Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 11:32 am
Time: 11:32 am
Results for immigration reform
13 results foundAuthor: Saunders, Jessica Title: Enforcing Immigration Law at the State and Local Levels: A Public Policy Dilemma Summary: About 12 million out-of-status aliens currently reside in the United States, and it is estimated that it will take 15 years and more than $5 billion for the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement to apprehend just the current backlog of absconders. One proposed solution to this enforcement problem is for federal agencies to partner with state and local law-enforcement agencies to apprehend and deport fugitive aliens. Currently, the federal government does not require state and local agencies to carry out specific immigration enforcement actions; however, comprehensive immigration reform may address this issue in the near future. Before such legislation is drafted and considered, it is important to understand all the potential impacts of a policy incorporating immigration enforcement by nonfederal entities. As there is very limited evidence about the effects of involving state and local law enforcement in immigration enforcement duties, this paper seeks to clarify the needs and concerns of key stakeholders by describing variations in enforcement approaches and making their pros and cons more explicit. The paper also suggests areas for research to add empirical evidence to the largely anecdotal accounts that now characterize discussions of the involvement of state and local law enforcement in immigration enforcemenet efforts. Details: Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2010. 6p. Source: Internet Resource; Issues in Policing: Occasional Paper Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118623 Keywords: Illegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigration Reform |
Author: McCutcheon, Chuck Title: Securing Our Borders: Doing What Works to Ensure Immigration Reform Is Complete and Comprehensive Summary: A new report from Center for American Progress investigates the failures of the Secure Border Initiative (SBI) program and has found that there are "salvageable" parts of former attempts at boarder security reform and lessons to be learned from past mistakes. This paper details their findings and emphasizes that future efforts "must be accompanied by the enactment of comprehensive immigration reform, which would create orderly migration channels and allow the border patrol to focus on smuggling and other criminal enterprises. By restoring order to our nation's chaotic and broken immigration system, DHS' operational control of the Mexican border will be enhanced." As part of the Center for American Progress' 'Doing What Works' project, this paper concludes that while SBI's performance has been dismal, an advanced technology program can reach SBI's key goals if multiple corrective measures are taken. By upgrading human resources and procurement practices, harnessing new technology, and setting up transparent, evidence-based operations, DHS can restore confidence in the overall SBI program and produce budget savings. The study proposes 10 reforms for SBI, in general, and a sharply re-defined technology component." SBI, established in 2005, is "a comprehensive, multi-year plan to help secure America's borders." Its mission "is to lead the operational requirements support and documentation as well as the acquisition efforts to develop, deploy, and integrate technology and tactical infrastructure in support of CBP's efforts to gain and maintain effect control of U.S. land border areas." More information on SBI can be found at the Customs and Borders Protection website. Details: Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, 2010. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 23, 2012 at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/04/pdf/dww_borders.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/04/pdf/dww_borders.pdf Shelf Number: 123743 Keywords: Border Control (United States)Border SecurityIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigration Reform |
Author: Ewing, Walter Title: Money for Nothing: Immigration Enforcement without Immigration Reform Doesn't Work Summary: While the U.S. government has poured billions upon billions of dollars into immigration enforcement, the number of undocumented immigrants in the United States has increased dramatically. Rather than reducing undocumented immigration, this enforcement-without-reform strategy has diverted the resources and attention of federal authorities to the pursuit of undocumented immigrants who are drawn here by the labor needs of our own economy. For more than two decades, the U.S. government has tried without success to stamp out undocumented immigration through enforcement efforts at the border and in the interior of the country, but without fundamentally reforming the broken immigration system that spurs undocumented immigration in the first place. While billions upon billions of dollars have been poured into enforcement, the number of undocumented immigrants in the United States has increased dramatically. Rather than reducing undocumented immigration, the enforcement-without-reform strategy has diverted the resources and attention of federal authorities to the pursuit of undocumented immigrants who are not a threat to anyone, and who are drawn here by the labor needs of our own economy. It has fueled the growth of increasingly profitable and sophisticated businesses in human smuggling and the production and sale of fraudulent identity documents. And it has done nothing to lessen the dependence of many U.S. industries on the labor of undocumented immigrants. Details: Washington, DC: Immigration Policy Center, The American Immigration Law Foundation, 2008. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 7, 2012 at http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/MoneyForNothing05-08.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/MoneyForNothing05-08.pdf Shelf Number: 126585 Keywords: Immigration EnforcementImmigration Reform |
