By The American Immigration Council

The United States has broad authority to detain certain categories of immigrants, migrants, and others seeking humanitarian protection as their proceedings wind their way through the immigration legal system. This detention is “civil” by definition (as opposed to criminal), meaning that immigration detention should not be punitive in nature. Despite this technical legal distinction, most of the immigration detention infrastructure is indistinguishable from the criminal detention context, in some instances using the same facilities and private corporations to operate detention centers and jails. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) states that the purpose of immigration detention is twofold: 1) to protect the wider community from those noncitizens who may pose a safety risk; and 2) to ensure that the individual will comply with any immigration proceedings (including removal). For the last two decades, there has been increasing interest in the United States and abroad to create and expand alternatives to detention for noncitizens who would otherwise be sent to immigration detention centers. This is due to an increasing understanding that detention is fundamentally harmful and inhumane—especially to immigrants of color— that there are alternatives that can achieve similar objectives to those the government is pursuing, and that there has been very little meaningful reform of immigration detention itself. For example, the current standards that govern the conditions of most immigrant detention centers, the Performance-Based National Detention Standards, were explicitly based on criminal pre-trial detention and were written in 2011, with minor updates made in 2016 and no updates in the years since then. Study after study has shown that alternatives to detention programs are generally more humane and more cost-effective than immigration detention.

Washington, DC: American Immigration Council, 2022. 9p.

By Rebecca Gambler; et al.

Each year, EOIR issues decisions for hundreds of thousands of cases of foreign nationals charged as removable under U.S. immigration law. EOIR is facing a significant and growing backlog of cases pending before the immigration courts. At the start of fiscal year 2023, EOIR’s backlog was about 1.8 million pending cases—more than triple the number of pending cases at the start of fiscal year 2017. In 2017, GAO reported on EOIR’s management practices, including how it manages and oversees workforce planning and immigration judge hiring. GAO was asked to review various EOIR management functions, including actions taken since GAO’s 2017 report. This report assesses, among other things, EOIR’s (1) workforce planning practices; (2) judge performance appraisal program; and (3) policies and procedures for reporting quality data to the public. GAO analyzed EOIR staffing data from fiscal years 2017 through 2022—the most current data available. GAO reviewed EOIR documentation and interviewed officials from headquarters and four immigration courts selected to include different caseloads, among other factors. What GAO Recommends GAO is making six recommendations to improve, among other things, EOIR’s workforce planning, judge performance appraisal program management, and data quality practices. EOIR identified ongoing and planned steps to address these recommendations.   

Washington, DC: GAO, 2023. 61p.  

By Matthew Chang

What does adequate legal representation for noncitizen criminal defendants look like? After the Supreme Court decided the landmark case of Padilla v. Kentucky, criminal defense attorneys became responsible for advising clients if and when there might be immigration consequences that accompany acceptance of a guilty plea deal, such as a potential risk of deportation. Currently, the criminal and immigration representation are completely divided. This Comment argues that the Padilla mandate alone, while important, fails to adequately provide noncitizen criminal defendants their Fifth Amendment Due Process Right and Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel. Using the Supreme Court’s legal analysis in Padilla and similar cases, I contend that the criminal and immigration divide is not so discrete. Inadequate representation in either criminal or immigration courts is considered a failure of the Fifth Amendment. Nevertheless, one way to rectify this constitutional shortcoming is to create and implement government-appointed counsel for all noncitizen criminal defendants facing criminal and removal proceedings. This Comment evaluates local, government-enacted immigration public defender programs that have experienced great success within California. Further, this Comment posits that to fully comply with the Fifth Amendment’s requirement of adequate representation, Congress must follow suit and expand quality legal access across the nation for noncitizens facing deportation proceedings, modeled after successful immigrant defender programs in California.

