scholarly journals Jail By Another Name: ICE Detention of Immigrant Criminal Defendants on Pretrial Release

2020 ◽  
pp. 147
Author(s):  
Kerry Martin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Pretrial Release ◽  
Legislative History ◽  
Plain Text ◽  
Criminal Charges ◽  
The Government ◽  
Immigration And Customs Enforcement ◽  
The Right

This Article assesses the legality of an alarming practice: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) routinely detains noncitizen criminal defendants soon after they have been released on bail, depriving them of their court-ordered freedom. Since the District of Oregon’s decision in United States v. Trujillo-Alvarez, 900 F. Supp. 2d 1167 (D. Or. 2012), a growing group of federal courts has held that when ICE detains federal criminal defendants released under the Bail Reform Act (BRA), it violates their BRA rights. These courts have ordered that the government either free the defendants from ICE custody or dismiss their criminal charges. This Article agrees with and expands on this interpretation of the BRA. Focusing on the BRA’s plain text and legislative history, it argues that the BRA confers a “right to remain released” pending trial, which ICE detention infringes. It then debunks the leading counterarguments to this BRA interpretation. It also explores constitutional arguments for the right to remain released and their implications for federal and state criminal defendants.

scholarly journals Suffer the Little Children to Come: The Legal Rights of Unaccompanied Alien Children under United States Federal Court Jurisprudence

2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-82
Author(s):  
Claire Nolasco Braaten ◽  
Daniel Braaten
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Federal District ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
Unaccompanied Minors ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right

Abstract This article analyses United States (US) federal court jurisprudence to determine the legal rights of unaccompanied alien children (UAC) in various stages of immigration enforcement proceedings. After briefly discussing statistics on UAC in the US, it explains the legal context of US laws governing unaccompanied minors. Through examining 40 cases decided by the 12 US Circuit Courts of Appeals and various federal district courts, the article specifies how these courts interpreted and expanded on the procedural legal rights of UAC upon apprehension by immigration officials, during placement or detention decisions of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), prior to voluntary departure, during asylum proceedings, when rearrested after release, and while released pending immigration proceedings. According to the US federal courts, the government must grant unaccompanied minors procedural due process if it denies their release to the custody of an available and willing legal custodian. Case law examining the rights of UAC prior to voluntary departure emphasizes the need to grant them the opportunity to consult with a responsible adult, including a lawyer from a free legal services list that should be provided to them. Federal courts have also tackled various procedural issues concerning asylum claims filed by UAC. These include the right of third parties to custody of the unaccompanied minor, the minority age at the time of the asylum application, and the right of UAC to request consent for a state juvenile court’s jurisdiction prior to applying for Special Immigrant Juvenile status. In removal proceedings against UAC, federal courts have elaborated on the scope and meaning of the right to counsel and the right to a bond rehearing upon their rearrest because of allegations of gang membership. Finally, federal courts have also examined issues concerning the rights of UAC while detained in ORR facilities and while in US territory. These include the right of an unaccompanied alien child to terminate a pregnancy while in ORR custody and the right not to be subjected to physical and sexual abuse while placed in a detention facility.

The Power to be Ethical: Controlling Moral Assemblages in Border Militias

2021 ◽  
pp. 089124162110218
Author(s):  
John R. Parsons
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Recent Interest ◽  
Ethical Conflicts ◽  
Moral Landscape ◽  
The Government ◽  
Moral Certainty ◽  
The Right ◽  
Ethical Response

Every year, hundreds of U.S. citizens patrol the Mexican border dressed in camouflage and armed with pistols and assault rifles. Unsanctioned by the government, these militias aim to stop the movement of narcotics into the United States. Recent interest in the anthropology of ethics has focused on how individuals cultivate themselves toward a notion of the ethical. In contrast, within the militias, ethical self-cultivation was absent. I argue the volunteers derived the power to be ethical from the control of the dominant moral assemblage and the construction of an immoral “Other” which provided them the power to define a moral landscape that limited the potential for ethical conflicts. In the article, I discuss two instances Border Watch and its volunteers dismissed disruptions to their moral certainty and confirmed to themselves that their actions were not only the “right” thing to do, but the only ethical response available.

