scholarly journals From IIRIRA to Trump: Connecting the Dots to the Current US Immigration Policy Crisis

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 192-204 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald Kerwin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Drug Abuse ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Illegal Immigration ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Immigration Enforcement ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Immigration

When signing into law the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA, or “the Act”), 1 President William J. Clinton asserted that the legislation strengthened “the rule of law by cracking down on illegal immigration at the border, in the workplace, and in the criminal justice system — without punishing those living in the United States legally” ( Clinton 1996 ). In fact, the Act has severely punished US citizens and noncitizens of all statuses. It has also eroded the rule of law by eliminating due process from the overwhelming majority of removal cases, curtailing equitable relief from removal, mandating detention (without individualized custody determinations) for broad swaths of those facing deportation, and erecting insurmountable, technical roadblocks to asylum. In addition, it created new immigration-related crimes and established “the concept of ‘criminal alienhood,’” which has “slowly, but purposefully” conflated criminality and lack of immigration status ( Abrego et al. 2017 , 695). It also conditioned family reunification on income, divided mixed-status families, and consigned other families to marginal and insecure lives in the United States ( Lopez 2017 , 246). Finally, it created the 287(g) program that enlists state and local law enforcement agencies in immigration enforcement and drives a wedge between police and immigrant communities. The trend of “cracking down” on immigrants did not begin with IIRIRA. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, and the 1990 Immigration Act, for example, expanded deportable offenses ( Abrego et al. 2017 , 697; Macías-Rojas 2018 , 3–4). IIRIRA, however, significantly “ratchet[ed] up” the “punitive aspects of US immigration law already in place” ( Abrego et al. 2017 , 702), and erected much of the legal and operational infrastructure that underlies the Trump administration’s plan to remove millions of undocumented residents and their families, to terrify others into leaving “voluntarily,” and to slash legal immigration. In 2016, the Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS) issued a call for papers to examine IIRIRA’s multifaceted consequences. 2 Between March 2017 and January 2018, CMS published eight papers from this collection in its Journal on Migration and Human Security ( JMHS). The papers cover the political conditions that gave rise to IIRIRA, and the Act’s impact on immigrants, families, communities, and the US immigration system. This article draws on these papers — as well as sources closer to IIRIRA’s passage and implementation — to describe how the Act transformed US immigration policies and laid the groundwork for the Trump administration’s policies. 3 After a brief discussion of IIRIRA’s origins, the article discusses the law's effects and subsequent policies related to the growth of the US immigration enforcement apparatus, removal, asylum, detention, the criminal prosecution of immigrants, the treatment of immigrant families, and joint federal-state enforcement activities.

scholarly journals The unintended consequences of US immigration enforcement policies

2021 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. e2103000118
Author(s):  
Emily Ryo
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Deterrent Effect ◽  
Immigration Enforcement ◽  
Immigration Detention ◽  
Enforcement Policy ◽  
The Us ◽  
Enforcement Policies ◽  
Us Immigration

US immigration enforcement policy seeks to change the behaviors and views of not only individuals in the United States but also those of prospective migrants outside the United States. Yet we still know relatively little about the behavioral and attitudinal effects of US enforcement policy on the population abroad. This study uses a randomized experiment embedded in a nationally representative survey that was administered in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico to analyze the effects of US deterrence policies on individuals’ migration intentions and their attitudes toward the US immigration system. The two policies that the current study examines are immigration detention and nonjudicial removals. The survey results provide no evidence that a heightened awareness of these US immigration enforcement policies affects individuals’ intentions to migrate to the United States. But heightened awareness about the widespread use of immigration detention in the United States does negatively impact individuals’ assessments about the procedural and outcome fairness of the US immigration system. These findings suggest that immigration detention may foster delegitimating beliefs about the US legal system without producing the intended deterrent effect.

scholarly journals Expropriations of Private Property for Economic ‘Development’ in the United States: Re-Thinking the Titling and Rule of Law Solutions to Land Grabs in the Global South

