu.edu/publications/uploads/1518182884.pdf

Year: 2017

Country: Africa

URL: https://www.merit.unu.edu/publications/uploads/1518182884.pdf

Shelf Number: 149927

Keywords:
Asylum Seekers
Border Security
Human Trafficking
Immigrants
Immigration Policy
Migrants
Refugees

Author: Marchand, Katrin

Title: Study on Migration Routes in the East and Horn of Africa

Summary: This report provides an overview of the complex mixed migration trends in the East and Horn of Africa. Based on a desk review of the existing literature and data on the main drivers and trends of migration in the region, the main routes, migrant vulnerabilities and needs as well as policy and programme responses to migration are presented. Specifically, the mixed migration context of eight countries in the East and Horn of Africa is examined: Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan and Uganda. These countries are, to different extents, all origin, transit and/ or destination countries of migrants. In the East and Horn of Africa, asylum seekers, refugees and economic migrants move within the region as well as beyond for a variety of different factors, including conflicts, political and socio-economic conditions as well as environmental causes in their respective countries of origin. These migrants often use the same migration routes and modes of travel, including smugglers. In addition, victims of trafficking may also be among these migrants. Overall, this mixed nature of migration in the region makes it a challenge to identify different types of migrants and their specific vulnerabilities and needs. Drivers of Migration The factors that lead people to make the decision to migrate through both regular and irregular channels are often called the drivers of migration. This includes both voluntary and forced movements as well as temporary and permanent ones. The countries in the East and Horn of Africa share many characteristics, but differ in others. It can be said that the region as a whole faces challenges associated with low human and economic development. In addition, violent conflicts, political oppression and persecution are or have been main migration drivers in Ethiopia, Somalia, South Sudan and Sudan. In the case of Eritrea the obligatory national service requirements present another significant driver of migration. Environmental factors are also increasingly affecting countries in the region and impact peoples' livelihoods and migration decisions. Migration from Uganda and Kenya is mainly driven by economic factors. Often it is a mix of different factors that lead to the decision to migrate. It is important to keep in mind that even though the eight focus countries share some common drivers of migration the specific country context matters.

Details: Maastricht, Netherlands: Maastricht Graduate School of Governance, 2017. 114p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 27, 2018 at: https://www.merit.unu.edu/publications/uploads/1517475164.pdf

Year: 2017

Country: Africa

URL: https://www.merit.unu.edu/publications/uploads/1517475164.pdf

Shelf Number: 149929

Keywords:
Asylum Seekers
Border Security
Human Trafficking
Immigrants
Immigration Policy
Migrants
Refugees

Author: Irving, Gideon

Title: Immigrant Internment: An Investigation of Record High Immigration Detentions in the Contemporary United States

Summary: This paper investigates why the United States is currently detaining immigrants at record high levels. It profiles the cultural, business, and political influences that affect immigration detention policy. The history, current laws, and politics that dictate the immigration detention system are examined, with special emphasis on current law enforcement partnerships between Immigration and Customs Enforcement and local law enforcement agencies. This project also deconstructs who qualifies as a "criminal alien" and the due process protections that exist for non-citizens who are detained. Eleven original policy recommendations for immigration detention are included near the conclusion.

Details: Boulder, CO: University of Colorado, Boulder, 2013. 81p.

Source: Internet Resource: Thesis: Accessed June 26, 2018 at: https://scholar.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1737&context=honr_theses

Year: 2013

Country: United States

URL: https://scholar.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1737&context=honr_theses

Shelf Number: 150706

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

Author: Kalsi, Priti

Title: The Impact of U.S. Deportation of Criminals on Gang Development and Education in El Salvador

Summary: Exploiting the implementation of an American immigration policy that increased deportations of criminals and introduced U.S.-based gangs to El Salvador, I study the impact of the expansion of U.S.-based gangs on gender-specific education accumulation in El Salvador. Regions with high U.S.-based gang presence are identified by locating areas exhibiting a large decline in homicides after a recent truce between two major U.S.-based gangs in El Salvador. find that these areas became disproportionately more violent as more criminals were deported from the United States to El Salvador. Using variation in both timing of American immigration policy and gang intensity within a location, I estimate a difference-in-differences model to study the impact of increased gang exposure on children's education. I find that the establishment of gangs hinders basic education (comparable to U.S. grades 1-9) attainment for boys. The results for girls are weaker and mostly statistically indistinguishable from zero. The effect is directly linked to American criminal deportations by estimating effects based on the intensity of exposure to American criminal deportees experienced by a particular cohort. I further argue that the results are not driven by selective domestic or international migration. Finally, the mechanism explaining the results in this paper appears to be exposure to gangs and not just high rates of violence. I do not find evidence suggesting that boys joining gangs explain the effects. Instead, I argue that boys in gang areas increase employment likely in response to gangs' extortion practices.

Details: Rochester, NY: Department of Economics, Rochester Institute of Technology, 2017. 32p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2018 at: https://www.colgate.edu/docs/default-source/default-document-library/kalsi_criminal_deportations_gangs.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Year: 2017

Country: El Salvador

URL: https://www.colgate.edu/docs/default-source/default-document-library/kalsi_criminal_deportations_gangs.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Shelf Number: 150731

Keywords:
Deportations
Gang Truce
Gang Violence
Gangs
Homicides
Immigration Policy
Youth Gangs

Author: Akkerman, Mark

Title: Expanding the Fortress: The policies, the profiteers and the people shaped by EU's border externalisation programme

Summary: The plight of the world's 66 million forcibly displaced persons tends to only trouble the European Union's conscience when the media spotlight turns on a tragedy at Europe's borders or when displacment is perceived to be en route to Europe. Only one European nation - Germany - is even in the top ten countries worldwide that receive refugees leaving the vast majority of forcibly displaced persons hosted by some of the world's poorest nations. The invisibility therefore is only broken when border communities such as Calais, Lampedusa, Lesvos become featured in the news as desperate people fleeing violence end up dead, detained or trapped. These tragedies aren't just unfortunate results of war or conflict elsewhere, they are also the direct result of Europe's policies on migration since the Schengen agreement in 1985. This approach has focused on fortifying borders, developing ever more sophisticated surveillance and tracking of people, and increasing deportations while providing ever fewer legal options for residency despite ever greater need. This has led many forcibly displaced persons unable to enter Europe legally and forced into ever more dangerous routes to escape violence and conflict. What is less well-known is that the same European-made tragedy plays out well beyond our borders in countries as far away as Senegal and Azerbaijan. This is due to another pillar of Europe's approach to migration, known as border externalisation. Since 1992 and even more aggressively since 2005, the EU has developed a policy of externalising Europe's border so that forcibly displaced people never get to Europe's borders in the first place. These policies involve agreements with Europe's neighbouring countries to accept deported persons and adopt the same policies of border control, improved tracking of people and fortified borders as Europe. In other words, these agreements have turned Europe's neighbours into Europe's new border guards. And because they are so far from Europe's shores and media, the impacts are almost completely invisible to EU citizens. This report seeks to shine a spotlight on the policies that underpin this externalisation of Europe's borders, the agreements that have been signed, the corporations and entities that profit, and the consequences for forcibly displaced people as well as the countries and populations that host them. It is the third in a series, Border Wars, that have examined Europe's border policies and shown how the arms and security industry has helped shape European border security policies and have then reaped the rewards for ever more border security measures and contracts. This report shows a significant growth in border externalisation measures and agreements since 2005 and a massive acceleration since the November 2015 Valletta Europe - Africa Summit. Using a plethora of new instruments, in particular the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa (EUTF), the Migration Partnership Framework and the Refugee Facility for Turkey, the European Union and individual member states are now providing millions of euros for an array of projects to stop migration of certain people from taking place on or across European territory. This includes collaboration with third countries in terms of accepting deported persons, training of their police and border officials, the development of extensive biometric systems, and donations of equipment including helicopters, patrol ships and vehicles, surveillance and monitoring equipment. While many projects are done through the European Commission, a number of individual member states, such as Spain, Italy and Germany also take a lead in funding and training through bilateral agreements with non-EU-countries. What makes this collaboration in the context of border externalisation particularly problematic is that many of the governments receiving the support are deeply authoritarian, and the support they are receiving is often going to precisely the state security organs most responsible for repression and abuses of human rights. The European Union in all its policies has a fine rhetoric on the importance of human rights, democracy and rule of law, but there seems to be no limits to the EU's willingness to embrace dictatorial regimes as long as they commit to preventing 'irregular migration' reaching Europe's shores. As a result there have been EU agreements and funding provided to regimes as infamous as Chad, Niger, Belarus, Libya and Sudan. These policies therefore have far-reaching consequences for forcibly displaced persons, whose 'illegal' status already makes them vulnerable and more likely to face human rights abuses. Many end up in either exploitative working conditions, detention and/or get deported back to the countries they have fled from. Women refugees in particular face high risks of gender-based violence, sexual assault and exploitation. Violence and repression against forcibly displaced persons also pushes migration underground, reconfigures the business of smuggling and reinforces the power of criminal smuggling networks. As a result, many persons have been forced to look for other, often more dangerous routes and to rely on ever more unscrupulous traffickers. This leads to an even higher death toll. Moreover the strengthening of state security organs throughout the MENA, Maghreb, Sahel and Horn of Africa regions also threatens the human rights and democratic accountability of the region, particularly as it also diverts much needed resources from economic and social spending. Indeed, this report shows that Europe's obsession with preventing migrants is not only diverting resources, it is also distorting Europe's trade, aid and international relationships with the entire region. As many experts have pointed out, this is laying the ground for further instability and insecurity in the region and the likelihood of greater refugees in the future. There is however one group that have benefited greatly from the EU's border externalisation programmes. As the earlier Border Wars reports showed, it is the European military and security industry that have derived the most benefit for delivering much of the equipment and services for border security. They are accompanied by a number of intergovernmental and (semi-)public institutions that have grown significantly in recent years as they implement dozens of projects on border security and control in non-EU-countries.