Author: Smith, Rebecca Title: Workers’ Rights on ICE: How Immigration Reform Can Stop Retaliation and Advance Labor Rights Workers’ Rights on ICE Summary: This report outlines how employers across the country are gaming today’s broken immigration system to exploit immigrant workers and evade both labor and immigration laws. The report by the National Employment Law Project (NELP) uses two dozen case studies—including the recent action at Palermo’s Pizza—as examples of employers’ use of immigration enforcement or the threat of it to retaliate against workers who seek their basic workplace rights. One of the key principles of the AFL-CIO’s comprehensive immigration reform’s blueprint is the coverage and enforcement of workplace rights for undocumented workers. At Palermo's Pizza, Workers’ Rights on ICE: How Immigration Reform Can Stop Retaliation and Advance Labor Rights report relates that when workers there began to form a union, management used the threat of a reverification of their immigration status by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to intimidate the workers. Even though ICE told Palermo's it was not conducting an investigation. One day after receiving notice that ICE was not pursuing enforcement action against it, Palermo's fired some 75 striking workers. Palermo's claimed that the firings were not motivated by anti-union animus but to comply with immigration law, a dubious claim in light of ICE’s retraction. Palermo's Pizza workers, who have been on strike since June 1, are protesting unfair labor practices and demanding safe working conditions, recognition for their union and the reinstatement of 90 workers who were, according to a recent Worker Rights Consortium report, illegally fired for trying to organize a union. Other examples of employer abuse in the report include: •A California employer falsely accuses a day laborer of robbery to avoid paying him wages owed. Police turn him over to immigration enforcement agents anyway. •An Ohio company, on the eve of an National Labor Relations Board decision finding it guilty of unfair labor practices, carries out its threat to “take out” union leadership by reverifying union leaders’ immigration status and work eligibility. •A Seattle employer threatens workers seeking to recover unpaid wages with deportation, and an immigration arrest follows. Details: New York: National Employment Law Project, 2013. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 18, 2013 at: http://www.nelp.org/page/-/Justice/2013/Workers-Rights-on-ICE-Retaliation-Report.pdf?nocdn=1 Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.nelp.org/page/-/Justice/2013/Workers-Rights-on-ICE-Retaliation-Report.pdf?nocdn=1 Shelf Number: 127967 Keywords: Illegal ImmigrantsImmigrant LaborImmigrants (U.S.)Immigration ReformUndocumented Workers |
Author: Becker, Gary S. Title: The Challenge of Immigration: A Radical Solution Summary: Executive Summary: • Despite substantial economic growth in underdeveloped countries, there are still huge differences in wage levels between poorer and richer countries. • Low fertility, especially in Europe, is also likely to lead to pressures that will encourage migration in future decades. • Net migration has grown dramatically in recent years. In 1980, net migration to the UK was approximately zero and by 2005 the figure was 190,000 per annum. In the same periodnet migration to the USA more or less doubled to 1.1 million per annum. • There were very substantial migration flows in the late nineteenth century but the USA imposed restrictions from the 1920s onwards. Those restrictions are onerous and involve bureaucratic controls. • Given the extent of welfare states in countries with higher incomes, it would be difficult to go back to a policy of free migration. • There would be many advantages to a policy of charging immigrants a fee. If a fee of (say) $50,000 were charged, it would ensure that economically active migrants who had a real commitment to the country were most attracted. This fee could be used to lower other taxes. • Charging a fee would be a much more efficient way of controlling economic migration than the use of quotas and other bureaucratic systems of control. • Even a fee of $50,000 would allow people on relatively low earnings to enter the USA if there were skill shortages. Given the level of wage differentials, such a fee could be paid back in a few years or in a decade or so. • Certain categories of migrant might be allowed to benefit from a loans system to enable them to pay the fee over a period of years. This could operate rather like a student loans system in higher education. • One advantage of using a fee rather than administrative controls would be that illegal immigrants would have a strong incentive to regularise their status – and would be allowed to do so legally. Such people would have to pay the required fee but would then be free to choose much more remunerative occupations. As such, the use of the price mechanism in migration policy could alleviate the scourge of illegal immigration. Details: London: Institute of Economic Affairs, 2011. 