By Huyen Pham & Pham Hoang Van.

As the Biden Administration decides whether to continue the 287(g) program (the controversial program deputizing local law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration laws), our research shows that the program has broader negative effects on policing behavior than previously identified. To date, debate about the 287(g) program has focused exclusively on the policing behavior of law enforcement agencies like sheriff’s offices that sign the agreements, and on concerns that these signatory local enforcement agencies (“LEAs”) engage in racial profiling. Our research shows that the agreements also negatively affect the behavior of nearby, non-signatory law enforcement agencies. Using 18 million traffic stops drawn from the Stanford Open Policing Project, we find that the agreements caused state troopers in North Carolina and South Carolina to stop Hispanic drivers more often than White drivers, in order to funnel them into the intensive immigration screening conducted by signatory LEAs at the shared jails. Because trooper agencies did not sign the agreements, statistical associations between the presence of agreements and the differential treatment of drivers by race are not contaminated by unobserved confounding factors. Our identification of these previously unnoticed spillover effects raises important policy questions about the program’s impact and the adequacy of existing legal and administrative controls.

Arizona Law Review, 2022. 41p.

By JULIET P. STUMPF 

Crimmigration law—the intersection of immigration and criminal law—with its emphasis on immigration enforcement, has been central in discussions over political compromise on immigration reform. Yet crimmigration law’s singular approach to interior immigration and criminal law enforcement threatens to undermine public faith in the legitimacy of immigration law. This Article explores the significance of crimmigration for the procedural legitimacy of immigration law. Seminal scholars of psychological jurisprudence have concluded that perceptions about procedural justice—whether the law and legal authorities treat people fairly—are often more important than a favorable outcome, such as winning a case or avoiding arrest. Crimmigration introduces procedural deficiencies into immigration law that may undermine people’s perceptions of its legitimacy. These deficiencies, seen through the lens of psychological jurisprudence, mean that individuals and institutions are less likely to trust immigration law and cooperate with immigration authorities. This Article applies specific criteria that jurisprudential psychologists have shown influence perceptions about justice. It predicts that the core procedural deficiencies of crimmigration—which bar access to immigration benefits, undermine procedural safeguards for fair and accurate outcomes, and embed racialization into immigration enforcement—will undermine perceptions about the legitimacy of immigration law. This has important implications for immigration reform. If immigration enforcement lacks procedural justice, any compromise struck with crimmigration at its core will exacerbate public distrust of immigration law.

Arizona Law Review, 2023. 47p.

By Elizabeth Hannah

Immigration detention is a central feature of the United States’ immigration system. Noncitizens facing removal are detained in staggering numbers throughout the removal process, from the initiation of legal proceedings to the issuance of a final removal order. Moreover, as the U.S. government’s reliance upon immigration detention has grown, the Supreme Court has systematically stripped noncitizens of important substantive and procedural protections. This is especially true in the post-removal-order context, where a series of recent decisions have placed more people than ever at risk of prolonged detention without a bond hearing. Three cases in particular—Johnson v. Guzman Chavez (2021), Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez (2022), and Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez (2022)—have increased the likelihood that noncitizens subject to post-removal-order detention will remain incarcerated for months or years, even if they have pending claims for relief. This Note describes each of these three cases and explains how, together, they severely undermine the rights of noncitizens with final removal orders. This Note further argues that people facing post-removal-order detention should be entitled to rigorous due process protections. Even though detention constitutes a clear deprivation of liberty, the Supreme Court has held that six months of post-removal-order detention is “presumptively reasonable.” This Note criticizes that premise and asserts that no period of immigration detention is presumptively reasonable. In other words, even if the Court had decided Guzman Chavez, Arteaga-Martinez, and Aleman Gonzalez in favor of the noncitizen plaintiffs, the existing framework would still be insufficient to protect immigrants in post-removal-order detention from experiencing protracted and unnecessary trauma. This Note therefore posits that, at minimum, immigrants with final removal orders should receive a bond hearing before an immigration judge at the close of the 90-day mandatory detention period. While more radical solutions like detention abolition are ultimately in order, a 90-day bond hearing requirement would at least provide noncitizens facing post-removal-order detention a meaningful opportunity to secure release from custody.

Arizona Law Review, 2023. 36p.

By Jonathan Haggerty

  Research suggests there is little connection between immigration and crime; and, to the extent any such relationship exists, immigration reduces crime rates. One frequently cited example—an analysis of 51 studies on immigration and crime conducted between 1994 and 2014—showed that the relationship between immigration and crime is either nonexistent or negative, which means that immigration appears to reduce crime rates. Nonetheless, immigration and crime—specifically related to Latin American gang members—was a major theme of the 2016 presidential election, as opposition to immigration was fundamental to then-candidate Donald Trump’s campaign. Because much of the opposition to immigration stems from a conviction that immigrants are uniquely prone to crime, it is important to review the current evidence. This paper looks specifically at the evidence on illegal immigration and crime, as many supporters of President Trump claim to only oppose illegal immigration, and not immigration itself. There is limited research on the crime rates of illegal immigrants due to data restrictions; however, much of the current, impressive body of evidence that suggests immigrants commit crime at lower rates than native-born Americans combines data on legal and illegal immigrant populations  The most frequently cited studies specifically on illegal immigration can be divided into two categories: those looking at institutionalization rates—the rate at which a given population is arrested or incarcerated—and experimental studies measuring illegal immigration’s impact on crime rates in particular geographic areas. Both categories suggest that illegal immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than native-born citizens. Of the nineteen studies examined in this policy brief, only one suggested a higher crime rate for illegal immigrants, while the rest suggested that illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes than native-born Americans, that they have no effect on crime rates or that they decrease crime rates in areas where they settle. These findings are largely consistent with the overall empirical evidence on immigration and crime.

  R STREET SHORTS NO. 97  

Washington, DC: R Street, 2020. 4p