Details: Amsterdam: Transnational Institute (TNI), 2018. 112p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 30, 2018 at: https://www.tni.org/files/publication-downloads/expanding_the_fortress_-_1.6_may_11.pdf

Year: 2018

Country: Europe

URL: https://www.tni.org/files/publication-downloads/expanding_the_fortress_-_1.6_may_11.pdf

Shelf Number: 150748

Keywords:
Border Control
Border Security
Deportation
Immigrants
Immigration
Immigration Policy
Refugees
Smuggling of Goods

Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office

Title: Border Security and Immigration: Initial Executive Order Actions and Resource Implications

Summary: In January and March 2017, the President issued a series of executive orders related to border security and immigration. The orders direct federal agencies to take a broad range of actions with potential resource implications. For example, Executive Order 13767 instructs DHS to construct a wall or other physical barriers along the U.S. southern border and to hire an additional 5,000 U.S. Border Patrol agents. Executive Order 13768 instructs federal agencies, including DHS and DOJ, to ensure that U.S immigration law is enforced against all removable individuals and directs ICE to hire an additional 10,000 immigration officers. Executive Order 13780 directs agencies to develop a uniform baseline for screening and vetting standards and procedures; and established nationality-based entry restrictions with respect to visa travelers for a 90-day period, and refugees for 120 days. GAO was asked to review agencies' implementation of the executive orders and related spending. This report addresses (1) actions DHS, DOJ, and State have taken, or plan to take, to implement provisions of the executive orders; and (2) resources to implement provisions of the executive orders, particularly funds DHS, DOJ, and State have obligated, expended, or shifted. GAO reviewed agency planning, tracking, and guidance documents related to the orders, as well as budget requests, appropriations acts, and internal budget information. GAO also interviewed agency officials regarding actions and budgetary costs associated with implementing the orders.

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

Source: Internet Resource: GAO-18-470: Accessed August 8, 2018 at: https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/692410.pdf

Year: 2018

Country: United States

URL: https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/692410.pdf

Shelf Number: 151057

Keywords:
Border Patrol
Border Security
Illegal Immigrants
Immigration
Immigration Law Enforcement
Immigration Policy

Author: Ambrosius, Christian

Title: Exporting murder: US deportations and the spread of violence

Summary: Existing literature on cross-national variation in violence has paid little attention to the transnational transmission of crime. One such channel are the forced returns of migrants with a criminal record in their countries of temporary residence. Responding to this research gap, we study the effect of US deportations of convicts on levels of violent crime in deportees' countries of origin for a cross-country panel of up to 123 countries covering the years 2003 to 2015. We find a strong and robust effect of criminal deportations on homicide rates in countries of origin, that is to a large degree driven by deportations towards Latin America and the Caribbean. An additional inflow of ten deportees with a criminal history per 100,000 increases expected homicide rates by more than two. In addition to controlling for country-specific fixed effects, we provide evidence on a causal effect using an instrumental variable approach, that exploits spatial and time variation in migrant populations' exposure to state level immigration policies in the US.

Details: Berlin: Freie Universit�t Berlin, Fachbereich Wirtschaftswissenschaft, 2018. 37p.

Source: Internet Resource: Diskussionsbeitr�ge, No. 2018/13: Accessed August 10, 2018 at: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/180902/1/1027894593.pdf

Year: 2018

Country: Latin America

URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/180902/1/1027894593.pdf

Shelf Number: 151107

Keywords:
Criminal Deportations
Deportations
Homicides
Immigration Policy
Violence

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: Pierce, Sarah

Title: U.S. Immigration Policy Under Trump: Deep Changes and Lasting Impacts

Summary: U.S. immigration policy has undergone a sea change since the inauguration of Donald Trump in January 2017. Although his public statements have largely focused on a few major objectives toward which he has made only limited headway-such as building a wall along the entirety of the U.S.-Mexico border-the administration has taken other steps to redefine U.S. immigration policies that are less visible but no less important. This report examines the wide range of changes the Trump administration has set in motion, from enhanced enforcement measures and new application vetting requirements, to cuts in refugee admissions and the scaling back of temporary protections for some noncitizens. Despite the attention Trump has dedicated to immigration matters, this analysis finds that the fragmented nature of the U.S. political system has made it difficult for his administration to pursue some of its most ambitious aims. Congress has thus far shown little inclination to pass major immigration legislation, and the courts have halted or slowed key initiatives, including early iterations of the travel ban and the separation of families as part of a "zero-tolerance" border policy. States and localities have also taken divergent approaches to local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities, with some passing laws to curtail coordination and others to facilitate it. Still, through incremental changes and presidential discretion, the administration may in the long term be able to significantly redefine who comes to the country and who is removed from it.

Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2018. 29p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 27, 2018 at: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/us-immigration-policy-trump-deep-changes-impacts

Year: 2018

Country: United States

URL: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/us-immigration-policy-trump-deep-changes-impacts

Shelf Number: 151272

Keywords:
Immigrants
Immigration Law Enforcement
Immigration Policy

Author: Bier, David J.