69p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 5, 2013 at: http://www.iea.org.uk/publications/research/the-challenge-of-immigration-a-radical-solution Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.iea.org.uk/publications/research/the-challenge-of-immigration-a-radical-solution Shelf Number: 128965 Keywords: Economic AnalysisIllegal ImmigrantsImmigration Reform |
Author: Bush, Jeb Title: U.S. Immigration Policy Summary: Few issues on the American political agenda are more complex or divisive than immigration. There is no shortage of problems with current policies and practices, from the difficulties and delays that confront many legal immigrants to the large number of illegal immigrants living in the country. Moreover, few issues touch as many areas of U.S. domestic life and foreign policy. Immigration is a matter of homeland security and international competitiveness-as well as a deeply human issue central to the lives of millions of individuals and families. It cuts to the heart of questions of citizenship and American identity and plays a large role in shaping both America's reality and its image in the world. Immigration's emergence as a foreign policy issue coincides with the increasing reach of globalization. Not only must countries today compete to attract and retain talented people from around the world, but the view of the United States as a place of unparalleled openness and opportunity is also crucial to the maintenance of American leadership. There is a consensus that current policy is not serving the United States well on any of these fronts. Yet agreement on reform has proved elusive. The goal of the Independent Task Force on U.S. Immigration Policy was to examine this complex issue and craft a nuanced strategy for reforming immigration policies and practices. The Task Force report argues that immigration is vital to the long-term prosperity and security of the United States. In the global competition to attract highly talented immigrants, the United States must ensure that it remains the destination of first choice. The report also finds that immigrants, who bring needed language and cultural skills, are an increasingly important asset for the U.S. armed forces. What is more, allowing people to come to this country to visit, study, or work is one of the surest means to build friendships with future generations of foreign leaders and to show America's best face to the world. Details: Washington, DC: Council on Foreign Relations, 2009. 165p. Source: Internet Resource: Independent Task Force Report No. 63: Accessed July 31, 2014 at: http://www.cfr.org/immigration/us-immigration-policy/p20030 Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.cfr.org/immigration/us-immigration-policy/p20030 Shelf Number: 132861 Keywords: Illegal ImmigrantsImmigration (U.S.)Immigration ReformUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: American Immigration Council Title: The Growth of the U.S. Deportation Machine: More Immigrants are being "Removed" from the United States than Ever Before Summary: Despite some highly public claims to the contrary, there has been no waning of immigration enforcement in the United States. In fact, the U.S. deportation machine has grown larger in recent years, indiscriminately consuming criminals and non-criminals alike, be they unauthorized immigrants or long-time legal permanent residents (LPRs). Deportations under the Obama administration alone are now approaching the two-million mark. But the deportation frenzy began long before this milestone. The federal government has, for nearly two decades, been pursuing an enforcement-first approach to immigration control that favors mandatory detention and deportation over the traditional discretion of a judge to consider the unique circumstances of every case. The end result has been a relentless campaign of imprisonment and expulsion aimed at noncitizens - a campaign authorized by Congress and implemented by the executive branch. While this campaign precedes the Obama administration by many years, it has grown immensely during his tenure in the White House. In part, this is the result of laws which have put the expansion of deportations on automatic. But the continued growth of deportations also reflects the policy choices of the Obama administration. Rather than putting the brakes on this non-stop drive to deport more and more people, the administration chose to add fuel to the fire. Details: Washington, DC: American Immigration Council, Immigration Policy Center, 2014. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 2, 2014 at: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/deportation_machine_march_2014_final.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/deportation_machine_march_2014_final.pdf Shelf Number: 133554 Keywords: DeportationsIllegal Immigrants (U.S.)Immigrant DetentionImmigration PolicyImmigration Reform |
