Revving Up the Deportation Machinery: Enforcement and Pushback under Trump,
Migration Policy Institute, May 2018, 110 pp.
Authors: Randy Capps et al
This report results from
a year-long study by MPI into how immigration enforcement has been handled by the Trump administration. The enforcement environment,
the report finds, has changed in two different ways. The administration has become much more aggressive in seeking to remove
any unauthorized immigrant-regardless of whether a crime has been committed. However, the report finds that arrests and deportations
are about at half the level during their peak (2008-2011). The chief cause is the increasing resistance of state and local
jurisdictions that are reducing their cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In the first year of the
Trump administration, the number of ICE arrests at homes and in communities has increased; the share of arrests of immigrants
with no criminal record has increased; there have been many more "collateral arrests" (arrests of others in addition
to the intended target); low-priority immigrants are now routinely arrested during scheduled "check-ins" with ICE.
The report discusses a number of other changes to enforcement policy. These new policies, however, are not producing the expected
results because jurisdictions are limiting their cooperation with ICE by, for example, refusing to honor ICE detainers, not
entering into 287(g) agreements, and enacting other "sanctuary" policies. Some jurisdictions have taken other steps
to reduce the likelihood that immigrants will be put into a situation where ICE might discover them, e.g. by decriminalizing
certain minor offenses and providing alternative IDs for drivers. Some jurisdictions have provided funds for deportation defense.
Advocates for immigrants have stepped up "know-your-rights" trainings and are monitoring ICE activities. Regardless
of how a jurisdiction is treating its immigrant residents, however, there is widespread fear in immigrant communities, and
that has resulted in a measurable decline in business in immigrant communities. Public safety has been affected, as police
report a decline in reporting of crimes, including domestic violence. The report concludes with the observation that arrests
and deportations will probably never achieve the level seen during the Obama administration, due to the resistance of jurisdictions
with large immigrant populations. Rather, there are growing disparities among jurisdictions depending on how they view immigration
enforcement. These growing disparities are eroding federal pre-eminence in immigration. This report is accompanied by a "report
in brief," which you can find here (Maurice Belanger, Maurice Belanger Associates).
National Guard Heads to Southern Border Amid Differing Reality from Earlier Deployments,
Migration Policy Institute, April 25, 2018, 7 pp.
Authors: Muzaffar Chishti et al
discusses the rationale for the deployment of 4,000 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border by the Trump administration.
Unlike previous deployments by the Obama and George W. Bush administrations, no apparent crisis precipitated the president's
decision; nor did the states in question (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California) request the deployment, as they had
done earlier. According to the authors, Trump's action "seems to be primarily driven by political and public relations
concerns" and by his failure to secure funding for a border wall from Congress. The rest of the essay provides
details about earlier deployments and discusses the role played by National Guard troops in supporting federal immigration
personnel. The authors also point out that the reality on the border today is quite different than it was in 2006 and
2010. In FY 2017, border apprehensions dropped to the lowest level since 1971, and the number of Border Patrol agents is more
than 50 percent higher than in 2006.
Twenty Years After IIRIRA: The Rise of Immigrant Detention and Its Effects on Latinx Communities
Across the Nation,
Journal on Migration and Human Security, 6:1 (2018), 22 pp.
Authors: Melina Juárez et al
paper argues that corporate interests, specifically CoreCivic and the GEO group - two companies that operate nine out of the
10 largest immigrant detention centers in the U.S. housing 45 percent of all detained immigrants in 2014 -- "have helped
to fuel the growth of immigration detention and to convert the criminalization of immigrants into a profitable industry."
Both groups have spent large amounts of money lobbying federal officials for increases in detention budgets, including the
"bed mandate" passed in 2009 that requires ICE to hold a minimum of 34,000 immigrants per night in detention. As
a result, their profits have soared in recent years, at a time when the undocumented population has decreased. The authors
also contend that federal officials have "applied a double standard" when it comes to the detention system, often
locking people up and potentially banishing them from the country for minor offenses, such as traffic violations or possession
of marijuana. Moreover, mandatory detention tends to distort democracy as immigrant detainees are counted by the Census as
residents of the community in which the detention facility is located, not their home communities, thereby sending more federal
dollars to the detention communities and increasing their representation in Congress. The authors also cite studies showing
how the "effects of deportation and ultimately deportation start at the individual level but reverberate to the family
and community levels." The paper includes a time series regression analysis tracing the influence of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 and other developments since 1996 on the "criminalization
of immigrants," measured through the ratio of the average daily population of detained immigrants divided by the total
number of noncitizens residing in the United States. The paper concludes with a series of recommendations, including the repeal
of all mandatory detention legislation and the repeal of the bed mandate, as well as greater transparency and more effective
data management from Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Freezing Out Justice: How Immigration Arrests at Courthouses are Undermining the Justice System,
American Civil Liberties Union, 2018, 8 pp.
Since the beginning of the Trump administration, immigration
authorities have significantly increased their enforcement activities at courthouses-by 1,200 percent in New York in 2017
alone. Surveyed police officials, prosecutors, defenders and judges across the country believe that this practice has led
to a decline in cooperation from immigrant victims and increased difficulties in investigating crimes and administering justice.
This report utilizes 2016 and 2017 survey data from the National Immigrant Women's Advocacy Project and the ACLU on crime
survivor participation in investigations and court proceedings to show how the increased enforcement undermines public safety
and the judicial process. Twenty-two percent of police officers, for example, reported that immigrant communities were less
willing to file police reports in 2017 than in 2016. According to the Denver City Attorney, 13 women dropped their domestic
abuse cases due to fear of deportation after a video was released showing immigration enforcement officers in a courthouse
waiting to make an arrest. Despite concerns from law enforcement and judicial officials, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) directed in 2017 and 2018 to arrest immigrants at court houses with a vague description of when to avoid making arrests
there. To safeguard the fundamental rights of access to courts, due process and equal protection, the authors recommend adding
courts to the list of sensitive locations exempt from immigration enforcement, passing federal legislation to limit and control
arrests by ICE and Customs and Border Patrol at courthouses, and directing court personnel to facilitate enforcement only
when required by a judicial order (Jasmina Popaja for the Immigrant Learning Center's Public Education Institute).
On Holy Ground: Church Sanctuary in the Trump Era,
Southwestern University Law Review, March 3, 2018, 12 pp.
Author: Valerie J. Munson
The number of
deportations of unauthorized immigrants has increased dramatically since the election of Donald Trump. In keeping with long-standing
tradition, religious communities across the United States have responded by providing sanctuary to unauthorized immigrants
in the form of housing and social services. Thus far, immigration authorities have refrained from entering sacred spaces to
apprehend unauthorized immigrants. But, is it legal for religious communities to provide such sanctuary under the current
law criminalizing the "harboring" of unauthorized immigrants? Can immigration authorities enter sacred spaces to
apprehend unauthorized immigrants if they wish? This article addresses those questions. The first part of the article reviews
the history of sanctuary from ancient times to the present-day in the United States. Next, it surveys current law on the legality
of church sanctuary, especially the provisions prohibiting the "harboring" of unauthorized immigrants. Finally,
it recommends that the courts and the federal government should construe "harboring" in a manner consistent with
the history of the statute, namely to prevent smuggling and other clandestine activity. As long as religious congregations
are exercising their first amendment rights, objecting to an activity they deem to be a violation of their conscience, and
not seeking to evade detection, they should not have to fear enforcement actions focused on houses of workshop.