Title: U.S. Citizens Targeted by ICE: U.S. Citizens Targeted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Texas

Summary: Texas law SB 4 imposes jail time on local police who fail to detain anyone whom federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) requests. Data from Travis County, Texas, show that ICE targets large numbers of U.S. citizens. From October 2005 to August 2017, 814 targets of ICE detainers in Travis County-3.3 percent of all requests-claimed U.S. citizenship and presented officers with a Social Security number (SSN). ICE subsequently canceled or declined to execute about a quarter of those detainer requests. Based on statements from ICE officials, the best explanation for not executing these detainers is that ICE targeted at least 228 U.S. citizens in the county before canceling or declining to execute those detainers. SB 4 will likely increase the detention of U.S. citizens for supposed violations of immigration law by preventing local police from releasing them. Applying the rate of wrongful detainers in Travis County to all detainers in the state of Texas from 2006 to 2017 implies that ICE wrongfully placed detainers on at least 3,506 U.S. citizens statewide. Other evidence shows that ICE regularly releases U.S. citizens after it executes a detainer, meaning that the true number of U.S. citizens initially targeted is likely even higher than that estimate. The fact that ICE often discovers its own mistakes only mitigates the harm inflicted on U.S. citizens wrongfully detained under the suspicion that they are illegal immigrants-and does not protect these jurisdictions from lawsuits under SB 4. Local law enforcement in Texas needs the flexibility to sort through these citizenship claims without the threat of jail time imposed by SB 4.

Details: Washington, CA: CATO Institute, 2018. 5p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 31, 2018 at: https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/irpb-8.pdf

Year: 2018

Country: United States

URL: https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/irpb-8.pdf

Shelf Number: 151327

Keywords:
Customs Enforcement
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrant Detention
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Immigration Policy

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: Avila, Krsna

Title: The Rise of the Sanctuary: Getting Local Officers Out of the Business of Deportations in the Trump Era

Summary: Juxtaposed against the Statue of Liberty's promise of refuge to "the huddled masses, yearning to breathe free" lies another reality: immigration policy in the United States has long been fraught with racial tension and dictated by an uneasy fear of "the other." From the Chinese Exclusion Act and the Mexican Bracero program of the past to the Muslim ban and elimination of Temporary Protected Status of the present, history has shown that the work of immigrant justice and racial justice are inextricably linked. Since the first week of the Trump administration, the federal government has launched a racist and mean-spirited attack on immigrants and those who support and welcome them, all in the aim of satisfying Trump's steadfast campaign promise to "deport them all" as a way to "make America great again." With a budget of over $18 billion - more than all other federal law enforcement agencies combined - the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) detention and deportation machine is vast and dangerous. But it also relies heavily on the voluntary assistance of local governments, particularly local law enforcement agencies, to remove individuals from the families and livelihoods they have built in the U.S. Localities have no legal authority to enforce immigration laws and no legal obligation to assist DHS with its immigration enforcement actions. Yet local assistance with federal immigration work continues across the country. Three out of every four counties will voluntarily detain individuals at the request of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Threats and attempts to deny federal grants to "sanctuary jurisdictions" - loosely identified as those who enact policies limiting involvement of their local law enforcement agencies in immigration enforcement - have been key strategies in Trump's anti-immigrant agenda. From executive order pronouncements and Department of Justice (DOJ) policy decisions to near weekly public speeches invoking threats against and denunciations of sanctuary policies, the administration has sought to force localities to help carry out its increased deportation efforts, pushing local agencies to prioritize federal immigration enforcement over their own community concerns - and seeking to punish those who rightfully refuse to be involved. However, efforts to thwart sanctuary policies have failed in a number of ways. During 2017, local policies limiting involvement with ICE expanded in spite of, and sometimes because of, the hateful anti-immigrant rhetoric and policy changes in the Trump Administration. Over 400 counties now have stronger limitations on engaging in immigration enforcement than they did a year ago. Under pressure from community members and advocates, cities, counties, and states across the country enacted new laws and policies disengaging with federal immigration enforcement in a variety of manners, from restricting ICE access within their jails to refusing to honor ICE detainers, which are requests to detain someone for apprehension by ICE - a detention that federal courts continue to find unconstitutional. Federal courts have also ruled against other unconstitutional overreaches by the federal government, issuing new rulings on the strict limits of local authority in immigration enforcement and preventing the administration from stripping federal funding to sanctuary jurisdictions. In 2018, strengthening and expanding local sanctuary policies will be crucial to resisting the anti-immigrant Trump agenda. Though we recognize that sanctuary policies alone are not sufficient to prevent deportations, we hope that their adoption continues and increases over the Trump administration's second year. The Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC) will continue our work to support and advise local advocates and city, county, and state government bodies across the country to fight back against unjust detention and deportations and to protect immigrant rights.

Details: Immigrant Legal Resource Center, 2018. 32p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 14, 2018 at: https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/rise_of_sanctuary-lg-20180201.pdf

Year: 2018

Country: United States

URL: https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/rise_of_sanctuary-lg-20180201.pdf

Shelf Number: 151528

Keywords:
Department of Homeland Security
Illegal Immigration
Immigration
Immigration Customs Enforcement
Immigration Policy
Sanctuary City

Author: Wang, Shuguang

Title: (No) Access T.O.: A Pilot Study on Sanctuary City Policy in Toronto Canada

Summary: The "sanctuary city" movement is a grassroots, human rights-based response to increased numbers of non-status migrants living and working in global cities (Faraday 2012; Sawchuk & Kempf 2008; Bhuyan 2012; OCASI 2012). Non-status migrants live in situations of extreme precariousness - they are subject to detention and deportation if identified by federal authorities; often work in poor conditions; are socially isolated; face poverty, abuse, and exploitation; and are unable to safely access essential social services, including those related to public health, education, labour, shelters, food banks, and police services (Gibney 2000; De Giorgi 2010; Noll 2010). In February 2013, Toronto became the first "sanctuary city" in Canada, which is currently styled "Access T.O." Hamilton and Vancouver followed suit in 2014 and 2016, respectively. The primary objective of Access T.O. is to ensure that all residents are able to access municipal and police services, regardless of immigration status. The policy directs city officials not to: 1) inquire into immigration status when providing select services, 2) deny non-status residents access to services to which they are entitled, and 3) share personal or identifying information with federal authorities, unless required to do so by federal or provincial law (City of Toronto 2013). There are many questions surrounding Access T.O., not the least of which: is it working? The answer to this question depends very much on what one takes the goals of the policy to be, as well as what measures of success one employs. Is the policy concerned with providing access to municipal services i.e. local bureaucratic membership (de Graauw 2014)? Does it have a larger, multijurisdictional significance, helping advocates challenge exclusionary federal (and provincial) laws? Does it have a more local or even transnational, non-state significance, shifting ideas around community, belonging, and political relationships? (McDonald 2012:143)? The purpose of this paper is to share the results of a pilot study that explored whether Access T.O. is working. For approximately one year, we conducted legal, policy, and qualitative research into what barriers are the most significant and how they may be removed. Our qualitative research included interviews with 24 stakeholders, including City officials, Community Service Organizations (CSOs), NGOs, professionals (e.g. physicians, lawyers), and non-status migrants. Although the study was concerned with Access T.O. in all of three of the above-mentioned senses, this working paper places the policy primarily in the context of access to City services, and not so much in the broader contexts of federal/provincial law or shifting political identities, interests, and relationships. Access T.O. began as a symbolically ambitious but practically cautious policy - and it remains so. Despite major newspaper headlines circulated at the time, City Council never fully committed itself to a sanctuary city policy. By "reaffirming" the City's commitment to non-status residents, Council seems to have thought that the policy was more or less informally in place already. It then called on various City officials to report back on the financial and resource costs of additional measures, including training and community outreach, but has yet to provide any additional funding of note. Finally, it called on the provincial and federal governments to shoulder their share of responsibility for more systematic legislative and policy change, but has not yet entered into a dialogue with either government on the subject. After this series of pronouncements, Council has been relatively inactive in this area. In these respects, it may be more accurate to view Access T.O. as a pilot project than as a full policy. We argue that it is time for Council to commit itself to the policy, including by providing the funding and mandate for: more comprehensive training tailored to specific Divisions, dedicated Access T.O. portfolios within many (if not all) City divisions, "service integration" geared towards better community engagement and capacity-building, and revisiting the City's position on the collection and protection of demographic data. The paper will begin by placing Access T.O. in jurisdictional context, including its demographic and historical background. We will then provide an overview of the nature and origins of Access T.O. We then shift to the research project, outlining out methodology and analyzing select themes that arose during our interviews. Embedded within these interpretations will be recommendations aimed at improving the effectiveness of Access T.O.

