Federal–local partnerships on immigration law enforcement: Are the policies effective in reducing violent victimization?

Research Summary

Our understanding of how immigration enforcement impacts crime has been informed exclusively by data from police crime statistics. This study complements existing research by using longitudinal multilevel data from the National Crime Victimization Survey for 2005–2014 to simultaneously assess the impact of the three predominant immigration policies that have been implemented in local communities. The results indicate that the activation of Secure Communities and 287(g) task force agreements significantly increased violent victimization risk among Latinos, whereas they showed no evident impact on victimization risk among non-Latino Whites and Blacks. The activation of 287(g) jail enforcement agreements and anti-detainer policies had no significant impact on violent victimization risk during the period.

Policy Implications

Contrary to their stated purpose of enhancing public safety, our results show that the Secure Communities program and 287(g) task force agreements did not reduce crime, but instead eroded security in U.S. communities by increasing the likelihood that Latinos experienced violent victimization. These results support the Federal government's ending of 287(g) task force agreements and its more recent move to end the Secure Communities program. Additionally, the results of our study add to the evidence challenging claims that anti-detainer policies pose a threat to violence risk.     

On field mice,butterflies, and tigers: Mark Twain’s ‘Ten Commandments’ and circumstance-based justice

The first reports that the Obama administration had deported a record number of people came as a surprise to many. As both Presidents Obama and Bush have attempted to pass moderate immigration reform laws that allowed for legalization, we must ask from where the impetus for driving up the deportation rate has come. The explanation leads to the passage of Secure Communities in 2008, which allowed state and local law enforcement to identify undocumented immigrants through federal information sharing. I seek to explain the social dynamics behind the passage of Secure Communities starting with a review of previous cycles of rapid deportation in US history. I then examine the political activities of the contemporary immigrant restrictionist movement for an understanding of their role.     

Expanding Geographies of Deportability: How Immigration Enforcement at the Local Level Affects Undocumented and Mixed‐Status Families

This article examines the impact of policies and programs that have expanded immigration enforcement from the federal to the local level. Drawing from in‐depth interviews with over sixty individuals who are members of undocumented or mixed‐status families, I discuss how these initiatives have extended the geography of deportability from traditional sites that focus explicitly on immigration enforcement (e.g., the US–Mexico border) to more nontraditional sites in the public sphere (e.g., driving under the influence checkpoints or grocery stores). I demonstrate how this intensification of enforcement strains undocumented immigrants’ resources as well as their participation in school, work, and their communities.     

Paradoxes of Family Immigration Policy: Separation,Reorganization, and Reunification of Families under Current Immigration Laws

It is increasingly recognized that immigration laws affect immigrants' integration. Most recently there has been growing attention to how immigration enforcement affects families through forced separations caused by deportations and long‐term family separations across national borders stemming from unauthorized entry to the United States. However, beyond enforcement, there has been little systematic account of how other provisions of immigration law contribute to family separations. In this article we examine how four key provisions in immigration law, far from creating conditions for immigrant families to reunite, contribute to keeping families apart. As such, these provisions shape, in fundamental ways, the structure and composition of immigrant families. Relying on data from the American Community Survey and ethnographic interviews in Phoenix, Arizona, we find evidence consistent with the premise that immigration laws affect the formation, composition, and structure of immigrant families with potential long‐term consequences.     

From Sheriff's Deputies to Immigration Officers: Screening Immigrant Status in a Tennessee Jail

This article contributes to emerging literature documenting the devolution of immigration enforcement authority by focusing on the implementation of the 287(g) program in Davidson County, Tennessee. It outlines how deputized immigration officers do their work as well as the ways they come to think about their roles in the larger immigration bureaucracy. Immigration officers see themselves as objective administrators whose primary responsibilities are to identify and process immigrants for removal, but who are not responsible for their subsequent deportation. While immigration officers never waiver about their obligation to uphold the rule of law, alternate narratives emerge depending on how they feel about the immigrants they encounter. These frames range from pride at identifying “criminal aliens” to guilt for processing immigrants who had been arrested for very minor violations. Ultimately, this work shows deputized immigration officers act as extensions of the federal government rather than as independent agents.     

“Impossible Families”: Mixed‐Citizenship Status Couples and the Law

This article explores the complex and contradictory relationship between citizenship in the law and the immigrant reality of mixed‐citizenship family life through in‐depth interviews with individuals in mixed‐citizenship marriages. An examination of mixed‐citizenship marriage exposes the inadequacies of approaching citizenship as an individual‐centered concept. The data indicate that, though both immigration and citizenship laws focus on the individual, the repercussions of those laws have family‐level effects. Because of their spouses' immigrant status, many citizens are obliged by the law to live the immigrant experience in their own country or to become immigrants themselves.     