Criminal Immigrants in Texas: Illegal Immigrant Convictions and Arrest Rates for Homicide, Sexual
Assault, Larceny, and Other Crimes,
Cato Institute, February 26, 2018, 6 pp.
Author: Alex Nowrasteh
is a widespread belief, propagated by the Trump administration, that when undocumented immigrants enter the United States,
they significantly increase crime rates. However, undocumented immigrants are less likely than the U.S.-born to be arrested
or charged for most crimes, according to this report by Alex Nowrasteh at the Cato Institute. Using 2015 data from the Texas
Department of Public Safety, Nowrasteh compares arrest and conviction rates in Texas for undocumented immigrants, legal immigrants,
and native-born Americans. Overall arrest rates for undocumented immigrants were 40 percent lower than for native-born Americans.
Furthermore, conviction rates for legal immigrants were 262 per 100,000 and 782 per 100,000 for undocumented immigrants --
both significantly lower than 1,749 per 100,000 for native-born Americans. For example, homicide conviction rates for undocumented
immigrants were 25 percent lower than for the U.S.-born, and sexual assault conviction rates were 11.5 percent lower. Undocumented
immigrants had higher conviction rates for gambling, kidnapping, smuggling, and vagrancy; however, these four crimes combined
only accounted for 0.18 percent of the total crime in Texas in 2015. These findings are consistent with previous research
that shows immigration enforcement programs do not affect local crime rates, suggesting that undocumented immigrants are not
any more or less crime-prone than other residents. (Deb D'Anastasio for The Immigrant Learning Center)
Immigration Enforcement under Trump: A Loose Cannon,
Harvard Law Review Blog, February 21, 2018, 3 pp.
Author: Shoba Siviprasad Wadhia
Despite multiple stays of removal after an order for removal from the United States in 2006, Ravi Ragbir, an immigrant
activist, was taken into custody during a routine meeting with Immigration and Customs Enforcement in January 2018.
His case is symptomatic of a larger problem caused by Trump administration immigration policies. This report addresses the
Trump administration's change in longstanding policies governing the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in relation to people
who have received an order of removal. Owing to limited enforcement resources and the fact that personal circumstances can
make deportation an inhumane option, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has historically exercised the discretion afforded
to it by the Immigration and Nationality Act. Discretion may be exercised at any point during the removal process through
simply not enforcing the law, deferring action, or issuing stays of removal and orders of supervision. However, guidance issued
by the Trump administration has directed DHS officials to prioritize enforcement efforts against people with removal orders
without any mention of when discretion can be exercised and without providing any guidance as to the special circumstances
that might be considered in granting discretion. The author argues that the consequence of this change has been devastating
to individuals and families who were previously protected from removal. Many immigrants living under some form of discretionary
protection own homes and have built families in the U.S.; their lives may be upended should the discretionary protection suddenly
end. The author concludes by arguing that targeting everyone with a removal order for deportation is unsuitable both as a
matter of law and as a question of conscience. (Shoba Sivaprasad
Wadhia for Tulane University, PHIL 3930)
Looking Past the Label: An Analysis of the Measures Underlying ‘Sanctuary Cities,'
University of Memphis Law Review, January 14, 2018, 61 pp.
Author: James Rice
One important premise underlying this study is that federal immigration law is "under-enforced" and that
local law enforcement may serve as a "force multiplier," so long as the mission of local law enforcement is not
compromised in the process. The author also argues that the term "sanctuary city" creates more confusion than clarity,
as it encompasses a variety of measures each of which should be argued on its own merits. The author therefore evaluates the
distinct legal and policy issues surrounding different types of sanctuary measures, examining, for example, whether a particular
measure violates the federal government's power to regulate immigration law or how the public interest might be served through
such a policy. He identifies four major "sanctuary" measures: first, declining ICE's immigration detainer requests;
second, restricting communication with federal immigration authorities; third, barring police inquiries or investigations
into a person's immigration status; and fourth, preventing police officers from making arrests for violations of federal immigration
law. In some instances, he suggests, the claims of sanctuary advocates are not fully supported by the available data. He argues
that "the failure to distinguish between the differing measures underlying sanctuary cities has fueled misleading arguments
on both sides of the debate." The article includes a brief history of the sanctuary movement.
Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers,
Center for Immigrants' Rights, Penn State Law, May 2017, 63 pp.
United States has steadily expanded its use of immigrant detention from about 30 detained immigrants per day prior to 1980
to 41,000 in 2016. Now the world's largest immigrant detention system, it relies heavily on for-profit facilities, with 72
percent of immigration detention beds located in for-profit facilities in 2015 compared to only seven percent of imprisoned
non-immigrants in 2014. Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers utilizes data from immigration
enforcement sources such as the Department of Homeland Security, as well as interviews with immigration lawyers and with immigrants
detained at the Stewart and Irwin County Detention Centers in Georgia, to highlight the inhumane living conditions in these
privately-run detention centers, which are among the largest in the country. The lengthy list of concerns includes sexual
abuse, inadequate access to medical care and legal information, excessive use of solitary confinement, and a lack of clean
drinking water and food. For instance, upon arrival at Irwin, some detained immigrants were placed in solitary confinement
for up to a week or longer until space became available. To ensure respect for detained immigrants' basic human rights, the
authors make numerous recommendations pertaining to due process, living conditions, medical care and detention center staff.
The authors also recommend closing both Stewart and Irwin detention centers, terminating contracts with non-compliant facilities,
and making greater use of the Alternatives to Detention Program for eligible immigrants (Jasmina Popaja for The
Immigrant Learning Center's Public Education Institute)
Muslim-American Involvement with Violent Extremism, 2017,
Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security, University of North Carolina and Duke University,
January 18, 2018, 9 pp.
Author: Charles Kurzman
This is the latest annual
report on Muslim-American terrorism suspects and perpetrators produced by the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security.
The report presents quantitative information about incidences of violent acts committed by Muslim-American extremists and
then places those numbers within the larger context of violent crime in the United States. For example, the author notes that
Muslim-American extremists have caused 140 fatalities since 9/11, but in that same period of time there have been 260,000
murders. Just in 2017, 267 people were killed in mass shootings, almost double the number killed by Muslim-American
extremists in sixteen years. In fact, the report notes that the number of attacks by Muslim-American extremists actually decreased
in 2017, which runs counter to suggestions that it would go up in the first year of the Trump Administration. Overall,
the author suggests that the Trump Administration's policies with regard to counter-terrorism policy demonstrate more continuity
with those of the Bush and Obama administration than a significant change in direction. However, the author asserts
that President Trump's rhetoric about the threat of terrorism is exacerbating an existing problem of misperception of risk
- that is, the fear of Muslim American extremist violence is out of proportion to actual rates of occurrence (Eric Jacobson,
Montclair State University).
Immigration and the War on Crime: Law and Order Politics and the Illegal Immigration Reform
and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996,
Journal on Migration and Human Security, 6:1 (2018), 24 pp.