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Frances Thomson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Economic Development ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Private Property ◽  
The United States ◽  
Global South ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
For Profit ◽  
The Us ◽  
Definition Of

Mainstream discourses tend to treat land dispossession as a ‘developing’ country problem that arises due to weak/corrupt legal systems and inadequate property institutions. This article unsettles such discourses by examining expropriations for economic ‘development’ in the United States —a country typically deemed to have strong property institutions and a strong rule of law. Drawing on various examples, I propose that expropriation in the us is neither rigorously conditional nor particularly exceptional. While most ‘takings’ laws are supposed to restrict the State’s power, this restriction hinges on the definition of public use, purpose, necessity, or interest. And in many countries, including the us, these concepts are now defined broadly and vaguely so as to include private for-profit projects. Ultimately, the contents, interpretation, and application of the law are subject to social and political struggles; this point is habitually overlooked in the rule of law ‘solutions’ to land grabbing—. For these reasons, titling/registration programs and policies aimed at strengthening the rule of law, even if successful, are likely to transform rather than ‘solve’ dispossession in the global South.

Lawyers as Activists

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael C. Dorf ◽  
Michael S. Chu
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Social Media ◽  
Social Change ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Court Action ◽  
The Government ◽  
Trump Administration

Lawyers played a key role in challenging the Trump administration’s Travel Ban on entry into the United States of nationals from various majority-Muslim nations. Responding to calls from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), which were amplified by social media, lawyers responded to the Travel Ban’s chaotic rollout by providing assistance to foreign travelers at airports. Their efforts led to initial court victories, which in turn led the government to soften the Ban somewhat in two superseding executive actions. The lawyers’ work also contributed to the broader resistance to the Trump administration by dramatizing its bigotry, callousness, cruelty, and lawlessness. The efficacy of the lawyers’ resistance to the Travel Ban shows that, contrary to strong claims about the limits of court action, litigation can promote social change. General lessons about lawyer activism in ordinary times are difficult to draw, however, because of the extraordinary threat Trump poses to civil rights and the rule of law.

scholarly journals Obama's National Security Exceptionalism

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sudha N. Setty
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
National Security ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Norms ◽  
Global Community ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
War Criminals ◽  
The World ◽  
International Obligations

Published: Sudha Setty, Obama's National Security Exceptionalism, 91 CHI.-KENT L. REV. 91 (2016).This Article discusses how continued national security exceptionalism engenders a view of the United States as considering itself to be above international obligations to investigate and prosecute torturers and war criminals, and the view by the global community that the United States is willing to apply one standard for itself, and another for the rest of the world. Exceptionalism not only poses real challenges in terms of law, morality, and building useful relationships with allied nations, but acts as a step backward for the creation of enforceable international norms and standards, and in efforts to restore a balance in the rule of law when it comes to national security matters.

scholarly journals National Interests and Common Ground in the US Immigration Debate: How to Legalize the US Immigration System and Permanently Reduce Its Undocumented Population

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 297-330 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald Kerwin ◽  
Robert Warren
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
The United States ◽  
Immigration Reform ◽  
Illegal Migration ◽  
National Interests ◽  
The Us ◽  
Immigration Debate ◽  
Legal Immigration ◽  
Us Immigration

