Legal and Illegal Immigration Reform

2006 ◽  
pp. 95-132
Keyword(s):  
Illegal Immigration ◽  
Immigration Reform

scholarly journals Framing Immigration and Illegal Immigration in the 2016 Presidential Campaigns: Comparing Donald Trump and Bernie Sander’s Position

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-22
Author(s):  
JIN YANG
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Illegal Immigration ◽  
News Coverage ◽  
Presidential Campaign ◽  
Illegal Immigrants ◽  
Function Approach ◽  
Immigration Reform ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Tv News ◽  
The U.S

This study compared the U.S. TV news coverage of Donald Trump’s and Bernie Sanders’ talking points on immigration in the 2016 presidential campaign. Utilizing six common frames on immigration in general and adopting framing’s function approach (which consists of definition, causes and solutions aspects of an issue or a topic under discussion) to illegal immigration, the study content analyzed 153 TV news transcripts. Trump's talking points highlighted the claim that immigrants were dangerous because they brought crimes to U.S., and they had to be deported and borders must be secured. Sanders’ talking points emphasized the idea of a nation of immigrants where even illegal immigrants should be entitled to basic human rights, and immigration reform constituted a better solution. The causes for illegal immigration, however, were largely marginalized in the TV news coverage. Keywords: Framing immigration, framing illegal immigration, framing’s function approach, 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, U.S. TV news coverage of election

scholarly journals Immigration and the War on Crime: Law and Order Politics and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrisia Macías-Rojas
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Immigration Policy ◽  
Democratic Party ◽  
Illegal Immigration ◽  
Mass Incarceration ◽  
The United States ◽  
Immigration Enforcement ◽  
Immigration Reform ◽  
War On Crime ◽  
Policy Arena

The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) was a momentous law that recast undocumented immigration as a crime and fused immigration enforcement with crime control (García Hernández 2016; Lind 2016). Among its most controversial provisions, the law expanded the crimes, broadly defined, for which immigrants could be deported and legal permanent residency status revoked. The law instituted fast-track deportations and mandatory detention for immigrants with convictions. It restricted access to relief from deportation. It constrained the review of immigration court decisions and imposed barriers for filing class action lawsuits against the former US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). It provided for the development of biometric technologies to track “criminal aliens” and authorized the former INS to deputize state and local police and sheriff's departments to enforce immigration law (Guttentag 1997a; Migration News 1997a, 1997b, 1997c; Taylor 1997). In short, it put into law many of the punitive provisions associated with the criminalization of migration today. Legal scholars have documented the critical role that IIRIRA played in fundamentally transforming immigration enforcement, laying the groundwork for an emerging field of “crimmigration” (Morris 1997; Morawetz 1998, 2000; Kanstroom 2000; Miller 2003; Welch 2003; Stumpf 2006). These studies challenged the law's deportation and mandatory detention provisions, as well as its constraints on judicial review. And they exposed the law's widespread consequences, namely the deportations that ensued and the disproportionate impact of IIRIRA's enforcement measures on immigrants with longstanding ties to the United States (ABA 2004). Less is known about what drove IIRIRA's criminal provisions or how immigration came to be viewed through a lens of criminality in the first place. Scholars have mostly looked within the immigration policy arena for answers, focusing on immigration reform and the “new nativism” that peaked in the early nineties (Perea 1997; Jacobson 2008). Some studies have focused on interest group competition, particularly immigration restrictionists’ prohibitions on welfare benefits, while others have examined constructions of immigrants as a social threat (Chavez 2001; Nevins 2002, 2010; Newton 2008; Tichenor 2009; Bosworth and Kaufman 2011; Zatz and Rodriguez 2015). Surprisingly few studies have stepped outside the immigration policy arena to examine the role of crime politics and the policies of mass incarceration. Of these, scholars suggest that IIRIRA's most punitive provisions stem from a “new penology” in the criminal justice system, characterized by discourses and practices designed to predict dangerousness and to manage risk (Feeley and Simon 1992; Miller 2003; Stumpf 2006; Welch 2012). Yet historical connections between the punitive turn in the criminal justice and immigration systems have yet to be disentangled and laid bare. Certainly, nativist fears about unauthorized migration, national security, and demographic change were important factors shaping IIRIRA's criminal provisions, but this article argues that the crime politics advanced by the Republican Party (or the “Grand Old Party,” GOP) and the Democratic Party also played an undeniable and understudied role. The first part of the analysis examines policies of mass incarceration and the crime politics of the GOP under the Reagan administration. The second half focuses on the crime politics of the Democratic Party that recast undocumented migration as a crime and culminated in passage of IIRIRA under the Clinton administration. IIRIRA's criminal provisions continue to shape debates on the relationship between immigration and crime, the crimes that should provide grounds for expulsion from the United States, and the use of detention in deportation proceedings for those with criminal convictions. This essay considers the ways in which the War on Crime — specifically the failed mass incarceration policies — reshaped the immigration debate. It sheds light on the understudied role that crime politics of the GOP and the Democratic Party played in shaping IIRIRA — specifically its criminal provisions, which linked unauthorized migration with criminality, and fundamentally restructured immigration enforcement and infused it with the resources necessary to track, detain, and deport broad categories of immigrants, not just those with convictions.

US fiscal deal will not solve migration debate

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Economic Growth ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Illegal Immigration ◽  
The State ◽  
State Governments ◽  
Immigration Reform ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Immigration Reforms ◽  
Security Enhancements ◽  
Comprehensive Immigration Reform

Significance The move follows the Senate's failure again yesterday to agree on spending priorities and immigration, the same policy disagreements which prevented a spending deal being passed by midnight on January 19. This has thrown the federal government into its first shutdown since 2013. Impacts Trump's support for "comprehensive immigration reform" may not hold. If US economic growth continues, this may push up illegal immigration, absent security enhancements. Challenges from the state governments over immigration reforms are possible. If Republicans are seen as anti-immigrant, gaining non-traditional constituencies' votes, including minorities, will be hard.

Argentine immigration reform targets crime concerns

2017 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Drug Trafficking ◽  
Illegal Immigration ◽  
Congressional Elections ◽  
Immigration Reform ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Stated Purpose

Significance The administration of President Mauricio Macri is pushing the changes for the stated purpose of fighting crime and drug trafficking. Impacts Security-linked initiatives aim to rally voter support ahead of October’s mid-term congressional elections. NGOs are concerned that the measure will be interpreted as suggesting that ‘migrant’ is synonymous with ‘criminal’. The reform will not address crime and corruption issues that limit prospects for curbing illegal immigration and drug trafficking.

Conclusion

No Man's Land ◽  
2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cindy Hahamovitch
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Collective Bargaining ◽  
Government Intervention ◽  
Illegal Immigration ◽  
The United States ◽  
Immigration Reform ◽  
Foreign Labor ◽  
Two Systems ◽  
History Of ◽  
The 1950S

This concluding chapter considers the possibilities for change and improvement over current iterations of guestworker programs in the United States. If the history of guestworkers in the country demonstrates anything, this chapter argues, it is that guestworker programs are not an alternative to illegal immigration. Rather, the two systems of recruiting foreign labor have always existed in symbiosis. But can such an oppressive situation be reformed? The chapter turns to a few solutions; such as the adoption of the European guestworker programs of the 1950s and 1960s, collective bargaining and advocacy work, government intervention and worker vigilance, and finally and most importantly, immigration reform.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document