Author: Patrisia Macías-Rojas
This study focuses on events leading up to the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform
and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 that recast undocumented immigration as a crime and fused immigration enforcement
with crime control. The author suggests that the act may have had less to do with immigration and more to do with "crime
politics and the policies of mass incarceration" that dominated the national discourse in the 25 years preceding passage
of the act. Ronald Reagan's Drug War tripled the prison population and pushed hundreds of thousands of Americans into already
overcrowded prisons. Overcrowded prisons and detention centers prompted legislators to introduce measures to deport "alien
felons" in order to free up beds. Such measures were championed by leaders in both parties, who seemed to vie with each
other to appear "tough on crime." The rhetoric of immigrant overcrowding in jails spread to other arenas,
as undocumented immigrants were accused of "crowding" schools, hospitals, and labor markets. The "rhetoric
of overcrowding garnered support for punitive federal and state-level anti-immigration laws, while masking the crime politics
from which such measures emerged." The author believes that her findings "warrant rethinking IIRIRA's criminal
provisions - from criminal enforcement priorities to fast-track deportations to mandatory detention and immigrant incarceration
and federal appropriations - that have legitimized branding entire groups of people as criminal so as to exclude them"
What We Know and Need to Know About Immigrant Access to Justice,
South Carolina Law Review, 67:295 (2016), 32 pp.
Author: Ellinor R. Jordan
This article begins by presenting a review of research on the impact of legal representation in removal cases. A
consistent finding is that the amount and quality of representation play a marked role in the outcome of hearings. Litigants
without representation or with poor representation are much more likely to be removed and moreover, to not fully understand
the implications of pleas and agreements they may make. The author suggests that in addition to poor outcomes for
litigants, this situation reduces the overall efficiency of the justice system. This arises in part because current law does
not mandate representation for those involved in immigration cases unless there is a demonstrable issue with mental capacity. The
article also contains a discussion of individuals that engage in the unauthorized practice of immigration law, e.g. non-lawyers
who misrepresent themselves and lawyers who go before the court without any information about their clients. The
author notes that further research should be done into why these types of scams continue to happen, suggesting that failure
to address cultural and linguistic barriers in serving immigrants may be one key factor. Because the author does
not believe universal representative is likely to happen anytime soon, she reviews ways that access to quality representation
can be expanded. One approach would be to increase support for authorized community-based organization that provide
immigration legal services; another would be to expand support for pro bono representation. The article concludes
with a brief look at computer programs that claim to help support those involved in immigration cases, suggesting that much
more needs to be known before they can be recommended (Erik Jacobson, Montclair State University).
Inclusive Immigrant Justice: Racial Animus and the Origins of Crime-Based Deportation,
New York University School of Law, Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper, Working Paper
No. 17-40, November, 2017, 20 pp.
Author: Alina Das
The merger of immigration and criminal law has transformed
both systems, amplifying the flaws in each. In critiquing this merger, most scholarly accounts begin with legislative changes
in the 1980s and 1990s that vastly expanded criminal grounds of deportation and eliminated many forms of discretionary relief.
As a result of these changes, immigrant communities have experienced skyrocketing rates of detention and deportation, with
a disparate impact on people of color. Despite increasing awareness of the harshness of the modern system, however, many people
still view criminal records as a relatively neutral mechanism for identifying immigrants as priorities for detention and deportation.
Drawing on the early history of crime-based deportation, this essay argues that criminal records have never been a neutral
means for prioritizing immigrants for detention and deportation from the United States. Rather, as this essay sets forth,
racial animus has driven the creation and development of crime-based deportation from the beginning
.Evaluation of the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project: Assessing the Impact
of Legal Representation on Family and Community Unity,
Vera Institute of Justice, November, 2017, 68 pp.
Authors: Jennifer Stave et al
right to be represented by legal counsel is a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, but not for immigrants
in deportation proceedings. Two-thirds of detained immigrants face such proceedings without an attorney, and suffer as a consequence.
Unrepresented immigrants at the Varick Street Immigration Court in New York, for example, stand only a four percent chance
of remaining in the country. Aware of this situation, the New York City Council began the New York Immigrant Family Unity
Project (NYIFUP) to provide universal representation to immigrants in deportation proceedings who are below 200 percent of
the federal poverty line. This study examines the NYIFUP from 2013 to 2016 using data from interviews, NYIFUP program records,
and other sources including the U.S. Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review to compare NYIFUP case
outcomes to similar cases in other cities. According to the report, NYIFUP won 48 percent of detained immigrants' cases (meaning
that immigrants were allowed to remain in the U.S), representing a 1,100 percent increase in successful outcomes over unrepresented
cases. NYIFUP also nearly doubled the rate at which immigrants could be released from detention on bond from 25 percent to
49 percent. Even if the case is ultimately unsuccessful, release on bond allows immigrants to care for their families, work
and contribute to tax revenue while their cases are adjudicated. As a result, NYIFUP was able to preserve family unity for
many of its clients. The authors conclude that ensuring due process so "everyone is entitled to the same opportunity
to access the law" through universal representation is a powerful achievement of the NYIFUP. (Yuki Wiland from The
Immigrant Learning Center's Public Education Institute)
Immigration Equity's Last Stand: Sanctuaries & Legitimacy in an Era of Mass Immigration
Social Science Research Network, October 21, 2017, 64 pp.
Jason A. Cade
When Congress in the mid-nineties removed the immigration court system from any role in reviewing
deportation orders, it unintentionally created a vacuum in the justice system filled by the sanctuary movement. In this article,
Professor Jason A. Cade of the University of Georgia Law School argues that when immigration agents, rather than adjudicators,
took over responsibility for whom to target for deportation and how to remove them, the immigration system lost the ability
to calibrate decision-making in individual situations, such as when otherwise law-abiding immigrants with family responsibilities
are targeted for deportation. Although sometimes "messy and contested," the attention to equity and justice
has now moved "upstream," where local police officers, state prosecutors, and other local actors are intervening
to ensure the proper administration of justice. Rather than viewing their actions as legal obstructions, it would be more
accurate to describe them as "engines furthering legal norms in the face of the executive branch's mass, indiscriminate
enforcement policy and less-than-faithful execution of the full body of our immigration law." The author discusses
in detail the actions of cities, churches, and campuses and suggests that these actions are on "solid legal footing to
weather challenges from the federal and state officials who oppose them."
Understanding "Sanctuary Cities,"
Boston College Law Review, forthcoming 2018, 62 pp.
Authors: Christopher N. Lasch et al
Produced by a group of law professors interested in the intersection of immigration enforcement and criminal law,
this article asserts that "sanctuary" jurisdictions are following policies "informed by sound legal principles
and considered policy judgments about how local resources should be used." The "Trump administration's reliance
on white nationalist themes" and the false characterization of "sanctuary cities" as propagating immigrant
crime have also raised concerns about discriminatory intent in the administration of immigration law and have forced local
authorities to articulate their rationale for refraining from participating in immigration enforcement. The authors describe
the "crosshatched shield" of policies designed to maintain the integrity of local law enforcement, including barring
the investigation of civil or criminal immigration violations, limiting compliance with immigration detainers, limiting the
disclosure of sensitive information, precluding participation in joint operations with the federal government, and preventing
immigration agents from accessing local jails. The article then discusses the rationale for non-cooperation with federal immigration
enforcement, including the constitutional separation of powers, lack of federal reimbursement for the cost of immigration
enforcement and the need to shepherd local resources wisely, worries over the erosion of trust necessary for positive interaction
between the police and local community members, concern that cooperation with detainer requests would lead to violations of
the Fourth Amendment, and avoiding practices that might lead to racially-based profiling. As a complement to this article,
the authors have created a public online library of all the sanctuary policies cited in the article and reviewed in their
The Absurdity of Crime-Based Deportation
UC Davis Law Review, 50:2067 (2017), 81 pp.