The conventional wisdom holds that the only point of consensus in the fractious US immigration debate is that the system is broken. Yet, the US public has consistently expressed a desire for a legal and orderly immigration system that serves compelling national interests. This paper describes how to create such a system. It focuses on the cornerstone of immigration reform,1 the legal immigration system,2 and addresses the widespread belief that broad reform will incentivize illegal migration and ultimately lead to another large undocumented population. The paper begins with an analysis of presidential signing statements on seminal immigration legislation over nearly a century. These statements reveal broad consensus on the interests and values that the United States seeks to advance through its immigration and refugee policies. They constitute additional common ground in the immigration debate. To serve these interests, immigration and refugee considerations must be “mainstreamed” into other policy processes. In addition, its policies will be more successful if they are seen to benefit or, at least, not to discriminate against migrant-sending states. Not surprisingly, the US immigration system does not reflect the vast, mostly unanticipated changes in the nation and the world since Congress last meaningfully reformed this system (27 years ago) and last overhauled the law (52 years ago). The paper does not detail the well-documented ways that US immigration laws fall short of serving the nation's economic, family, humanitarian, and rule of law objectives. Nor does it propose specific changes in categories and levels of admission. Rather, it describes how a legal immigration system might be broadly structured to deliver on its promises. In particular, it makes the case that Congress should create a flexible system that serves compelling national interests, allows for real time adjustments in admission based on evidence and independent analysis, and vests the executive with appropriate discretion in administering the law. The paper also argues that the United States should anticipate and accommodate the needs of persons compelled to migrate by its military, trade, development, and other commitments. In addition, the US immigration system needs to be able to distinguish between undocumented immigrants, and refugees and asylum seekers, and to treat these two populations differently. The paper assumes that there will be continued bipartisan support for immigration enforcement. However, even with a strong enforcement apparatus in place and an adaptable, coherent, evidence-based legal immigration system that closely aligns with US interests, some (reduced) level of illegal migration will persist. The paper offers a sweeping, historical analysis of how this population emerged, why it has grown and contracted, and how estimates of its size have been politically exploited. Legalization is often viewed as the third rail of immigration reform. Yet, Congress has regularly legalized discrete undocumented populations, and the combination of a well-structured legalization program, strengthened legal immigration system, and strong enforcement policies can prevent the reemergence of a large-scale undocumented population. In contrast, the immense US enforcement apparatus will work at cross-purposes to US interests and values, absent broader reform. The paper ends with a series of recommendations to reform the legal immigration system, downsize the current undocumented population, and ensure its permanent reduction. It proposes that the United States “reissue” (or reuse) the visas of persons who emigrate, as a way to promote legal immigration reform without significantly increasing annual visa numbers.

LEGAL JUSTICE IN PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT PRACTICE BETWEEN INDONESIA AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 465
Author(s):  
Hanif Fudin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
The United States ◽  
Scientific Article ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
Republican Government

The constitution is approved as a law capable of guaranteeing human rights and protection of the constitution and past coordination, as well as being the corpus of the administration of the rule of law entity itself. Regarding the state of Indonesia and the United States, if examined by these two countries, they have similarities in the form of republican government or presidential system of government. However, on the contrary, in the impeachment transition, the two countries appear to be dichotomous both formally and materially. Therefore, this scientific article discusses reviewing the impeachment provisions of the Presidents of the two countries who agree to develop agreements and principles in checks and balances in trying to actualize the value of the country's legal justice. Therefore, in approving the discourse of research methods, descriptive-comparative methods are used with normative-philosophical and comparative-critical discussions. On that basis, this study discusses the practice of presidential impeachment in Indonesia to consider more legal justice, because it is through a legal process involving the Constitutional Court which implements practices in the United States that only involve the Senate and the House of Representatives which incidentally is a political institution. It considers the constitution in the basic law of the country.

Drug Violence, Immigration Enforcement, and Selectivity: Evidence from Mexican Immigrants

2019 ◽  
Vol 109 ◽  
pp. 192-198
Author(s):  
Heriberto Gonzalez-Lozano ◽  
Sandra Orozco-Aleman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Labor Market ◽  
Mexican Immigrants ◽  
The United States ◽  
Immigration Enforcement ◽  
Migration Experience ◽  
The Us ◽  
Deterrence Effect ◽  
Drug Violence ◽  
Interior Enforcement

We study how drug violence in Mexico and internal immigration enforcement in the United States affect the selectivity of Mexican immigrants. We find that violence is associated with an increase in English proficiency among immigrants. Furthermore, the deterrence effect of interior enforcement varies: it is associated with increases in the probability of observing undocumented immigrants with prior migration experience, who are English proficient and have higher unobservable abilities. Those factors are associated with a higher probability of finding a job, and higher productivity and earnings in the US labor market.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document