Details: Canada, 2017. 39p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 14, 2018 at: https://www.ryerson.ca/content/dam/rcis/documents/RCIS%20Working%20Paper%202017_1GHudsonFinal%20.pdf

Year: 2017

Country: Canada

URL: https://www.ryerson.ca/content/dam/rcis/documents/RCIS%20Working%20Paper%202017_1GHudsonFinal%20.pdf

Shelf Number: 151549

Keywords:
Illegal Immigration
Immigration
Immigration Policy
Sanctuary City

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: Hing, Bill Ong

Title: Beyond DACA - Defying Employer Sanctions Through Civil Disobedience

Summary: The fact that DACA recipients - and essentially all Dreamers - have become part of the conscience of the country and a critical part of the economy is illustrated by the strong support for them exhibited by major businesses in the United States. Dozens of CEOs from companies like Microsoft, Amazon, Netflix, AT&T, Wells Fargo, Google, and Facebook urged the president to preserve the program. After the Trump Administration announced the rescission of the DACA program on September 5, 2017, even more companies denounced the action and called on Congress to pass the Dream Act before the DACA termination date of March 5, 2018. Although the statements of support for DACA recipients and Dreamers, and calls for passage of the Dream Act are important, are employers willing to do more? In this draft essay, I challenge employers to engage in civil disobedience and to continue to hire Dreamers even after their employment authorization expires. I review the notion of corporate civil disobedience, and explain why such action in this context would be a bold statement and can prove vital to bringing about a permanent, fair outcome for Dreamers.

Details: San Francisco: University of San Francisco School of Law, 2018. 33p.

Source: Internet Resource: Univ. of San Francisco Law Research Paper No. 2018-02: Accessed November 8, 2018 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3089461

Year: 2018

Country: United States

URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3089461

Shelf Number: 153367

Keywords:
Civil Disobedience
Dream Act
Dreamers
Immigrants
Immigration Policy

Author: Rutter, Jill

Title: National Conversation on Immigration: Final report

Summary: Coordinated by British Future and HOPE not hate, the National Conversation engaged 19,951 people, with more than 130 meetings in 60 locations across every nation and region of the UK. Citizens' panels in each place were recruited to be representative of the local population and researchers also met local government, businesses, faith and civil society representatives. In addition to nationally representative research by ICM, an open online survey was completed by nearly 10,000 people. The approach builds on a model used by the Canadian Government to help shape its own approach to immigration. One thing we'll be calling for is that the UK Government follows their example and does more to engage the public on this important issue. The report provides a comprehensive evidence base of public views on immigration, including reports from each of the 60 locations visited and over 40 recommendations to national and local government, business and civil society. Some of the issues on which we make proposals for change include: What are the common issues raised across the UK? What are the local differences and place-specific concerns? How should Britain approach migration for work after Brexit? How do we build public confidence in the immigration system? International student migration and universities; Protecting refugees; Improving Home Office performance; How do we address prejudice, resentment and hate? How can we make integration work better? How are face-to-face discussions about immigration different to those online? Can we find consensus on immigration and, if so, how?

Details: London: British Future; HOPE not hate, 2018. 268p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 20, 2018 at: http://nationalconversation.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/FINAL-2-national-conversation-september-report-2018-09-final.pdf

Year: 2018

Country: United Kingdom

URL: http://nationalconversation.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/FINAL-2-national-conversation-september-report-2018-09-final.pdf

Shelf Number: 153511

Keywords:
Asylum Seekers
Immigrants
Immigration
Immigration Policy
Migrants
Refugees

Author: Ryo, Emily

Title: The Landscape of immigration Detention in the United States

Summary: On any given day, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detains tens of thousands of individuals who are accused of violating U.S. immigration laws. ICE currently relies on a complex network of jails and jail-like facilities to confine these individuals. The average daily population of immigrant detainees has increased more than five-fold in the past two decades. At the same time, immigration detention facilities have faced numerous civil and human rights violation complaints, including allegations of substandard medical care, sexual and physical abuse, and exploitative labor practices. Yet, the current administration has sought to further expand immigration detention. To assess the full implications of these expansion efforts, it is critical for policymakers and the public to understand fundamental aspects of the current U.S. detention system. This report presents findings from an empirical analysis of immigration detention across the United States. We analyze government and other data on all individuals who were detained by ICE during fiscal year 2015, the latest fiscal year for which the federal government has released comprehensive data of this kind on immigration detention. Our analysis offers a detailed look at whom ICE detained, where they were confined, and the outcomes of their detention. We find that ICE relied on over 630 sites scattered throughout the United States to detain individuals, often moving them from one facility to another. Our analysis reveals that individuals detained by ICE were commonly held in privately operated and remotely located facilities, far away from basic community support structures and legal advocacy networks. The main findings presented in this report include: A majority of detainees were men, from Mexico or Central America, and many detainees were juveniles. About 79 percent of the detainees were men. The population as a whole was relatively young, with the average age of 28 (mean and median). Over 59,000 detainees-about 17 percent-were under the age of 18. Mexican nationals by themselves made up about 43 percent of the detainee population, and individuals from the Northern Triangle region of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras made up about 46 percent of the detainee population. ICE used one or more facilities in every state, with Texas and California having the highest number of facilities and detainees. Every state in the United States had at least one facility that ICE used to detain individuals in fiscal year 2015. The top five states in terms of the number of facilities used by ICE in fiscal year 2015 were Texas, California, Florida, New York, and Arizona. The top five states in terms of the detainee population were Texas, California, Arizona, Louisiana, and New Mexico. Detention in privately operated facilities and in remotely located facilities was common. Many detainees were confined in more than one facility during their detention stay. About 67 percent of all detainees were confined at least once in privately operated facilities. About 64 percent of detainees were confined at least once in a facility located outside of a major urban area. About 48 percent, 26 percent, and 22 percent of detainees were confined at least once in a facility that was located more than 60 miles, 90 miles, and 120 miles away, respectively, from the nearest nonprofit immigration attorney who practiced removal defense. A majority of adult detainees experienced inter-facility transfers involving movements across different cities, states, or federal judicial circuits. Many adults were transferred between facilities during their detention, leading to confinement in multiple locations. About 60 percent of adults who were detained in fiscal year 2015 experienced at least one inter-facility transfer during their detention. Of those adults who were transferred, about 86 percent experienced at least one intercity transfer, 37 percent experienced at least one interstate transfer, and 29 percent experienced at least one transfer across different federal judicial circuits. Detention length was significantly longer in privately operated facilities and in remotely located facilities. Among 261,020 adults who were released from detention during fiscal year 2015, the average detention length (mean) was about 38 days. More than 87,000 of these adults were detained longer than 30 days. Confinement in privately operated facilities and facilities located outside of major urban areas, respectively, was associated with significantly longer detention. The number of grievances was significantly higher in privately operated facilities and in remotely located facilities. In fiscal year 2015, the ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations' Detention Reporting and Information Line (DRIL) received over 48,800 detention-facility related grievances from detainees and community members. The most common type of grievances involved access to legal counsel and basic immigration case information. Privately operated facilities and facilities located outside of major urban areas were associated with higher numbers of grievances.