Author: Pew Research Center Title: More Prioritize Border Security in Immigration Debate. How to Accommodate Undocumented Central American Children in the U.S.? Summary: How to Accommodate Undocumented Central American Children in the U.S.? The national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted August 20-24 among 1,501 adults, finds that 33% say the priority should be on better border security and tougher enforcement of immigration laws, while 23% prioritize creating a way for people in the U.S. illegally to become citizens if they meet certain conditions. About four-in-ten (41%) say both should be given equal priority. Details: Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, 2014. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 6, 2014 at: http://www.people-press.org/files/2014/09/9-3-14-Immigration-Release.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.people-press.org/files/2014/09/9-3-14-Immigration-Release.pdf Shelf Number: 133567 Keywords: Border SecurityIllegal Immigrants (U.S.)Immigration PolicyImmigration ReformMigrantsUndocumented Children |
Author: 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 SeekersCourt ReformIllegal ImmigrantsImmigration Courts (U.S.)Immigration PolicyImmigration Reform |
Author: Johnson, Kevin R. Title: Race-Based Law Enforcement: The Racially Disparate Impacts of Crimmigration Law Summary: This Essay was prepared for the Case Western Law Review's symposium on the 20th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996). Racially-charged encounters with the police regularly make the national news. Local law enforcement officers also have at various times victimized immigrants of color. For example, New York City Department (NYPD) officers in 1999 killed Amadou Diallo, an unarmed immigrant from Guinea, in a hail of gunfire; two years earlier, officers had tortured Haitian immigrant Abner Louima at a NYPD police station. Both victims were Black, which no doubt contributed to the violence. In less spectacular fashion, police on the beat by many accounts regularly engage in racial profiling in traffic stops of U.S. citizens and noncitizens of color. Removals of "criminal aliens" have been the cornerstone of the Obama administration's immigration enforcement strategy. Well-publicized increases in the number of removals of immigrants also have been the centerpiece of President Obama's political efforts to persuade Congress to pass a comprehensive immigration reform package. The hope behind the aggressive enforcement strategy has been to convince Congress that this is the time to enact comprehensive immigration reform. In the last few years, a body of what has been denominated "crimmigration" scholarship has emerged that critically examines the growing confluence of the criminal justice system and the immigration removal machinery in the United States. That body of work tends to direct attention to the unfairness to immigrants, as well as their families, of the increasing criminalization of immigration law and its enforcement. This Essay agrees with the general thrust of the crimmigration criticism, but contends that it does not go far enough. Namely, the emerging scholarship in this genre fails to critically assess the dominant role that race plays in modern law enforcement and how its racial impacts are exacerbated by the operation of a federal immigration removal process that consciously targets "criminal aliens." Part I of this Essay considers parallel developments in the law: (1) the Supreme Court's implicit sanctioning of race-conscious law enforcement in the United States, with the centerpiece of this symposium, Whren v. United States, the most well-known example; and (2) the trend over at least the last twenty years toward increased cooperation between state and local law enforcement agencies and federal immigration authorities. Part II specifically demonstrates how criminal prosecutions influenced by police reliance on race necessarily lead to the racially disparate removal rates experienced in the modern United States. Part III discusses how some state and local governments have pushed back on cooperation with federal immigration authorities, with effective community police practices being an important policy rationale invoked by local law enforcement for that resistance. Part III of this Essay further contends that more attention should be paid to the racially disparate impacts of linking immigration removals to the outcomes of a racially-tainted criminal justice system. It further sketches some modest reforms to the U.S. immigration laws that might tend to blunt, rather than magnify, some of these racial impacts. Details: Davis, CA: University of California, Davis, School of Law, 2015. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: UC Davis Legal Studies Research Paper No. 437: Accessed August 25, 2015 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2640755 Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2640755 Shelf Number: 136571 Keywords: CrimmigrationIllegal ImmigrantsImmigration EnforcementImmigration ReformRacial DisparitiesRacial Profiling in Law Enforcement |