Elvira Arellano and the Struggles of Low-Wage Undocumented Latina Immigrant Women

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maura Toro-Morn
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Los Angeles ◽  
Immigrant Women ◽  
Immigrant Woman ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Life Choices ◽  
Neoliberal Globalization ◽  
Immigration And Customs Enforcement ◽  
Latina Immigrant Women

This chapter examines the labor disruptions faced by low-wage undocumented Latina immigrant women under the current neoliberal regime by telling the story of Elvira Arellano, a Mexican immigrant who followed the migrant trail of low-wage work in the United States. On August 15, 2007, Arellano traveled to Los Angeles to attend an immigration rally; four days later, she was apprehended by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and deported to Tijuana, Mexico. Arellano's case highlights the criminalization of undocumented immigrants in the the aftermath of 9/11 that has led to a dramatic increase in the number of Latinos sentenced to prison terms in U.S. federal courts. This chapter explores how neoliberal globalization processes in both Mexico and the United States have shaped Arellano's life choices, her agency, and politicization as an undocumented immigrant woman.

The Government of the United States and American Foreign Missionaries

1912 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 70-85
Author(s):  
James Brown Scott ◽  
George F. Seward
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Church Of England ◽  
Common Knowledge ◽  
Atlantic Coast ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Constitutions ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Rich ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right

It is common knowledge that the United States was originally settled either by God-fearing men and women fleeing from persecution, or by political refugees who were unable to bring about reforms which they believed essential to good government and were unwilling to comply with the state of affaire existing in the Old World, or, finally, by those who, unfortunate at home, were desirous of bettering their condition in the New World. The Pilgrim and the Puritan, the Episcopalian and the Catholic, the Quaker, the Presbyterian and the Lutheran settled the Atlantic Coast. The roundhead and the cavalier, the rich and the poor and the inmate of the debtor’s prison found themselves side by side upon a plane of equality without the traditions and the conservatism of an older world. Whether the colony was composed of Puritans and manifested intolerance to the protestant brother of a different faith; whether the settlement remained loyal to the Church of England, as Virginia, or favored the Catholic, as Maryland, or freely accepted the law-abiding without questioning his religion, as the Quakers of Pennsylvania, the principle of religious toleration steadily gained ground, and by the time of the Revolution it may be said generally that religious differences ceased to influence men or their conduct toward each other, by virtue of a conception of liberty which embraced not merely the right to and protection of property but the freedom of thought, of speech and of public worship. The example of Virginia, which in 1786 established religious freedom by statute, profoundly influenced the Federal Government and the various States of the Union; for, by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, it is provided that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” and the States of the American Union have, in their various Constitutions, placed the same restriction upon their legislatures. The amendment of the Constitution and the like provisions in State Constitutions were not dictated by indifference or hostility to the principles of the Christian religion, but aimed to prevent not merely the establishment of any one form of religion, however widely spread, but to establish upon a firm footing the right before the law of every religious sect.

The Second Session of the Seventy-Seventh Congress

1943 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 290-305
Author(s):  
Floyd M. Riddick
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
The Other ◽  
State Of The Union ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Tax Laws ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right ◽  
Poll Tax

The course of affairs in the second session of the Seventy-seventh Congress can best be differentiated from that of all recent years if examined with the thought that the United States is in an “all-out” war. That was how the President presented the situation to Congress on January 6 in his annual message on the state of the Union. And that was the phrase frequently used throughout the year by Representatives and Senators as an argument for or against enacting controversial bills, delegating unprecedented regulative powers, or appropriating many billions of dollars to defray governmental expenses.On the other hand, while all of the recommendations for legislation embodied in the President's message were designed to bring the war more quickly to a close, Congress was asked by the Administration at various times during the year for the enactment of measures not related to the defense program, as the proposals to “rid Congress of trivia” and for settlement of claims of American nationals against the government of Mexico. The House and Senate, likewise, of their own accord, troubled themselves with such matters as the repeal of poll tax laws, the right of Senator Langer to his seat in the Senate, and the so-called “Congressional pension bill.”