Details: Washington, DC: American Immigration Council, 2018.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 6, 2018 at: http://americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/the_landscape_of_immigration_detention_in_the_united_states.pdf

Year: 2018

Country: United States

URL: http://americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/the_landscape_of_immigration_detention_in_the_united_states.pdf

Shelf Number: 153923

Keywords:
Illegal Immigrants
Immigrant Detention
Immigrants
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy

Author: Leutert, Stephanie

Title: Asylum Processing tne Waitlists at the U.S.-Mexico Border

Summary: "For more than two years, CBP has implemented "metering" procedures for asylum seekers in multiple ports of entry across the U.S.-Mexico border. However, over the past six months, these practices have become institutionalized and have been extended across the entire southern border. Currently, CBP officers are stationed at the international dividing line between the United States and Mexico at all ports of entry and provide a similar message" there is currently no processing capacity"-to arriving asylum seekers. Instead, each port of entry coordinates with Mexican officials to accept a certain number of asylum seekers every day. These shifts in CBP procedures have left lines of asylum seekers waiting in almost every major Mexican border city. Yet while CBP officers have standardized their practices, there is no set process for asylum seekers on the Mexican side of the border. While almost all border cities now have a "list" that functions as a virtual line for asylum seekers-for example, the infamous "notebook" in Tijuana-the list management and logistics vary significantly by city. For example, the actual list managers have ranged from Grupo Beta (the Mexican government agency in charge of humanitarian assistance for migrants) to civil society organizations to municipal governments, and the processing steps may entail providing asylum seekers with bracelets or taking their photos after they arrive to the U.S.-Mexico border. There are also a range of practices and dynamics in Mexican border cities that block asylum seekers from accessing U.S. ports of entry. In Reynosa, Tamaulipas, Mexican migration officials stationed near the international bridges have stopped all asylum seekers from crossing during the past three months. In Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas and Piedras Negras, Coahuila, Central Americans cannot access the international border bridges without temporary transit permits. In Matamoros, Tamaulipas there are allegations of asylum seekers having to pay a fee in order to get on the waiting list, and in Tijuana, Baja California asylum seekers currently face a three month wait time in order to make their claim. This report provides a snapshot of the asylum processing system at the U.S.-Mexico border, with particular attention to asylum seekers waiting in Mexico. The report compiles fieldwork carried out in eight cities along the U.S.-Mexico border in November 2018. It draws on in-person and phone interviews with government officials, law enforcement officers, representatives from civil society organizations, journalists, and members of the public on both sides of the border. The report also relies on observations carried out at ports of entry and neighboring areas, and draws from government and legal documents, and news articles to detail current asylum processing dynamics."

Details: Austin, TX: Robert Strauss Center, Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, Migration Policy Centre, 2018. 29p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed Dec. 11, 2018 at: https://www.strausscenter.org/images/MSI/AsylumReport_MSI.pdf

Year: 2018

Country: United States

URL: https://www.strausscenter.org/images/MSI/AsylumReport_MSI.pdf

Shelf Number: 153958

Keywords:
Asylum Seekers
Border Security
Immigrants
Immigration Policy
Refugees

Author: Webber, Frances

Title: The Embedding of State Hostility: A Background Paper on the Windrush Scandal

Summary: The Embedding of State Hostility: a background paper on the Windrush scandal is a briefing that shows how the injustices meted out to the Windrush generation are not anomalies but the logical result of an immigration system that, over many years, has weaponised the idea of 'the illegal immigrant'. It examines the Windrush scandal in the context of three decades of immigration law, based around a set of interlocking policies of denial, exclusion, surveillance and enforcement that, taken together, have coalesced into today's 'hostile environment'. With sections on: the build up to the Windrush scandal; case studies of those affected; the roots of hostile environment policies; the role of the media in weaponising 'illegality'; the government's retreat from universal human rights standards; the role of campaign groups and professional organisations in challenging the hostile environment and standing up for the Windrush Generation.

Details: U.K.: Institute of Race Relations, 2018. 30p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 17, 2018 at: http://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/wpmedia.outlandish.com/irr/2018/11/19150132/Embedding-State-hostility-v4.pdf

Year: 2018

Country: United Kingdom

URL: http://www.irr.org.uk/publications/issues/the-embedding-of-state-hostility-a-background-paper-on-the-windrush-scandal/

Shelf Number: 153864

Keywords:
Human Rights Abuses
Illegal Immigration
Immigrants
Immigration Policy
Windrush Scandal

Author: Gaston, Sophia

Title: Out of the Shadows: Conspiracy Thinking on Immigration

Summary: Out of the Shadows: Conspiracy Thinking on Immigration, a major new report by Sophia Gaston of the Centre for Social and Political Risk at the Henry Jackson Society, is published today. Polling conducted for the report shows 58% of British adults believe the Government is hiding the cost of immigration to taxpayers and society. The report finds that the rise in immigration levels and the public's concerns about immigration have coincided with the weakening of trust in governments and institutions. These forces are mutually reinforcing, with politicians seen to have systematically ignored and disregarded citizens' anxieties, challenging the contract that stands at the heart of Western democracies. The think tank undertook polling with Opinium to understand the number of British voters who had resorted to 'conspiratorial thinking' over the issue of immigration. Key findings were: - 58 percent of all British citizens believe the Government is hiding the true cost of immigration to taxpayers and society. Only 12% disagree with the contention that the Government is hiding these costs. - 51 percent of all Brits believe that successive governments have deliberately tried to make British society more diverse through its immigration policy. Of those who expressed a view, 59 percent believe that those who have spoken out about immigration in the media and politics have been treated unfairly. In a signal of how mainstream conspiracy thinking on immigration has become, 40 percent of Remain voters and 49 percent of Labour voters believe that the Government is concealing the economic and social costs of immigration. The report comes as Theresa May and her Government are scheduled to continue their promotion of the Withdrawal Bill by promoting it as a 'step change' on immigration policy. The report finds that distrust over immigration is far higher amongst Leave voters. 75 percent of Leave voters believe the Government is hiding the true costs of immigration - just 4 percent are convinced that the Government is not. Likewise, 65 percent of Leave voters believe that those who had spoken out on immigration had been treated unfairly. In news that will trigger alarm bells amongst Tory MPs, 62 percent of Conservative voters believe that the aim of Government policy over recent years had been to 'make Britain more ethnically diverse'.

Details: London, U.K.: Centre for Social and Political Risk, 2018. 60p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 18, 2018 at: https://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Out-of-the-Shadows-Conspiracy-thinking-on-immigration.pdf

Year: 2018

Country: International

URL: https://henryjacksonsociety.org/publications/out-of-the-shadows-conspiracy-thinking-on-immigration/

Shelf Number: 154036

Keywords:
Government Conspiracy
Illegal Immigration
Immigration
Immigration Policy
Public Safety