Author: Bernstein, Nina Title: The Impact of Investigative Journalism on U.S. Immigration Detention Reform Summary: A reporter for the New York Times who has written extensively about immigration detention policies in the United States and elsewhere assesses the limits that investigative journalism faces in spurring detention reforms. The paper argues that while journalism occupies a privileged place in a democracy because it helps hold government to account, in practice it operates at a far messier intersection between the politics of reform and the contingencies and conventions of even the most robust news operation. The author focuses her analysis on the relationship between investigative journalism and the early efforts of the Barack Obama administration to overhaul immigration detention by creating "a truly civil detention system." Today, the U.S. detention system is larger than ever, abuses remain endemic, and the government has massively expanded its capacity to lock up mothers and children in "family residential centres." Details: Geneva, SWIT: Global Detention Project, 2016. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: Global Detention Project Working Paper No. 13: Accessed October 6, 2017 at: Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 247595 Keywords: Immigrant Detention Immigration Policy Immigration ReformJournalism Media |
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 ImmigrantsImmigration EnforcementImmigration PolicyImmigration ReformSanctuary CitiesUndocumented Citizens |
Author: Cambridge Econometrics Title: Economic Impacts of Immigration Detention Reform Summary: This report presents the results of a study for Liberty on the potential costs and savings of UK immigration detention reform. Specifically, the research considers the economic impacts were the UK to introduce a 28-day time limit on immigration detention. This contrasts with the current situation, under which there is no time limit. As of March 2019, the UK is the only country in Europe without a statutory time limit for holding someone in immigration detention. The UK also has one of the largest detention estates in Europe. Pressure has been mounting to introduce a statutory 28-day time limit, from a wide range of organisations. -In 2018, around 25,000 people entered detention and a similar number left. Encouragingly, these figures are lower than the historical trend. Over 2010-17, the number of people entering and leaving detention ranged from 26,000 to 30,000 each year. The exception is 2015, when the numbers climbed to 32,400 and 33,200, respectively. -On average, around 65% of people detained are released within 28 days. On the same basis, 95% are released within six months and 99% within a year. Again, the 2018 figures show a possible departure from trend, with a higher proportion of people released within 28 days (69%). -However, Home Office statistics going back to 2010 also show individual cases of people being held for much longer: over four years, at times. Many people can also face multiple stints of detention and re-detention, which is not reflected in Home Office statistics. -The argument in favour of a time limit is fundamentally one of human rights and there are recurring criticisms of the harm caused to people's health and wellbeing. These effects may persist beyond the period of detention, especially in cases of prolonged detention. In support of this, there may also be an economic case for a time limit, if there are viable and cheaper alternatives to immigration detention. It is in this context that Liberty commissioned Cambridge Econometrics (CE) to examine the implications of a 28-day time limit. Our analysis focuses on direct financial costs and benefits. It does not consider, for example, the potential benefits of reduced physical or mental harm. The analysis that follows only considers the long-term savings following immigration detention reform. The available data preclude any analysis of the potential transitional savings from any prospective reform. -For an economic analysis of this kind, information on the existing UK immigration detention system is quite sparse. Moreover, alternatives to detention are still in the pilot phase, with limited evidence on how they might operate at scale. Nevertheless, with the data that are available, it is possible to estimate: -Cost savings from detaining people for shorter lengths of time (implying a smaller detention estate) and, consequently, avoiding compensation payments for wrongful detention. This draws on data from the Home Office. -Additional costs of alternatives to detention (i.e. in the community) that support people to resolve their cases. This uses data provided to us by Detention Action on their Community Support Project. -Had there been a 28-day time limit in the past, our analysis suggests: -Cost savings from shorter detention lengths and compensation payments avoided of 55-65m pounds, which can be interpreted broadly as an annual saving. An alternative calculation method finds a similar range of savings and sensitivity analysis supports a conclusion that potential savings are in the tens of millions of pounds (a lower bound of around 35m pounds). -There is significant uncertainty about the annual costs of alternative provision at scale and our analysis suggests a wide range, from as little as 6m pounds to as much as 30m pounds. That latter figure is, however, likely to be near the upper limit of the plausible range. From our analysis of historical data on immigration detention and our assessment of likely future policy developments, it is reasonable to think of the implied net