Author: Kari E. Hong
what grounds should an immigrant be deported? In The Absurdity of Crime Based Deportation, Kari Hong argues that
the current crime-based deportation policies, derived from the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA ) and the Illegal Immigration
and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), should be discontinued. Hong examines the circumstances under which ACCA and IIRIRA
were implemented and the impact of judicial decisions related to these acts. She concludes that they are inherently arbitrary
and sweeping in their impact, as they do not differentiate between major and minor crimes. AACA and IIRIRA then result in
collateral consequences of harsher sentences and potential (or actual) deportation. Overall, Hong contends that ACCA
and IIRIRA are overly broad in scope, inefficient and expensive. They fail to sort dangerous from non-dangerous immigrants,
and impose penalties that are not fitting for the crime. If one enters a criminal database, whether as a rapist or a mother
driving her children to school without a driver's license, the immigrant is treated the same way. Crimes, she argues,
"do not effectively serve as proxies for character." Moreover, IIRIRA "fails to recognize expungements, commuted
sentences, vacated sentences, and other extraordinary relief - including some pardons -- that states have given to those
worthy of second chances." Hong cites two recent Supreme Court cases: Descamps v. United States and Mathis
v. United States as practical examples of how to appropriately manage deportation. Instead of crime-based deportation,
Hong calls for a return to an immigration policy that allows for individual assessments before applying the penalty of deportation
and differentiates between contributing and non-contributing immigrants. (Sakura Tomizawa for the Immigrant Learning Center's
Public Education Institute)
Local Immigration Enforcement and Arrests of the Hispanic Population,
Journal on Migration and Human Security, 5:3 (2017), 21 pp.
Author: Michael Coon
of immigration in the United States has traditionally fallen under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Over time,
however, state and local law enforcement have taken a larger role in immigration enforcement, largely at the urging of the
federal government. Federal programs such as the Criminal Alien Program (CAP), the Secure Communities program and the 287(g)
program are all designed to help local agencies identify members of immigrant communities for detention and deportation. This
study explores the effects of implementation of the 287(g) program in Frederick County, Maryland. Using data from individual
arrest records from the Frederick County Sheriff's Office, which has a 287(g) agreement with ICE, and the Frederick Police
Department, which does not, the study analyzed the changes in arrests between the two agencies before and after the 287(g)
program was implemented in 2008. The author found that overall the arrests of Hispanics fell, suggesting that the Hispanic
community avoided interaction with law enforcement when the program began. However, the program also led to a significantly
higher number of arrests of Hispanics by the Sheriff's Office than would have occurred in its absence, indicating that attention
was focused toward the Hispanic community as a result of the program. These results suggest that, if the program is to continue,
additional safeguards are needed to prevent abuses and civil rights violations. (Jonathan Eizyk for the Immigrant Learning
Center's Public Education Institute)
Social Science Research Network. September 18, 2017, 60 pp.
Authors: Pratheepan Gulasekaram
& Rose Cuison Villazor
In response to heightened immigration enforcement by the federal government, immigrant
rights advocates have supported the development of “sanctuary” policies, which have been introduced in many communities
and attracted a great deal of media attention. This study defines sanctuary as a range of policies adopted by public and private
entities that seek to deliberately limit participation in federal immigration enforcement. The authors summarize the history
of the sanctuary movement, explore how concepts of sanctuary have evolved in the context of “hyper-enforcement”
of immigration laws, and show that collective effort from private and public institutions “can calibrate federal enforcement
policy and instantiate a competing immigration enforcement regime.” Local and state authorities, religious organizations,
universities, and private companies often form a decentralized network to shield undocumented individuals from federal immigration
enforcement using legal and social mechanisms. For example, local law enforcement agencies often refuse to enforce immigration
policies on behalf of the federal government. These acts of noncooperation by local police have resulted in debate over the
role of states’ rights in federal immigration enforcement and the constitutionality of the executive branch’s
ability to remove funding from sanctuary cities. Churches and religious organizations, often legally protected by religious
freedom of expression and private property laws, can provide accommodations and protections to undocumented immigrants.
This article finds that these layered networks of actors have a profound impact on immigration enforcement since they ultimately
“decenter the federal government as the sole locus and source of enforcement policy.” It explores the ways in
which these entities shape norms even in “anti-sanctuary” communities, such as through increasing the cost of
immigration enforcement to overcome community resistance (Mia Fasano for The Immigrant Learning Center’s Public
Criminal Immigrants: Their Numbers, Demographics, and Countries of Origin,
Cato Institute, March 15, 2017, 7 pp.
Author: Michelangelo Landgrave & Alex Nowrasteh
paper uses the U.S. Census's 2014 American Community Survey data to determine incarceration rates of immigrants aged 18 to
54 compared to the native-born. The researchers use common statistical methods to estimate the number incarcerated foreign-born
individuals who are undocumented immigrants. They find that legal immigrants, with an incarceration rate of 0.47 percent,
are 69 percent less likely to be incarcerated than the native-born, with an incarceration rate of 1.53 percent. Undocumented
immigrants, with an incarceration rate of 0.85 percent, are 44 percent less likely to be incarcerated than the native-born.
But subtracting undocumented immigrants incarcerated for immigration violations brings their incarceration rate to 0.5 percent.
The paper includes tables with demographic characteristics. This paper reaches similar conclusions to other research conducted
over the past 100 years on immigrants and crime: immigrants are less prone to criminal activity than the native born. (Maurice
Belanger, Maurice Belanger Associates)
"Sanctuary" Policies: An Overview
American Immigration Council, Fact Sheet, February 23, 2017, 5 pp.
Although there is no one definition
of "sanctuary policies," they cover a variety of laws or guidelines that limit the participation of state or local
governments in federal immigration law enforcement. This brief from the American Immigration Council clarifies what jurisdictions
with sanctuary policies can and cannot do, without running afoul of federal law or compromising their law enforcement function.
For example, sanctuary cities or states can share information with ICE-such as sending fingerprints from police databases-but
cannot stop residents from being deported by ICE. Sanctuary jurisdictions can (but are not required to)
honor detainer requests from ICE in order to arrange pick up, but they cannot require their police departments to
ask residents about their immigration status. In no way do sanctuary policies limit the ability of police to enforce all criminal
laws against immigrants who commit crimes. The brief also notes that sanctuary policies comply with federal law, referencing
a 2016 finding by the U.S. Department of Justice that no state or locality with sanctuary policies had violated federal statute.
The benefits of sanctuary policies, the brief suggests, include lower rates of crime, poverty and unemployment. (Deb D'Anastasio
for The ILC Public Education Institute)
The Negative Consequences of Entangling Local Policing and Immigration Enforcement,
Center for American Progress, March 21, 2017
Authors: Danyelle Solomon, Tom Jawetz, & Sanam Malik
paper briefly discusses the costs that local jurisdictions may incur if, in the face of threats by the Trump administration,
they adopt policies to assist the federal government in immigration enforcement. Having local police enforce immigration laws
will damage relations between law enforcement and immigrant communities; such a development runs counter to good community
policing practice. The agreements between the federal government and local enforcement agencies (known as 287(g) agreements)
have proven to be expensive for jurisdictions to implement. Not only are there increased personnel and other costs associated
with helping the federal government enforce immigration laws, but some agencies have been sued for racial profiling. By contrast,
jurisdictions that have policies limiting their cooperation with federal immigration agents have lower crime rates and enjoy
lower risk from unlawful detention litigation. Ultimately, the administration's threats to punish "sanctuary" jurisdictions
may be hollow, as they may not withstand legal challenges. (Maurice Belanger, Maurice Belanger Associates)
A Path to Public Safety: The Legal Questions around Immigration Detainers,
National Immigration Forum, Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force, 2017, 19 pp.