112 J. Crim. L. & Criminology Online 29 (2022).

Roxana Barbulescu, Sara Wallace Goodman, Luicy Pedroza

This open access book critically re-examines the theoretical and empirical interconnections between integration and citizenship, specifically, naturalisation. With new, empirical-grounded analyses of what we term 'citizenship-integration nexus' the central, shared contribution is showcasing how membership is informally achieved through everyday integration —usually around, but sometimes in spite of, formal citizenship requirements. By providing evidence of a nexus disjuncture, the book contributes to critical dialogues on immigrant integration and political incorporation, relevant for policymakers, civil society actors, and academics alike.

Springer Cham

By Andrea Guttin

The Criminal Alien Program (CAP) is a program administered by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that screens inmates in prisons and jails, identifies deportable non-citizens, and places them into deportation proceedings. In this Special Report, The Criminal Alien Program: Immigration Enforcement in Travis County, Texas, author Andrea Guttin, Esq., provides a brief history and background on the CAP program. Guttin also includes a case study of CAP implementation in Travis County, Texas, which finds that the program has a negative impact on communities because it increases the community’s fear of reporting crime to police, is costly, and may encourage racial profiling.

La Jolla, CA: Immigration Policy Center, 2010. 23p.

Read/Download

By Matt O’Brien, Spencer Raley and Casey Ryan

Advocates of open borders are fond of claiming that illegal aliens commit fewer crimes than native-born U.S. citizens. That makes perfect sense, they assert, because illegal aliens do not wish to be brought to the attention of law enforcement and risk deportation from the United States. In fact, this report finds that in the states examined, illegal aliens are incarcerated up to five and a half times as frequently as citizens and legal immigrants.

Washington, DC: The Federation For American Immigration Reform, 2019. 20p.

By Michelangelo Landgrave and Alex Nowrasteh

Illegal immigration and the crimes illegal immigrants commit are notoriously difficult to measure. This policy analysis is the latest paper in a series that attempts to answer that question by estimating illegal immigrant incarceration rates in the United States by using the American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample from the U.S. Census. This analysis goes beyond previous studies in the series as it updates our residual estimation method based on new research. Furthermore, we apply the updated methods to estimate the illegal immigrant incarceration rates in earlier years.

Washington, DC: CATO Institute, 2020. 16p.

By The National immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, Immigrant Defence Project, and Mijente

Tech is transforming immigration enforcement. As advocates have known for some time, the immigration and criminal justice systems have powerful allies in Silicon Valley and Congress, with technology companies playing an increasingly central role in facilitating the expansion and acceleration of arrests, detentions, and deportations. What is less known outside of Silicon Valley is the long history of the technology industry’s “revolving door” relationship with federal agencies, how the technology industry and its products and services are now actually circumventing city- and state-level protections for vulnerable communities, and what we can do to expose and hold these actors accountable. Mijente, the National Immigration Project, and the Immigrant Defense Project — immigration and Latinx-focused organizations working at the intersection of new technology, policing, and immigration — commissioned Empower LLC to undertake critical research about the multi-layered technology infrastructure behind the accelerated and expansive immigration enforcement we’re seeing today, and the companies that are behind it. The report opens a window into the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) plans for immigration policing through a scheme of tech and database policing, the mass scale and scope of the tech-based systems, the contracts that support it, and the connections between Washington, D.C., and Silicon Valley. It surveys and investigates the key contracts that technology companies have with DHS, particularly within Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and their success in signing new contracts through intensive and expensive lobbying.

Washington, DC: National Immigration Project, 2018. 74p.

Edited by Hannah Jones, Yasmin Gunaratnam, Gargi Bhattacharyya, William Davies, Sukhwant Dhaliwal, Kirsten Forkert, Emma Jackson, and Roiyah Saltus.

In July 2013, the UK government arranged for a van to drive through parts of London carrying the message 'In the UK illegally? GO HOME or face arrest.' This book tells the story of what happened next. The vans were short-lived, but they were part of an ongoing trend in government-sponsored communication designed to demonstrate toughness on immigration. The authors set out to explore the effects of such performances: on policy, on public debate, on pro-migrant and anti-racist activism, and on the everyday lives of people in Britain. This book presents their findings, and provides insights into the practice of conducting research on such a charged and sensitive topic.

Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2017. 204p.