Crossroads: The Intersection of Immigrant Enforcement and the Child Welfare System

Diana's children were placed in foster care when they were one‐ and three‐year‐olds. Their mother was arrested when she fought back to defend herself against an attack by her abusive boyfriend, Thomas. Thomas assaulted her in her apartment when she tried to end their relationship. A neighbor heard screams and called the police. When officers arrived, Thomas told his version of the events, but Diana was not able to communicate with the officers, since they did not speak Spanish and did not obtain the assistance of interpreters. The officers saw scratches on Thomas and a possible bite mark, in addition to bruises and scratches on Diana, arrested both of them, and called Child Protective Services (CPS) to take the children. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) soon issued a detainer when they obtained a copy of Diana's fingerprints through the Secure Communities program ¹ in effect in her local jurisdiction. Upon further review of the circumstances, the prosecutor decided to drop the charges against Diana; however, ICE took custody of her. She was subsequently transferred to a different immigrant detention center 300 miles away. The CPS caseworker placed Diana's children in temporary foster care with foster parents who did not speak Spanish, instead of with a willing aunt who had undocumented immigration status. Diana's children, born in the United States, are U.S. citizens. As the months passed, the children were no longer learning Spanish. The children did not visit with or talk with their mother for over six months because the CPS caseworker was unsure of Diana's whereabouts and how to communicate with her, despite that the original case plan called for reunification. As a result, the goal of the case plan was revised to pursue the termination of parental rights instead of family reunification.     

Crimmigration at the Local Level: Criminal Justice Processes in the Shadow of Deportation

In recent decades, authorities have adopted a number of programs that tether the criminal and immigration enforcement apparatuses in novel ways. This mixed methods case study assesses the impact of such programs on local criminal justice processes and outcomes in King County, Washington. Although the empirical research on the effects of such programs is scant, the emerging literature on legal hybridity suggests that the enmeshment of the criminal and immigration systems is likely to enhance the state's power to detain and punish. The quantitative results support this hypothesis: non‐citizens flagged by immigration authorities stay in jail significantly longer than their similarly situated counterparts. Qualitative focus group interviews with prosecuting and defense attorneys identify four key mechanisms by which Immigration Customs and Enforcement detainers alter the incentive structure, impact decisionmaking, and extend jail stays for non‐citizens. Together, these findings suggest that immigration law and the threat of deportation now cast a long shadow over local as well as federal criminal proceedings, and enhance penal pain for non‐citizens. Implications of these findings for the “crimmigration” literature and research on the effect of citizenship status on criminal justice outcomes are discussed.     

Collective Liminality: The Spillover Effects of Indeterminate Detention on Immigrant Families

This article introduces the concept of collective liminality, a shared condition of heightened threat and uncertainty experienced by immigrant detainees and their families, as they wait, caught between two possible outcomes: their loved one's (temporary or permanent) release into the US or deportation. Drawing on 2 years of ethnographic data collection between 2015 and 2017 that included accompanying families to visitation at three Southern California detention facilities, and in-depth interviews with former detainees and their relatives, I demonstrate the broader “collateral consequences” that immigration detention inflicts on detainees' loved ones. I find that not only does the detained individual experience liminality, but the detention of a loved one places the family in a state of shared liminality, which is experienced at two levels: material and emotional. These hardships materialize even before the detainees' deportation and can persist even after their release back into the US. This research extends scholarship on the impacts of detention on detainees, and on the consequences of deportation for families. The concept of collective liminality highlights how immigration detention functions as a critical tool of immigrant surveillance, punishment, and exclusion.     

The Politics of Punishment and Protection: A Comparative Historical Analysis of American Immigration Control, 1990–2017

This article examines the construction of immigration control in two US states with contrasting approaches to immigration: the rise of crimmigration and governing through crime in Arizona, and the development of immigrant protection and governing through support in Illinois. Analysis of state-level immigration control practices reveals that three interrelated processes play a critical role in formulating these divergent approaches to managing immigrants: the state's cultural orientation, structural relations, and institutional dynamics. These factors interact with each other in complex, multidirectional ways that condition and shape the respective states’ political choices and administrative decisions. I highlight the significance of coalitions of local organizations who work in collaboration with state actors and mobilize state institutions in order to shape state legal regimes of immigration control. In illuminating the variegated trajectories of the construction of immigration control fields, and their use (or nonuse) of penal power as a response, this article provides a more nuanced understanding of the hybrid, dynamic, and contingent nature of immigration control in contemporary America.     