Author: Laurence Benenson
In recent years, there has been a heated debate on the cooperation between the federal government and local jurisdictions
on immigration enforcement. Local jurisdictions that limit their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement have come
under attack from the Trump administration and some members of Congress. Much of the conflict revolves around federal immigration
detainers-requests from the federal government to detain individuals suspected of being in the United States unlawfully. This
paper presents a thorough examination of the legal issues related to immigration detainers. It reviews the 10th amendment's
"anti-commandeering" constraints on the federal government's ability to compel local jurisdictions to honor immigration
detainers. The Constitution's fourth amendment prohibits the government from depriving a person of liberty without probably
cause, and a local jurisdiction that holds a person beyond his or her scheduled release from prison may be held liable. Finally,
there is a question as to whether immigration detainers are even legal under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Given the
legal context of immigration detainers, the paper concludes by noting that states and localities have elected not to honor
detainers because federal law makes clear that honoring detainers without a warrant or probable cause is illegal in most situations
(Maurice Belanger, Maurice Belanger Associates
Immigration and Public Safety
The Sentencing Project, March, 2017, 16 pp.
Authors: Nazgol Ghandnoosh & Josh Rovner
According to the
authors of this report, the impact of immigration on crime rates in the United States is a "well-examined field of study"
which has produced "a rigorous body of research." After reviewing this research, they find that President
Donald Trump "has made demonstrably false claims associating immigrants with criminality." The report covers research
bearing upon three issues: immigrant crime rates compared to native-born individuals, the relationship between rising
immigration and falling crime rates in local communities, and incarceration rates in federal and state prisons. In the first
area, the authors focus on adolescent and undocumented criminality, citing studies showing that "foreign-born youth...had
among the lowest delinquency rates when compared to their peers" and that "immigrants - regardless of legal status
- do not have higher crime rates than native-born citizens." In the second area, the authors reference several
studies that find a connection between increases in immigration and decreases in crime rates in cities and metropolitan areas,
including one study that found a similar inverse relationship at the neighborhood level in Chicago. Finally, the authors disaggregate
the U.S. prison population to explain the over-representation of non-citizens in the federal system, and their underrepresentation
in the state. Although non-citizens are slightly underrepresented in U.S. prisons as a whole, they are greatly underrepresented
in state prisons, where non-citizens make up only four percent of the population (of the 1.5 million people imprisoned in
state and federal prisons, 87 percent are held in state institutions). Within federal prisons, however, 22 percent are
non-citizens, largely resulting from the criminalization of immigration violations since 2000 (66 percent of all federal sentences
imposed in 2015 were for immigration violations). The authors conclude that "false statements about immigrant criminality
contribute to unfounded public fears that threaten the safety of immigrants and U.S. citizens."
Urban crime rates and the changing face of immigration: Evidence across four decades,
Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 15:1 (2017), 25 pp.
Authors: Robert Adelman et al
paper only available only to journal subscribers)
Although research has consistently shown that immigrants
have lower crime rates than the native-born population, testing for possible "indirect" effects on crime rates,
e.g. by leading native-born Americans affected by job displacement to turn to lives of crime, has been minimal. This study
attempts to remedy this gap in research. The authors investigate the immigration-crime relationship within 200 metropolitan
statistical areas (MSAs) over a 40-year time period from 1970 to 2010. By pushing the time frame back to 1970 (the horizon
for most recent studies is much shorter), this research has the advantage of including periods of both economic stress and
expansion. The study examines rates (per 100,000 people) of murder, non-negligent manslaughter, aggravated assault, robbery,
burglary, and larceny at five points in time (1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010). The results show that "the presence
of immigrants consistently helped to decrease violent and property crime in U.S. metropolitan areas" and thus suggestions
that immigrants contribute to crime through "structural" or "macro-level" mechanisms are unfounded.
The paper also contains a useful summary of research to date on the question of immigration and crime.
The Effects of Sanctuary Policies on Crime and the Economy,
Center for American Progress, January 26, 2017, 17 pp.
Author: Tom K. Wong In one
of his first acts as president, Donald Trump issued an executive order that would, among other things punish "sanctuary
jurisdictions." The order included a directive to the Secretary of Homeland Security to put out reports to "better
inform the public regarding the public safety threats associated with sanctuary jurisdictions." Do "sanctuary jurisdictions"
threaten public safety? This report from the Center for American Progress compares crime rates in "nonsanctuary"
verses "sanctuary" counties-defined in this report as counties that do not honor requests by Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) to hold an immigrant beyond his or her release date. The report finds "that there are, on average,
35.5 fewer crimes per 10,000 people in sanctuary counties-a result that is highly statistically significant." The report
also looks at a number of economic indicators, comparing "sanctuary" verses "nonsanctuary" counties. It
finds that in "sanctuary" counties median household income is higher, poverty is lower, use of public assistance
is lower, the labor force participation rate is higher and unemployment is lower. It may be hard to say that the better outcomes
experienced by "sanctuary" counties are because of their policies keeping law enforcement and immigration
enforcement separate. But it is clear from the report that there is no evidence to show that there are greater "public
safety threats associated with sanctuary jurisdictions." (Maurice Belanger, Maurice Belanger Associates)
Policing Sex, Policing Immigrants: What Crimmigration's Past Can Tell Us About Its Present
And Its Future,
California Law Review, Forthcoming, 2016, 53 pp.
Author: Rachel E. Rosenbloom
Most people assume that efforts to involve local police departments in immigration enforcement date back to the 80s
and 90s. This paper documents a "lost chapter" in the history of this relationship -- the pipeline that led to the
deportation of gay immigrants in the fifties. The author devotes much attention to a landmark 1963 Supreme Court case Rosenberg
v. Fleuti . Her analysis owes much to her success in accessing Fleuti's 1600-page government file through a
Freedom of Information Act request. The paper also examines early 20th century precedents for collaboration
between the criminal justice system and immigration enforcement, including contacts with prison officials concerned about
the potential for released alien prisoners to become public charges and the "crusade against sex trafficking" which
began with the passage of the Mann Act in 1910. The author sees parallels between the "overpolicing" of today,
often referred to as "broken windows" policing, which disproportionately targets residents of minority communities,
and programs that promote police-immigration cooperation, which also target underprivileged immigrant communities.
Uniting Communities Post-9/11: Tactics for Cultivating Community Policing Partnerships with
Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and South Asian Communities,
Vera Institute of Justice, 2015,
Authors: Pradine Saint-Fort & Susan Shah
This field guide addresses a topic that the authors
believe may not have received sufficient attention in law enforcement circles, i.e. how to develop partnerships with, and
improve community policing in, Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and South Asian (AMEMSA) communities. The guide draws on the
experiences of law enforcement personnel and community members in three localities with sizable AMEMSA populations:
Piscataway, New Jersey; Anaheim, California; and Cleveland, Ohio. The authors identify three major problems interfering with
effective policing in these communities: the lack of liaison between the police and the community, the underreporting
of crime, and the underdeveloped organizational capacity in local law enforcement agencies. The researchers then discuss
nine major tactics for addressing these problems, Including creating a liaison position, partnering with Faith leaders, setting
up community advisory councils, investigating every incident that might be a bias crime and publicizing this effort, providing
language services, and integrating Terrorism Liaison Officers (TLOs) into the community policing framework. The production
of this report was supported under a cooperative agreement with the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, US Department
The Protective Influence of Neighborhood Immigration on Violence is Strongest in Cities that
are More Open to Immigrants,
London School of Economics, American Politics and Policy, Blog, October 15, 2014, 4 pp.