Author: Great Britain. National Audit Office

Title: Handling of the Windrush Situation

Summary: Between 1948 and 1973 many Commonwealth citizens came to the UK under successive pieces of immigration legislation. Some of these individuals, particularly those from Caribbean nations, have recently become known as the Windrush generation. The government amended existing immigration legislation with the Immigration Act 1971, which came into force in 1973. At this time, Commonwealth immigrants already settled in the UK were given indefinite leave to remain, but many were not issued with any documentation, and the Home Office (the Department) kept no records confirming these individuals' status. Over at least the past 10 years the government has further reformed immigration policies according to the principle that the right to live, work and access services in the UK should only be available to those migrants who are eligible. In the spring of 2018, the media began to report stories of people who had come to the UK from the Commonwealth, being denied access to public services, being detained in the UK or at the border, or removed from, or refused re-entry to, the UK. It was reported that some people did not have the paperwork to prove their legal right to reside in the UK. In April 2018, the government acknowledged that the Windrush generation had been treated unfairly and set up a taskforce and scheme to help individuals to resolve their immigration status. Content and scope of the report This report seeks: to increase transparency about what happened; and to establish whether problems with the Department's information management and management of immigration casework may have contributed to the situation. We are not questioning the merits of the Department's policy objectives. We examine: - the scale and impact of the problem of people from the Windrush generation potentially being denied access to services, or detained or removed from the UK; - whether the Department identified the potential for new legislation and policy to have adverse effects on the Windrush generation and others; - whether its systems, guidance and processes contributed to negative outcomes, such as wrongful detention and removal; - whether the quality of the Department's information was a factor in people being wrongfully detained, removed or denied access to services; - whether the Department had adequate feedback loops to identify any adverse or unintended consequences and responded appropriately to feedback; -and how the Department is now supporting people who might have been affected, through the Windrush scheme. Report conclusions The policy of successive governments to create a hostile/compliant environment for illegal migrants involved limiting access to benefits and services and tightening enforcement activities. This included a 'devolved approach' placing a duty on landlords and employers and public service providers to carry out checks. This predictably carried a risk of impacting on individuals who were, in fact, entitled to residence, but who did not have the necessary documents. The Department had a duty of care to ensure that people's rights and entitlements were recognised and this has been re-emphasised by the Prime Minister. We do not consider that the Department adequately considered that duty in the way that it introduced immigration policy. In its implementation of the policy with few checks and balances and targets for enforcement action, we do not consider, once again, that the Department adequately prioritised the protection of those who suffered distress and damage through being wrongly penalised, and to whom they owed a duty of care. Instead it operated a target‑driven environment for its enforcement teams. The clarity of briefing to the former Home Secretary on this issue has also been called into question. It is clear that the Department received warnings of the fact that people, including in one case an employee of the House of Commons, were being wrongly caught up in the enforcement and compliant environment sanction regimes it was responsible for, but this did not have the effect of stimulating inquiry, or timely action. The Department is now moving to identify affected individuals, and to compensate them. This is positive. However, it is still showing a lack of curiosity about individuals who may have been affected, and who are not of Caribbean heritage, on the basis that this would be a 'disproportionate effort'. In the circumstances, we find this surprising. It is clear that the Department's implementation of the policy, now resulting in a belated and costly exercise in seeking information and paying compensation, to say nothing of the reputational damage involved, was not value for money.

Details: London, U.K.: Comptroller and Auditor General, 2018. 48p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 19, 2018 at: https://www.nao.org.uk/report/handling-of-the-windrush-situation/

Year: 2018

Country: United Kingdom

URL: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Handling-of-the-Windrush-situation-1.pdf

Shelf Number: 154034

Keywords:
Illegal Migrants
Imigrant Detention
Immigration
Immigration Policy
Migrants
Windrush

Author: Pew Research Center

Title: Shifting Public Views on Legal Immigration into the U.S.: Many Unaware that Most Immigrants in the U.S. are Here Illegally

Summary: While there has been considerable attention on illegal immigration into the U.S. recently, opinions about legal immigration have undergone a long-term change. Support for increasing the level of legal immigration has risen, while the share saying legal immigration should decrease has fallen. The survey by Pew Research Center, conducted June 5-12 among 2,002 adults, finds that 38% say legal immigration into the United States should be kept at its present level, while 32% say it should be increased and 24% say it should be decreased. Since 2001, the share of Americans who favor increased legal immigration into the U.S. has risen 22 percentage points (from 10% to 32%), while the share who support a decrease has declined 29 points (from 53% to 24%). The shift is mostly driven by changing views among Democrats. The share of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who say legal immigration into the U.S. should be increased has doubled since 2006, from 20% to 40%. Growing share of Democrats support increased legal immigration into the U.S.Republicans' views also have changed, though more modestly. The share of Republicans and Republican leaners who say legal immigration should be decreased has fallen 10 percentage points since 2006, from 43% to 33%. Still, about twice as many Republicans (33%) as Democrats (16%) support cutting legal immigration into the U.S. The new survey, which was largely conducted before the crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border involving immigrant children being separated from their parents, finds deep and persistent partisan divisions in a number of attitudes toward immigrants, as well as widespread misperceptions among the public overall about the share of the immigrant population in the U.S. that is in this country illegally.

Details: Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, 2018. 24p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 16, 2019 at: http://www.people-press.org/2018/06/28/shifting-public-views-on-legal-immigration-into-the-u-s/

Year: 2018

Country: United States

URL: http://www.people-press.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/06/06-28-2018-Immigration-release.pdf

Shelf Number: 154221

Keywords:
Illegal Immigration
Immigrant Children
Immigration Policy
Legal Immigration
Public Attitudes
Public Opinion

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: Global Detention Project

Title: Immigration Detention in Slovakia: Punitive Conditions Paid for by the Detainees

Summary: Since the onset of the "refugee crisis," Slovakia has pursued restrictive immigration policies and employed anti-migrant rhetoric, despite the fact that the country has not faced the same migratory pressures as its European neighbours. Rarely granting alternatives to detention due to strict eligibility criteria, non-citizens are held in facilities that observers have described as punitive in nature, and where detainees are required to pay for their own detention. Monitoring bodies have also raised concerns that the country's legislation enshrines a presumption of majority in cases of age disputes, resulting in some unaccompanied children being held alongside unrelated adults as they await the results of bone analyses.

Details: Geneva, SWIT: The Author, 2019. 24p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 5, 2019 at: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Immigration-Detention-in-Slovakia-Online-.pdf

Year: 2019

Country: Slovakia

URL: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Immigration-Detention-in-Slovakia-Online-.pdf

Shelf Number: 154486

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

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: 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: Papademetriou, Demetrios G.

Title: Competing Approaches to Selecting Economic Immigrants: Points-Based vs. Demand-Driven Systems

Summary: Attracting skilled foreign workers has become a high priority for countries seeking to be economically competitive, but their methods for doing so vary. Since entering office, President Trump has called for the United States to adopt a more "merit-based" system, looking to Canada and Australia as potential models. In demand-driven immigrant selection systems, including the one in place the United States, employers choose the workers they need to fill existing vacancies, and the government screens them to ensure they are eligible for admission, as well as to prevent fraud and enforce security protocols. By contrast, countries such as Australia, Canada, and New Zealand use points-based systems in which governments take the lead, selecting among prospective immigrants based on labor and human-capital considerations, including professional experience, education, holding a job offer, and destination-country language proficiency. This report compares these two models�going beyond their day-to-day operation to examine the political and philosophical foundations that underpin each. Crucially, after years of development, many selection systems incorporate aspects of both models; as the authors note, "most employer-led and points-based systems are now somewhere nearer the mid-point along the continuum between labor-market and human-capital considerations." Looking ahead, the report offers recommendations for policymakers charged with managing immigrant selection systems in a time of labor-market and demographic change. These include ensuring that selection systems are flexible and responsive to changing conditions, studying newcomers' integration outcomes to inform future admissions criteria, and finding ways to not only attract but also retain skilled foreign workers.

Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2019. 37p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 16, 2019 at: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/selecting-economic-immigrants-points-based-demand-driven-systems

Year: 2019

Country: United States

URL: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/selecting-economic-immigrants-points-based-demand-driven-systems

Shelf Number: 155411

Keywords:
Asylum-Seekers
Immigrant Selection
Immigrants
Immigration
Immigration Policy

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: Joorman, Martin

Title: Legitimized Refugees: A Critical Investigation of Legitimacy Claims within the Precedents of Swedish Asylum Law