saving of at least 25-35m pounds each year as indicative of the future long-term impact. The net saving could only accrue gradually as existing private contracts expire and alternative provision expands. Without more detail on the breakdown of the Home Office's expenditure, it is difficult to make a like-for-like comparison but, for reference, Home Office expenditure on detention was 108m pounds in 2017/18. It is difficult to conceive of any plausible situation in which the additional costs of alternative provision could outweigh the estimated savings from a 28-day time limit. Limitations to our approach rest on data availability and quality: -While there are regularly published statistics on some elements of the system, including how long people are held for, information is limited on what happens to those who are released into the community rather than those who depart or are removed from the UK. This includes the outcome of any claims for financial support that would ultimately be paid by the UK government. It is not possible to construct firm estimates of the costs of this support, owing to a lack of data about how many people are or might be eligible, and whether they can successfully claim that support. Low eligibility and low claims would tend to lower the additional costs of support. However, any potential financial saving here must also be understood as a decision about what the state does or does not choose to provide to people so affected. We assess the additional costs of financial support as potentially low but with no clear way to establish an upper bound on how large they could be. It was not possible to estimate the impacts on public service provision. -While Home Office annual reports and accounts do include detention costs as a line item, this does not represent the entirety of the financial costs associated with immigration detention. These figures do not include, for example, the costs of healthcare provision (which are borne separately, by NHS England), escorting services to and from detention centres or the cost of legal cases settled out of court. In some cases, the government withholds information for reasons of commercial confidentiality. In this sense, there is scope for other savings that are not captured in our estimates. -Beyond the totals described above, and a Home Office-published figure on average daily detention cost, there is little further detail on the breakdown of operating costs. The average daily cost figures are simply the operating costs of the detention centres divided by the average number of bed spaces. Ideally, there would be more detail available on, for example, fixed versus variable costs as well as a breakdown of cost items. This is a critical uncertainty in our analysis but, as a government-published estimate, it is the most credible figure available on which to base our estimates. -Alternative provision to reduce or avoid detention remains underdeveloped in the UK. The Home Office has just started funding a small pilot project to be delivered by the Action Foundation for women who would otherwise be liable to detention at Yarl's Wood. There is also an independently funded Alternative to Detention, the Community Support Project, run by Detention Action, which works with young men with previous convictions who are liable to immigration detention. These pilots are both small: their cost and effectiveness at scale is not clear. In the case of the Community Support Project, on the one hand, the data are for a programme of wider and longer-term support (around one year per participant) than many might need. However, on the other hand, the Community Support Project does not provide accommodation, which may be a source of substantial cost in other programmes. More research is needed to better understand any future combination of prospective alternative provision. While acknowledging the above as limitations, we see no reason to think that the order of magnitude of our results is unreasonable. -Uncertainties associated with our estimates concern the impacts of future policies. In particular: -The Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill, which proposes to change the definition of who is eligible to remain in the UK. EU nationals make up an increasing proportion of those held in immigration detention and the Bill could lead to more being detained. Were this to happen, the potential savings from reduced detention would likely increase. -The implications of Brexit, which could change the number and balance of EU and non-EU nationals coming to the UK, and about which the cost impacts are unknown. -The planned expansion of Heathrow Airport would require the demolition of both the Harmondsworth and Colnbrook centres, with new capacity expected to be built elsewhere. The implications of this for future detention capacity and for potential future savings are unclear. Details: Cambridge: Cambridge Econometrics, 2019. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 21, 2019 at: http://www.camecon.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Immigration-detention-reform_Final-report.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.camecon.com/what/our-work/economic-impacts-of-immigration-detention-reform/ Shelf Number: 156929 Keywords: Detainees Detention Center Illegal Immigration Immigration Detention Immigration Policy Immigration Reform |