Christopher J. Lyons, Maria B. Vélez, and Wayne A. SantoroThis article is based
on a paper entitled "Neighborhood Immigration, Violence, and City-Level Immigrant Political Opportunities," which
appeared in the June 17, 2013, edition of the American Sociological Review. Although research has repeatedly shown that neighborhoods
with high concentrations of immigrants have less violence and crime than might otherwise be expected, this paper attempts
to quantify the effect of "open cities" on levels of violence and crime. "Open cities" are defined as
cities with immigrant representation in elected offices and law enforcement; pro-immigrant legislation, such as "sanctuary
cities"; and a large proportion of Democratic voters. The researchers find a strong association between such factors
and safe communities. They come to the following conclusion: "Contrary to public opinion and political rhetoric,
our research joins a chorus of others in suggesting that immigrants can make us safer. However, the ability of immigration
to translate into less violence partly depends on the social and political climates of immigrant reception."
Estimating the Effects of Immigration Enforcement on Local Policing and Crime: Evidence from
the Secure Communities Program,
Social Science Research Network, December 2, 2013, 51 pp.
Authors: Elina Treyger, Aaron
Chalfin, & Charles Loeffler
In 2008 the federal government developed "Secure
Communities" to strengthen interior immigration enforcement. The aim of this program is to enhance public safety by bolstering
efforts to identify and deport criminal aliens. Secure Communities mandates local law enforcement agencies (LEAs) to forward
arrestee information, in the form of biometrics, i.e. fingerprints, to federal immigration officials at the time of booking.
This protocol enables federal agents to verify the immigration status of every apprehended individual. There are opposing
views regarding the impact of the program on communities and individuals. Supporters maintain that it improves community safety
by identifying and deporting immigrants committing violent crimes. Opponents argue that the program has grave consequences,
such as: encouraging police profiling, creating mistrust of local law enforcement among immigrant communities (leading to
decreased crime reporting), and stigmatizing immigrants by associating them with crime. The researchers used the staggered
activation dates of Secure Communities across counties to examine whether the program had a detectable effect on crime rates
or the arrest behavior of local police. Their findings showed no detectable impact on crime rates, but also no discernible
increase in arbitrary or discriminatory policing practices The authors conclude "that the addition of Secure Communities
into the existing mix of programs and policies that involve sub-national LEAs in the enterprise (of immigration enforcement)
does not appear as consequential as promised or feared."
Ethical Advocacy for Immigrant Survivors of Family Crisis,
Family Court Review, October, 2012, 11 pp
Author: Theo Liebmann
article is a primer for family court lawyers on forms of immigration relief dependent on decisions by family court judges,
including relief for abused youth under Special Immigrant Juvenile status, benefits for victims of domestic violence available
under the Violence Against Women Act, and the U Visa available to victims of human trafficking. While family court proceedings
can lead to harsh outcomes for certain immigrants, including deportations and termination of parental rights, they can also
bring benefits. The author of this article asserts that "ethical mandates related to client counseling, representational
goals, and competence affirmatively require family court practitioners to provide advice and advocacy related to these collateral
benefits to family court proceedings." Unfortunately, there is evidence that there is "inconsistent"
adherence to these mandates. As immigration issues increasingly permeate family court proceedings, lawyers must provide counseling
and advocacy related to these opportunities.
Engaging Police in Immigrant Communities: Promising Practices from the Field,
Vera Institute of Justice, October, 2012, 62 pp,
This report concludes
a two-year, government-funded study of effective policing practices within immigrant communities, described as the "new
frontier of community policing." The report was commissioned "because very little (was) known about how most of
the 18,000 police agencies nationwide work with immigrant communities." The report identifies 8 key principles of good
practice: (1) get to the root causes, (2) maximize resources, (3) leverage partnerships, (4)focus on the vulnerable, (5) engage
in broad outreach, (6) train law enforcement and the community, (7) monitor successes and failures, and (8) sustain programs
that work. To identify practices that exemplify these principles, Vera solicited input from more than 1,000 law enforcement
agencies and evaluated practices from 175 of them. The report profiles 10 law enforcement agencies that have put these
principles into action through effective and innovative programs, namely Brooklyn Center (MN), Brooklyn Park (MN), Chelsea
(MA), Clearwater (FL), Everett (MA), Metropolitan Nashville (TN), Orange County (FL), Palm Beach County (FL), Storm Lake (IA),
and Tulsa (OK). A companion Toolkit contains resources gathered from the 10 profiled agencies, such as "police academy" schedules, outreach
materials in foreign language, multicultural advisory committee materials, police training curricula, and various policies
and procedures. In addition, there are 8 podcasts on pertinent topics by officials in the profiled agencies.
The Paradox of Law Enforcement in Immigrant Communities: Does Tough Immigration Enforcement
Undermine Public Safety?
Columbia Law School, October 4, 2011, 31 pp.
Based on a telephone survey
of 1,653 immigrants in New York City, stratified by neighborhood location, socio-economic characteristics, and ethnicity,
this study examines perceptions of the criminal justice system within immigrant communities. The findings indicate that
cooperation with the police is higher in immigrant neighborhoods than in neighborhoods with a preponderance of native-born
residents. Despite negative experiences with the police in their home countries, "legal cynicism" tends to
be lower in immigrant neighborhoods than in native-born ones. However, ethnic heterogeneity within a particular neighborhood
is negatively associated with trust in law enforcement because "a resident may fear retaliation or retribution if he
or she helps the police solve a crime committed by a member of another group." The authors conclude with a discussion
about how this surprising "normative compliance" with the law could be undercut by "harsh enforcement"
of immigration laws.
Insecure Communities: How an Immigration Enforcement Program Encourages Battered Women to Stay
Boston College Third World Law Journal, 2011, 32 pp.
argues that the Secure Communities Program of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deters immigrant victims of domestic
violence from reporting abuse to the police. According to the author, many immigrants have a "police-averse mentality"
to begin with; others are reluctant to report domestic violence to protect the reputation of the larger family; and still
others may feel constrained by an inability to communicate effectively in English. An undocumented woman with a documented
husband is especially vulnerable to abuse. The author recommends a three-step reform to reduce underreporting and protect
battered spouses: delay reporting to ICE until the perpetrator is convicted; limit the reporting requirement to felony charges
and misdemeanor convictions; and work with states and local authorities to publicize these changes within immigrant communities.
Public Safety Programs for the Immigrant Community: 17 Good Practices in U.S. Cities,
National League of Cities, Center for Research & Innovation, 2011, 46 pp.
This report provides short descriptions of model police outreach programs to immigrant populations in 17 U.S. cities
of diverse size and location, including contacts for additional information. Examples include the "Newcomer Meet
and Greets and Living Room Dialogues" of the Portland Police Department, the "Cambodian Community Liaison"
of the Lowell (MA) Police Department, the Latino and Asian Liaison Units of the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department,
and soccer matches between police and community members in Newport News and Norfolk, Virginia. The report includes recommendations
for developing immigrant public safety programs in other cities.