Summary: This study focuses on asylum cases decided at Sweden's migration courts. More precisely, it analyses how the highest legal instance, the Migration Court of Appeal (in Swedish Migrationsoverdomstolen, hereafter MCA), legitimizes decisions that concern asylum seekers. Using critical discourse analysis (CDA), the study makes power relations visible. Investigating central discursive claims that are expressed in the precedents of Swedish asylum law, certain power relations are identified as particularly unbalanced. Based on the identification of what I subsequently call the institutionalized power imbalance of the asylum system, the study's findings compel me to challenge this imbalance. After conducting ten interviews with judges at Sweden's four (second-instance) Migration Courts as well as at the (third instance) MCA, I reviewed 200 precedents (published 2006-2016) that concern people who applied for a residence permit in Sweden. Of these 200, 75 precedents of relevance for Swedish asylum law appear in the study. Drawing on Robert Stake's understanding of a collective case study, the interviews are used to sample six precedents for in-depth analysis. Through a CDA of these last-instance decisions it is demonstrated how precedents of Swedish asylum law discursively represent 1) families with children, 2) class, race, ethnicity and religion, gender and sexuality, and 3) the policy of 'regulated immigration' (reglerad invandring). Building on Norman Fairclough's conceptualization of discursive legitimation strategies, and with the help of Robert Alexy's and J�rgen Habermas' approaches to legal discourse, it is argued that precedents of Swedish asylum law are not only legitimized based on I) the authority of law, but also by reference to II) the rationalization of empirical reasoning, III) the utility of institutionalized actions that can use law as means for political ends, IV) those moral evaluations that permeate legal discourse, and V) the storytelling that appears when legal texts are read as narratives. This argumentation highlights uncertainty, which affects the social reality of asylum processes and which appears to be represented when precedents of Swedish asylum law are legitimized by reference to rationalization, moral evaluation, and/or as narratives. Providing the respective decisions with some meaning, rather than merely making sure that they are legally correct, the analysed precedents are, thus, legitimized not only by reference to the authority of law. Referring to Şeyla Benhabib and her usage of Robert Cover's distinction between 'law as power' and 'law as meaning', a CDA of precedents of Swedish asylum law can, in this sense, illustrate how judges pay notice to the complexity of refugee migration in the world of today.

Details: Lund: Lund University, 2019. 279p.

Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed May 2, 2019 at: https://portal.research.lu.se/portal/files/62136551/Legitimized_Refugees_PhD_Thesis_Martin_Joormann.pdf

Year: 2019

Country: Sweden

URL: https://portal.research.lu.se/portal/files/62136551/Legitimized_Refugees_PhD_Thesis_Martin_Joormann.pdf

Shelf Number: 155600

Keywords:
Asylum Seekers
Immigration Policy
Migrants
Refugee Law
Refugees

Author: Blanchard, Daphne N.

Title: .Immigration and National Security: An Empirical Assessment of Central American Immigration and Violent Crime in the United States

Summary: Executive Summary - The arrival of the October 2018 Central American caravan became a flashpoint in the immigration debate between human rights and national security. Thousands of migrants traveled in a caravan from Central America's Northern Triangle to the United States in October of 2018. President Trump called on Mexico to stop the influx, sent troops to the U.S.-Mexican border, and threatened to cut aid to the Central American country. While several hundred returned on Honduran-sponsored busses and roughly 2,000 people applied for asylum in southern Mexico, the group totaled 6,500 migrants when they arrived at the wall lining the San Ysidro-Tijuana border. Conflicts between the migrants, Mexican police, citizens of Tijuana and U.S. protesters made national headlines. Meanwhile, international aid groups offered makeshift housing, basic necessities, and legal representation for the asylum seekers. Immigration was central to the November mid-term election debates. - Central American immigration has risen significantly over the last few decades. Presently 3.4 million people born in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras are living in the United States, more than double the estimated 1.5 million people in 2000, with half of them undocumented. In the time period between 2011 and 2017, the number of Northern Triangle immigrants rose approximately 400,000 which indicated a growth of 0.1 percent of the foreign-born population. The number of Northern Triangle migrant arrivals nearly quadrupled in 2014, with the arrival of approximately 131,000 migrants. El Salvador is the largest sending country from the region, with 1.4 million immigrants in the United States, a 112- fold increase since 1970. Guatemala is second with 815,000, followed by Honduras with 623,000. - The number of unaccompanied minors (also known as UACs) crossing the U.S.- Mexico border has dramatically increased since 2008. Between 2008 and the first eight months of 2014, the number of unaccompanied minors that crossed the U.S. southern border each year jumped from about 8,000 to 52,000, prompting the U.S. Congress to request further research and a hearing before the Committee on Foreign Relations. The year 2014 was dubbed the Central America migration crisis due to the 90 percent increase in UACs between 2013 and 2014. The composition of the recent caravans that arrived in April and October of 2018 suggest that child and family migration from the Northern Triangle is an enduring phenomenon. - The root causes of the flows are pervasive violence and systematic persecution in the Northern Triangle region. El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras are consistently ranked among the world's most violent countries not at war due to their exceptionally high rates of homicide, extortion, gang proliferation, narcotics trafficking, weak rule of law, and official corruption. Many migrants reported fleeing systematic persecution from authorities, pervasive violence from organized criminal organizations, and forced gang recruitment. - Northern Triangle migrants make up less than one percent of the U.S. population. To put the increases in immigrant population in perspective and understand the scope of Central American migration, it is important to note that in 2017 the Northern Triangle subset of immigrants constitute 0.9% of the share of overall population, of which by far the largest percentage is attributed to those with El Salvadoran origins. Asian foreign-born are the most prevalent with 4.3 percent of the share, which consists of Eastern, South Central, and South Eastern Asian immigrants. Those born in Mexico are second with 3.4 percent; while European and African foreign-born make up 1.2 and 0.7 percent respectively. - Public anxiety over Central American migrants stalls immigration reform. The tension at the U.S.-Mexico border due to Central American asylum seekers has reached a fever pitch, polarizing views on how to deal with ever increasing immigration. Although seven percent of Northern Triangle refugees were granted asylum the year after the 2014 surge in migration, compared to 24 percent of refugees from China, the continual flow of Central American migrants to the United States' southern border elicits anxiety, protests, and much public debate. As rhetoric from high-level politicians and news media make connections between violent crime and immigration, political parties' stances on immigration become more divergent -- leading to the inability to agree on comprehensive immigration reform. The difference in opinion between Democrats and Republicans has grown over time with 42 percent of Republicans, compared to 84 percent of Democrats, saying that immigrants strengthen the country, the largest partisan gap on openness to immigrants since 1994. Democrats triple the share of Republicans with the opinion that the nation has a responsibility to care for refugees. - The internet and social media have heightened the risk of mass manipulation and emotional decision-making in immigration policy. Although the Trump administration and news outlets of today are not the first to make a public connection between crime and immigration - the debate has been ongoing for decades - changes in media technology have exacerbated the issue. The internet and social media platforms have significantly increased the scope and reach of consumers at hyper speed without third-party filtering, fact-checking, or editorial judgement to add context to complex issues. This is evident in a Republican-sponsored political commercial that connected an undocumented Mexican cop-killer with the tagline: "Stop the caravan. Vote Republican." Although widely rejected by major television and news outlets on both sides of the aisle for being misleading, the ad was seen approximately 6.5 million times while featured atop Trump's Twitter page. Studies have shown how elite discourse shapes mass opinion and action on immigration policy without necessarily tying the rhetoric to empirical data of the actual threat posed by the group. - Studies show that as immigration levels have risen in the United States, overall violent crime rates have reduced. The relationship between immigration and crime in the United States has been studied at length by scholars whose findings convey a similar conclusion: that immigration does not increase crime and violence, in fact, in the first generation it seems to reduce it. Since 1970 to today, the share and number of immigrants in the United States have increased rapidly while violent crime has been trending in the opposite direction to a level below what it was in 1980. Even as the U.S. undocumented population doubled to 12 million between 1994 and 2005, the violent crime rate in the United States declined 34.2 percent. In addition, cities with large immigrant populations such as Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and Miami also experienced declining crime rates during that period. - Evidence does not support the notion that increases in Central American immigrant populations lead to increases in violent crime rates. Although Northern Triangle immigration has surged over the past several years, the evidence does not support the claim that they are posing a U.S. national security threat. Not only did overall U.S. violent crime rates descend as Central American migration share rose; but the influx of these foreigners in 27 metro areas showed no correlation when compared to the violent crime rate changes of each one during 2012 to 2017. When compared to homicide rate changes, there is no correlation between the changes in the immigrant population from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras; in fact, the vast majority of cases demonstrate a reduction in crime. Not one of the 27 metros with high concentration of immigrants from that region is within the top ten of the most violent metros in the United States. The violence that Northern Triangle migrants are fleeing is not translating into more violence in American communities, as the public discourse seems to suggest. The Central American migration threat has been hyper-inflated in scope and potential for insecurity. - The scope of the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) gang is narrow by comparison. According to the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), approximately ten thousand MS-13 members inhabit the United States, amounting to 0.3 percent of the overall U.S. population. By comparison, there are approximately 1.4 million gang members living in the United States that make up more than 33,000 gangs. Of the 45,400 UACs apprehended at the border in the five-year period of 2012 and 2017, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) apprehended 159 UACs with confirmed or suspected gang affiliations, 56 of which were suspected or confirmed to be affiliated with MS-13. The Cato Institute reports that 0.1 percent of U.S. Customs and Border Patrol arrests were MS-13 gang members at the border midyear in 2018, similar to the statistics from prior years. - The brutality of MS-13 has the potential to disrupt neighborhoods, but not the United States as a whole. The threat of the MS-13 gang is far smaller in scope and reach than high-profile dialogue suggests, and it is given disproportionate attention in the public discourse considering the levels of crime. Of the 1.2 million violent crime offenses committed in the United States between 2012 and 2017, 345 were committed by members of the MS-13 gang. Although spread throughout cities in the United States and a legitimate concern for the communities which they inhabit, the members of this murderous gang do not demonstrate an ability to disrupt the stability and security of the entire nation and show no sign of expansion. Containing the threat of this violent criminal organization is best left to local authorities with local solutions. This research does not advocate ceasing to address the root causes of MS-13 criminal activity, only to keep the risk in perspective to reduce the negative consequences of fear-based decision-making. - The conflating of MS-13 with all immigrants in public discourse is unfounded and problematic. Connecting all immigrants with the violent acts of the few stalls progress on immigration reform, influences public opinion and immigration policy decisions without data to support the level of threat, creates an atmosphere of conflict surrounding those requesting asylum and settling in American neighborhoods, and is counterproductive to keeping Americans safe. Anxiety-inducing messaging from elite levels slows productive, compromise-driven dialogue that is necessary for immigration reform and effective allocation of finite resources.