Assessing the Relationship between Immigration Status and Drug Use

The immigration–crime connection has been the basis for numerous immigration policy decisions. However, there are theoretical arguments and empirical evidence both for and against the positive relationship between immigration and crime. Moreover, much of this research has failed to focus specifically on illegal immigrants. The current study examines drug use patterns among 3,050 recently booked arrestees in Maricopa County, Arizona, from April 2007 to September 2008. Using logistic regression, the authors isolate the effects of immigration status on several types of drug use while controlling for relevant individual and situational characteristics. Findings show that illegal immigrants are generally less likely to use drugs when compared to US citizens, with the exception of powder cocaine use. The paper concludes with a discussion of the study's implications for the larger body of research on immigration and crime, as well for immigration and enforcement policy and practice.     

Forgotten Children of Immigration and Family Law: How The Absence of Legal Aid Affects Children in the United States

The absence of government‐appointed legal counsel in immigration proceedings adversely affects large numbers of children in the United States. Children born in the United States to parents without citizenship status (U.S.‐born children of noncitizen parents or UCNP) are harmed by a parent's detention and removal. Unaccompanied alien children (UAC) who have entered the country without legal status are adversely affected by their own detention and removal. The possibility of obtaining relief from removal is drastically diminished by the lack of legal representation. Currently UAC and immigrant parents are not entitled to court‐appointed attorneys. Any meaningful change in immigration law, such as a federal statutory amendment to provide UAC and immigrant parents with government‐appointed counsel is unlikely due to the present political dissension in Congress regarding this issue. Because UAC and immigrant parents are not entitled to government‐funded legal representation, a pro bono legal service system has developed, but is unable to meet the present need adequately. For immigrant parents, this Note proposes the adoption of a statute to allow the appointment of court liaisons in family court proceedings. The court liaison is a nonattorney who is familiar with the processes of the family court and ensures that immigrant parents are fully informed regarding all pertinent family court proceedings. For UAC, this Note proposes an amendment to the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act to mandate the appointment of a child advocate to all UAC. The child advocate is not a lawyer, but works with the UAC's attorney to provide the child with legal representation and advocacy.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• UCNP confront the loss of parents to detention and removal. Children are condemned to limbo, torn between absent biological parents and placement in foster care.
• The recent surge in the number of UAC who enter the United States by crossing the border from Mexico has been described as a humanitarian crisis. These children often remain alone without legal protection, vulnerable to detention and removal.
• Ideally, UAC and the immigrant parents would be provided with government‐funded legal representation in immigration proceedings. In the absence of the federal statutory reform necessary to make that a reality, state statutory reform to allow for the provision of court liaison programs for immigrant parents and federal statutory reform to allow the appointment of child advocates for UAC can begin to offer children and families needed legal support and advocacy.

     

Sufren Los Niños: Exploring the Impact of Unauthorized Immigration Status on Children's Well‐Being

The present study examines the effect of unauthorized immigration status on child well‐being at a time of elevated immigration rates, economic decline, and unprecedented local lawmaking related to immigration. Immigrant families today are likely to differ from those of the past in that they are more likely to be from Latin America or the Caribbean and include unprecedented numbers of unauthorized immigrants. In addition, they are settling in destinations that have not historically had immigrant populations. The present study draws on interviews with 40 families from an emerging immigrant destination in north central Indiana to help illuminate the ways in which unauthorized immigration status influences child well‐being. Results illustrate that unauthorized status extends beyond the individual to families and that mixed‐status family situations create unique challenges for these families. More specifically, these results show the ways in which unauthorized immigrant status may impact family stress and uncertainty, health outcomes, and educational attainment and may result in increased social isolation for children in immigrant families.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Unauthorized immigration status is typically defined as an individual characteristics, however there are likely to be large numbers of families with authorized and unauthorized status family members. These “mixed‐status families” create unique challenges for families and children.
• This article informs practitioners about the ways in which recent state policies targeting unauthorized immigrants, in addition to existing federal policy, create barriers and negatively impact child and family well‐being for Latino immigrants, regardless individual immigration status.
• Unauthorized immigration status may impact family stress and uncertainty, health outcomes, educational attainment, and may result in increased social isolation for children in immigrant families.

     

The aftermath of enforcement episodes for the children of immigrants

For 30 years, U.S. immigration policy has increasingly focused on enforcement. This article goes beyond cataloging the harms of such policies to document the processes by which they become more or less salient in the lives of children of immigrants over time. In-depth interviews with 86 young adults raised in New York show that enforcement policies shape children's lives either through lived experiences of enforcement episodes or through diffuse fears arising from indirect threats. Qualitative analysis of narratives of (a) deportations post-incarceration, (b) removals, (c) arrests and detentions (d) direct threats, and (e) diffuse fears identifies characteristics related to each that may affect children even after they age into adulthood.     