Police and Immigration: How Chiefs Are Leading their Communities
through the Challenges,
Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), 2010, 72 pp
In the swirl
of political cross-currents on the issue of immigration enforcement, the judgments of police professionals often diverge from
the opinions of politicians and pressure groups. This report examines how six police departments are dealing with one of the
most contentious issues in American life. During 2009, PERF researchers prepared case studies on the following
police jurisdictions: New Haven (CT), Prince William County (VA), Montgomery County (MD), Phoenix (AZ), Mesa (AZ), and
Minneapolis (MN). PERF also convened a National Summit on Immigration Enforcement in Phoenix in July, 2009, which helped to
inform the conclusions in the report. With separate chapters devoted to each of the six jurisdictions, the report highlights
"lessons learned" in each community and "guiding principles for dealing with immigration issues."
A concluding chapter includes a set of recommendations for Congress and the Obama administration, as well as a separate set
of recommendations for local police agencies.
Assessing the Terrorist Threat
National Security Preparedness Group, Bipartisan Policy Center, September 10,
2010, 43 pp.
Co-chaired by former New Jersey Governor Thomas H. Kean and former Congressman Lee Hamilton, the
National Security Preparedness Group seeks to monitor progress in implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission
and to provide new analyses and policy recommendations based on changing security needs. This report provides an overview
of Jihadist activity in 2009 in the United States and around the world and notes with alarm that Al-Qaeda and its allies "have
been able to accomplish the unthinkable - establishing at least an embryonic terrorist recruitment, radicalization, and operational
infrastructure in the United States with effects both at home and abroad." The authors note, however, that would-be
American jihadists "do not fit any particular ethnic, economic, educational, or social profile." Indeed, "diversification"
of the recruitment effort seems to be part of the Al-Qaeda strategy. Thirty percent of the 57 Americans who have been
charged or convicted of Islamic terrorism crimes since January of 2009 are Caucasian or African-American. At the same
time, there has been a considerable weakening of the operational and strategic capacity of Al-Qaeda and allied terrorist groups
around the world. The authors conclude by observing that Americans must maintain "resilience" in the face of future
attacks, which may be low-level in nature. "If any attack can succeed in generating significant political and economic
fallout, then there is a greater motivation for undertaking these attacks."
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements,
Department of Homeland
Security, Office of Inspector General, March, 2010. 87 pp. including appendices
to legislation passed by Congress in 2009, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) was asked to review the operation of 287(g)
programs to ensure consistency with legislative intent, proper supervision and training of local law enforcement officers,
and compliance with memoranda of agreement between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and local authorities.
As of June of 2009, DHS had 66 active agreements in 23 states involving 833 active officers. In FY 2008, these officers
identified 33,831 aliens removed from the U.S. during that year, representing 9.5% of all DHS removals. The OIG report, however,
faults DHS for not adhering to its stated intent of using the 287(g) program to arrest, detain, and remove criminal aliens.
Other management shortcomings are also detailed. The appendices include a copy of DHS's response to the 33 recommendations
contained in the OIG report.
A Program in Flux: New Priorities and Implementation Challenges for 287(g),
Migration Policy Institute, March, 2010, 30 pp.
In July of 2009, the Director of Homeland Security announced major changes to the 287(g) program, which permits
state, county and local law enforcement agencies to enforce federal immigrant law, under negotiated agreements with the federal
government. The purpose of the changes was to target enforcement activities on immigrants convicted of serious offenses or
deemed a threat to public safety, not those guilty of misdemeanors or immigration violations, and to give the U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) greater control over the enforcement operations of local jurisdictions. This report compares
the pre-2009 agreements with the new agreement, and identifies a series of questions that will guide researchers, as they
undertake an in-depth field study involving six to nine jurisdictions with 287(g) agreements. The study will assess whether
the program "advances its goals of promoting security, improving immigration enforcement, and protecting civil rights."
Fact Sheets: Language Access Problems among Government Bodies,
Brennan Center for Justice, NYU School of Law, February, 2010.
Prepared on behalf of the National Language Access Advocates Network
("N-LAAN"), these fact sheets find serious shortcomings in how the Department of Justice enforces compliance with
Title VI requirements for language access to federally-funded programs. The four reports cover state court systems, law enforcement
agencies, immigrant courts, and other federal executive agencies.
"We Want to Know What They Are Saying" A Multiagency Collaborative Effort to Address Parental
Language Barriers and Disproportionate Minority Contact,"
Vera Institute of Justice,
November, 2009, 10 pp.
This report describes the approach
and accomplishments of a multiagency collaborative work group striving to facilitate the participation of limited English
proficient parents in the juvenile and criminal justice system in New York City. The initiative was designed to address the
problem of disproportionate minority contact (DMC), or the over-representation of African American and Latino youth in detention
or correctional facilities. After conducting focus groups in English, Spanish, and Chinese with ca 75 parents and young adults,
the work group produced a 12-page multilingual informational resource in plain language for distribution to community members.
The resource is entitled, "Understanding the Maze: If Your Child has Contact with the Law."
Constitution on Ice: A Report on Immigration Home Raid Operations,
Clinic, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University, 2009, 38 pp
Utilizing records on ICE operations
in the New York and New Jersey area obtained under Freedom of Information Act lawsuits, this study is described by the
authors as "the first public document to collect and analyze the available evidence regarding the prevalence of constitutional
violations occurring during ICE home raids." Despite the goal of apprehending "high priority targets,"
e.g. immigrant gang members and sex offenders, approximately two-thirds of arrests made under these operations are "collateral
arrests of mere civil immigration status violators." The authors are particularly sensitive to the impact of these
efforts on local community policing efforts, suggesting that "ICE home raid misconduct...undermines the traditional
crime fighting mission of local law enforcement agencies." The report contains a series of policy recommendations
developed with assistance from a six-member advisory panel chaired by Lawrence W. Mulvey, Chairman of the Nassau County Police
Department in New York.
The Role of Local Police: Striking a Balance Between Immigration Enforcement
and Civil Liberties,
The Police Foundation, April, 2009, 256 pp.
This year-long, groundbreaking study attempts to "give police a voice on (the) critical issue" of
the proper role of local police in immigration law enforcement. Based on focus groups with police officers around the country,
the input of academic experts, a survey of police officials, and a two-day conference in Washington, DC, in August, of 2008,
this report concludes that the "the costs of the 287(g) program outweigh the benefits." The study, however, goes
beyond the controversial 287(g) program to examine the full range of collaboration between local police and federal immigration
officials, including the practice of checking the immigration status of noncitizens arrested for criminal violations, and
the embedding of ICE personnel within local police departments. The study finds that police officials are often subjected
to intense political pressure to "do something" about undocumented immigration, even when their understanding of
the issues differs substantially from majority opinion in the community. The report concludes with seven overarching recommendations,
and features a series of important studies that are included as appendices to the report, including an analysis of the rates
of crime and imprisonment associated with immigration and a study of the problems faced by undocumented youth transitioning
to adulthood and lacking legal work opportunities.
Crossing the Line: Damaging Immigration Enforcement Practices by New Jersey Police Following
Attorney General Law Enforcement Directive 2007-3,
The Center for Social Justice, Seton Hall University School of Law, April 2009, 31 pp.