Details: San Diego: Justice in Mexico, Department of Political Science & International Relations, University of San Diego, 2019. 40p.

Source: Internet Resource:JUSTICE IN MEXICO WORKING PAPER SERIES Volume 16, Number 1: Accessed May 9, 2019 at: https://justiceinmexico.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/BLANCHARD_Immigration-and-National-Security.pdf

Year: 2019

Country: United States

URL: https://justiceinmexico.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/BLANCHARD_Immigration-and-National-Security.pdf

Shelf Number: 155705

Keywords:
Asylum Seekers
Gang Violence
Immigrants and Crime
Immigration and Crime
Immigration Policy
MS-13 - Mara Salvatrucha
National Security
Northern Triangle
Social Media
Unaccompanied Minors
Undocumented Migrants
Violent Crime

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: Cadman, Dan

Title: Analyzing H.R. 7059, the 'Build the Wall, Enforce the Law Act of 2018'

Summary: It took several days after House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) publicly announced introduction of a new bill to fund the border barrier and implement important immigration measures before the text of the proposed legislation became available. The bill McCarthy announced was the "Build the Wall, Enforce the Law Act of 2018", H.R. 7059, which was described in the media as a "new get-tough immigration bill that would build the rest of President Trump's border wall, punish sanctuary cities and stiffen penalties on repeat illegal immigrants." The legislative language of the bill may not completely live up to its media depiction, but there are a number of extremely desirable law enforcement provisions crafted into the bill. Other features are desirable, but flawed as written and merit amendment to ensure that they have the effect intended. A few appear to be a step backward.

Details: Washington, DC: Center for Immigration Studies, 2018. 8p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 17, 2019 at: https://cis.org/Report/Analyzing-HR-7059-Build-Wall-Enforce-Law-Act-2018

Year: 2018

Country: United States

URL: https://cis.org/sites/default/files/2018-10/cadman-HR7059.pdf

Shelf Number: 156383

Keywords:
Border Security
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy

Author: Center for Immigration Studies

Title: Revisiting 'A Pen and a Phone': A Midterm Assessment: What Immigration Actions has the President Taken, and How Effective have They Been?

Summary: The partial government shutdown took up so much oxygen in the public arena that virtually no aspect of border security other than a wall is being talked about. Yet, as important as a physical barrier may be (see here and here), there are many more aspects to achieving a fair and balanced immigration policy that serves the nation's interests. Poll after poll shows not just border security, but immigration issues generally, as ranking at or near the top of ordinary Americans' concerns. In April 2016 - before it was clear that Donald Trump would be the next president - we published "A Pen and a Phone: 79 immigration actions the next president can take". Our Backgrounder was a guide to actions that we believed could, and should, be done to re-set the pendulum of immigration policies after its dramatic swing toward leniency and laxity during the Obama years. Most significantly, it outlined actions that might legally be taken (unlike the constitutionally dubious and extra-statutory DACA and DAPA programs) without need to rely on legislative actions by Congress - a dubious proposition in the best of times. The wisdom of our emphasis on presidential actions in lieu of statutory change has been proven during the past two years in which, notwithstanding a Republican president and a Republican majority in both chambers of Congress, little of immigration significance occurred in the legislative arena.

Details: Washington, DC: Center for Immigration Studies, 2019. 21p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 17, 2019 at: https://cis.org/Report/Revisiting-Pen-and-Phone-Midterm-Assessment

Year: 2019

Country: United States

URL: https://cis.org/sites/default/files/2019-01/79-actions-midterm_0.pdf

Shelf Number: 156385

Keywords:
Border Security
Immigration Enforcement
Immigration Policy

Author: Vosyliute, Lina

Title: Crackdown on NGOs and volunteers helping refugees and other migrants

Summary: This report synthesises previous ReSOMA briefs concerning the crackdown on NGOs and volunteers helping refugees and other migrants. Section 1 captures the main issues and controversies in the debate on the policing of humanitarianism and the potential impacts of EU and national anti-migrant smuggling policies on civil society actors. This section has drawn on academic research in this area, and in particular on CEPS expertise in this field. Section 2 provides an overview of the possible policy options to address this phenomenon taking stock of the ongoing policy debate on solutions and alternatives. Section 3 aims to identify and quantify criminal cases of individuals, volunteers and NGOs providing humanitarian assistance to migrants in the European Union. This monitoring exercise has been carried out by MPG through ReSOMA's collaborative and participatory process involving experts from NGOs, researchers and other stakeholders. Section 4 provides overall summary conclusions and recommendations to end the crackdown on NGOs and to prevent further policing of civil society. The final section proposes approaches to returning responsibility to EU actors, to be further explored by the ReSOMA platform, with a focus on good governance, human rights defenders, and the protection of humanitarian space inside the EU.

Details: Brussels: Research Social Platform on Migration and Asylum, 2019. 52p.

Source: Internet Resource: Final Synthetic Report: Accessed July 5, 2019 at: https://www.migpolgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Final-Synthetic-Report-Crackdown-on-NGOs-and-volunteers-helping-refugees-and-other-migrants_1.pdf

Year: 2019

Country: Europe

URL: https://www.migpolgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Final-Synthetic-Report-Crackdown-on-NGOs-and-volunteers-helping-refugees-and-other-migrants_1.pdf

Shelf Number: 156830

Keywords:
Asylum Seekers
Human Smuggling
Humanitarian Aid
Immigration Policy
Migrant
Migration
Refugees
Volunteers

Rutgers - School of Law, Newark

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

Results for immigration policy