SAME SEX,DIFFERENT RIGHTS: AMENDING U.S. IMMIGRATION LAW TO RECOGNIZE SAME‐SEX PARTNERS OF REFUGEES AND ASYLEES

Overcoming a long history of anti‐gay sentiment preserved in federal immigration law, the United States has made admirable advances during the past two decades in the protection it affords gay immigrants. Despite this promising progress, and in contrast to the practices of all other industrialized democracies, the United States remains firm in its refusal to federally recognize any form of same‐sex partnership, a decision which bears directly on those relationships considered valid for immigration purposes. The Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) represents the closest any proposed legislation has come to successfully granting immigration rights to gay immigrants. However, through its restrictive provisions, the UAFA fails to fully account for the needs of refugees, asylees, and their same‐sex partners. This Note argues that, while the UAFA is a step in the right direction, it does not go far enough to protect gay refugees and asylees. It further proposes that legislation be enacted which provides this unique segment of the immigrant population the opportunity to share their lives together, free from fear of persecution. It advocates for the use of the conjugal partner provision set out in Canada's Immigration and Refugee Protection Act as a template for changes to U.S. immigration law, thereby expanding the category of relationships viewed as valid for the purpose of immigration.     

The Contradictions of Immigration Lawmaking: The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986

This paper argues that the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 is a composite of contradictory measures. On one hand, employer sanctions are meant to curtail the employment of undocumented workers and preserve the U.S. labor market for legal residents and citizens; on the other hand, special foreign worker programs are designed to enhance the supply of immigrant workers. In an effort to make sense of these contradictions, the author places the legislation in historical context and proposes a dialectical model of immigration policymaking.     

Detained: A Study of Immigration Bond Hearings

Immigration judges make consequential decisions that fundamentally affect the basic life chances of thousands of noncitizens and their family members every year. Yet, we know very little about how immigration judges make their decisions, including decisions about whether to release or detain noncitizens pending the completion of their immigration cases. Using original data on long‐term immigrant detainees, I examine for the first time judicial decision making in immigration bond hearings. I find that there are extremely wide variations in the average bond grant rates and bond amount decisions among judges in the study sample. What are the determinants of these bond decisions? My analysis shows that the odds of being granted bond are more than 3.5 times higher for detainees represented by attorneys than those who appeared pro se, net of other relevant factors. My analysis also shows that the detainees' prior criminal history is the only significant legally relevant factor in both the grant/deny and bond amount decisions, net of other relevant factors. This finding points to the need for further research on whether and how immigration courts might be exercising crime control through administrative proceedings.     

They watch for color: mixed-status couples experience with the police

This research qualitatively examines experiences with the police for 42 interracial mixed-status couples, living or originating mainly from the Southern United States. Race-based policing operates within a structure of racist nativism where white skin is a marker of U.S. citizenship, and brown skin is an indication of being foreign-born. Law enforcement at all levels, including the local level, situated their attention toward Latino immigrant men, especially those perceived as working-class, when compared to white U.S. citizen wives. The penalties for racial profiling included family strain through detention and deportation of Latin-American born men. In addition to human rights violations for undocumented Latino immigrants, U.S. citizens are serving as collateral damage in an already broken immigration system that racially profiles Latino immigrant men. Couples’ precariousness situations contest the rhetoric that police are only protecting citizens’ national security. Framed by racist nativism, the findings have implications for anti-oppressive, evidence-based immigration policy.     

Libertarian Paternalism,Externalities, and the “Spirit of Liberty”: How Thaler and Sunstein Are Nudging Us toward an “Overlapping Consensus”

In their 2008 book Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness, Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein use research from psychology and behavioral economics to argue that people suffer from systematic cognitive biases. They propose that policy makers mitigate these biases by framing people's choices in ways that help people act in their own self‐interest. Thaler and Sunstein call this approach “libertarian paternalism,” and they market it as “the Real Third Way.” In this essay, I argue that the book is a brilliant contribution to thinking about policy making but that “choice architecture” is not just a solution to the problem of cognitive biases. Rather, it is a means of approaching any kind of policy making. I further argue that policy makers must take externalities into account, even when using choice architecture. Finally, I argue that libertarian paternalism can best be seen as motivated by what Sunstein has celebrated in his work on constitutional theory: a humility about the possibility of policy‐maker error embodied in Learned Hand's famous aphorism about the “spirit of liberty” and an attempt to reduce social conflicts by searching for what John Rawls called an “overlapping consensus.”