Over a nine-month period, this report documents 68 instances of New Jersey police referrals to Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE), when only a minor offense or no offense was charged. These cases are broken down into four
categories: traffic stops, passengers in cars, stopping people on the street, and questioning of victims or witnesses. Noting
the possibility of a serious undercount of such referrals, and the frequency with which Latinos were targeted, the authors
see "a disturbing trend toward racial profiling by New Jersey police." The report recommends that the Attorney
General directive, which attempted to set ground rules for police reporting to ICE, "should be repealed or fundamentally
Bridging the Language Divide: Promising Practices for
Vera Institute of Justice, February, 2009, 64 pp.
With funding provided by the federal COPS office, Vera undertook a comprehensive
study of how local law enforcement agencies in the Unites States are addressing language barriers. Contacting more than 750
agencies, evaluating practices from nearly 200, and doing in-depth analyses of 25, Vera singled out six police jurisdictions
doing exemplary work: Boise, Las Vegas, Lexington, Nashville, Oklahoma City, and Storm Lake. The report shows how their
techniques illustrate eight promising practices in achieving effective language outreach. The report contains extensive
appendices with sample agency documents and resources.
Webinar: Bridging the Language Divide: Promising Practices for Law Enforcement,
Vera Institute of Justice, February 24, 2009
from three police agencies in communities of varying sizes (Boise, Idaho; Lexington, Kentucky; and Storm Lake, Iowa), identified
by Vera as leaders in the provision of culturally and linguistically appropriate services, discuss their respective approaches:
a Spanish language immersion program for police officers in Lexington, the development of a community-wide interpreter bank
in Boise; and the hiring of civilian bilingual outreach workers in Storm Lake.
Immigration Enforcement: Better Controls Needed over Program Authorizing State and Local
Enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws,
General Accounting Office, January, 2009, 44 pp.
In response to a congressional request to review the 287(g) program, which allows local law enforcement
entities to enter into agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to participate in the enforcement of
immigration laws, the GAO undertook a performance audit of the program from September 2007 through January 2009. The
GAO reviewed 29 of the 67 local law enforcement agencies participating in the program. The audit found major shortcomings
in the management of the program, including lax oversight and lack of clarity over program goals. Rather than
ferreting out criminal activity -- the ostensible purpose of the program -- 287(g) seems to be targeting individuals
with minor violations, such as traffic infractions. The GAO report concludes with five recommendations to improve the operation
of the program.
Monitoring the Police: Opening the Process to the Public, A Look at Monmouth County,
Latino Leadership Alliance of NJ (Monmouth Chapter), National Latino Peace Officers Association (NJ
Chapter) and the Hispanic Directors Association of NJ, June, 2008, 8 pp.
This report discusses
the disposition of 705 citizen complaints against police departments in Monmouth County for the period 2001 to 2007. Most
departments were not in compliance with state reporting requirements and failed to discipline or prosecute at reasonable rates.
The report identifies departments showing best and worst practices, and concludes with ten recommendations to make the
police monitoring process more transparent and effective, with some attention to police relations with immigrant communities.
Language of Inclusion: A Critical Look at Equal Access in
the N.J. Court System,
American Friends Service Committee, Immigrant Rights
Program, Summer, 2007, 14 pp.
Over the course of three summers (2005-2007), AFSC analyzed the extent of language
access in small claims courts in the five NJ counties with heavy immigrant populations. The study found that immigrants were
generally unaware of their right to free language services, key court documents were not translated into foreign language, and
that language services were generally not provided in pre-trial settings. The study highlighted best practices in several
vicinages and provided a set of recommendations to improve access, including better training for court personnel and more
effective use of county ombudsmen.
Police Chiefs Guide to Immigration Issues,
Association of Chiefs of Police, July, 2007, 47pp.
This publication is a useful primer on immigration issues
for police leaders in the United States. It covers issues as wide-ranging as day laborers, housing, anti-immigrant groups,
and human trafficking. Although the report refrains from issuing recommendations, especially on the subject of police participation
in immigration enforcement, it provides a useful framework for local decision-making on immigrant-related issues.
Overcoming Language Barriers: Solutions for Law Enforcement,
Vera Institute of Justice, March, 2007, 17 pp.
in the U.S. growing and increasingly dispersed, many law enforcement practitioners are looking for ways to improve contact
with people who cannot speak or understand English well. This report was produced by Translating Justice, a technical assistance
project sponsored by the Vera Institute's Center on Immigration and Justice and three diverse law enforcement agencies-the
Anaheim Police Department in California, the Clark County Sheriff's Office in Ohio, and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
Department in Nevada.
Attorneys General and the Protection of Immigrant Communities,
National State Attorneys General Program at Columbia Law School, Memorandum,
January 12, 2007, 11 pp.
This document argues that immigrants
are "particularly exposed to predatory practices, abuse, and fraud" and that state attorneys general must focus
their attention on this growing and often vulnerable population. It gives examples of successful initiatives around the country
and details strategies that may be employed in the "emerging field" of immigrant protection services.
Nine Point Position Statement: Enforcement of Immigration Laws
by Local Police Agencies,
Major Cities Chiefs Association, June, 2006, 11 pp.
Representing 57 police jurisdictions in the United States and Canada
with populations of over 1.5 million, the Major Chiefs Associations produced this consensus position statement on the question
of local police enforcement of immigration laws. The statement enumerates several concerns with such a broadening of local
police power, including that of undermining the trust and cooperation of immigrant communities, and the diversion of police
resources away from normal police functions.
Justice and Safety in America's Immigrant Communities,
Princeton University, Policy Research Institute for the Region, 2006, 104 pp.
The report contains summaries and conclusions from a series of three, all-day sessions
devoted to the topic of improving relations between police and immigrant communities. The project was conducted in collaboration
with the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice and the Vera Institute of Justice.
Translating Justice: A Guide for New York City's Justice
and Public Safety Agencies to Improve Access for Residents with Limited English Proficiency,
Vera Institute of Justice, April, 2006, 27 pp.
guide provides an overview of language access needs and promising practices within New York City's justice agencies.
The guide also describes innovative approaches elsewhere in the country and overseas. The core of the report consists
of an analysis of various approaches, including the use of bilingual employees, professional interpreters, and emerging
technology. The guide concludes with suggested "next steps."
Building Strong Police-Immigrant Community Relations: Lessons from a New York City Project,
Vera Institute of Justice, August, 2005, 33 pp.
This report provides
an account of a project in 2003-2004 to create a "regular forum for communication between police and immigrant communities,"
focusing on the Arab-American, African, and emerging Latin-American communities. The report discusses outreach strategies,
session content, and recommendations for institutionalizing the initiative.
Equal Justice, Unequal Access: Immigrants and America's Legal System, Recommendations
for Action and Collaboration,
National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, 2005, 43 pp.
The combined effect
of language barriers that prevent immigrants from seeking civil legal assisstance and the lack of linguistically and culturally
appropriate and accessible services creates the need for comprehensive reform in order to produce a more user-friendly and
efficient system. This report contains broad recommendations and proposes specific action steps to achieve this goal.
Forcing Our Blues into Gray Areas: Local Police and Federal Immigration Enforcement,
A Legal Guide for Advocates,
Appleseed, 2005, 34 pp.
This report outlines the legal history
behind local law enforcement of federal immigration laws and argues that such expansion of local police authority makes fighting
crime and terrorism more difficult.