Constitutional Law in 1920–1921. II: The Constitutional Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in the October Term, 1920

1922 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 228-244
Author(s):  
Edward S. Corwin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Search And Seizure ◽  
Evidential Value ◽  
Relevant Evidence ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Decisions ◽  
The Government ◽  
Search Warrant ◽  
The Right

The “self-incrimination” clause of the Fifth Amendment was brought forward in five cases, in three of which it was attended by the “search and seizure” provisions of the Fourth Amendment. The most important of these cases was Gouled v. the United States, in which the court was asked to pass upon the admissibility in evidence, first, of a paper obtained surreptitiously by officers of the government from the office of the accused; and secondly, of papers, described to be of “evidential value only,” which were taken from the office of accused under a search warrant. The court, declaring that the constitutional provisions involved must receive “a liberal construction, so as to prevent stealthy encroachment upon ‥‥ the rights secured by them,” held that the government had no right to the possession of any of these papers nor to the use of them as evidence. At the same time, it was held that if the government had had the right to seize the papers in question, for instance, as so much contraband property, and had done so under a warrant sufficient in form, “then it would have been competent to use them to prove any crime against accused as to which they constituted relevant evidence.”

Opposition in Congressional Committees: the Rights of the Minority Party

1969 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-31
Author(s):  
John D. Lees
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Party System ◽  
The United States ◽  
American Political Science Association ◽  
Majority Party ◽  
Congressional Committees ◽  
Minority Party ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right ◽  
American Political Science

Political scientists in the United States have in recent years become concerned with analysis of the rights and responsibilities of political opposition. This interest was initially stimulated by the much-quoted, and much-maligned, report of the Committee on Political Parties of the American Political Science Association in 1950 entitled Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System. It has been supplemented by the volume edited by Robert Dahl, Political Oppositions in Western Democracies. Academic rationale for this interest is reflected in the paradox posed by Dahl, who, having cited ‘ the right of an organized opposition to appeal for votes against the government in elections and parliament’ as being one of ‘the three great milestones in the development of democratic institutions’, is then obliged to admit that in the United States ‘it is never easy to distinguish “opposition” from “government”’, and that ‘it is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to identify the opposition’. Opposition in the United States political system is nonstructural because of the multiple access points for influence, and opportunities for preventing or inhibiting governmental action are numerous. No single institution illustrates this fact better than Congress. In speaking of Congress, commentators do not talk about ‘the opposition’. They may refer to ‘the minority party’ (and ‘the majority party’), yet even these terms cannot be used at times when the Senate and House are not controlled by the same party. Moreover, internal organizational and procedural patterns in the contemporary Congress allow many opportunities for minority coalitions to check executive policies favoured by a majority coalition in Congress, and such coalitions are often bipartisan.

scholarly journals PIERWSZY BANK STANÓW ZJEDNOCZONYCH JAKO PIERWOWZÓR SYSTEMU REZERWY FEDERALNEJ

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 171
Author(s):  
Wojciech Kwiatkowski
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Federal Reserve ◽  
Financial Stability ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Government ◽  
Banking Institution ◽  
The Right

First Bank of the United States as a Prototype for the Federal Reserve SystemSummaryThe article describes the history of the First Bank of the United Statesfirst banking- institution, that was charted in XVII-th century North America as an effect of a cooperation of two federal bodies – Congress and the President. Although, the federal government possessed only 20 %, of the shares with federal licences it could conduct its activity on territory of the whole country. Moreover – the Bank is now referred to as the first central bank in the United States because of its national scope and services rendered to the federal government. The Bank helped the government to obtain emergency loans, facilitated the payment of taxes, and served as the receiver and disburser of the public funds. In addition, it issued bank notes and made them fully redeemable in coin. During a 20-years period the Bank achieved a commercial success and maintained a financial stability. However, in 1811 Congress did not renew the charter because the Bank’s constitutionality was questioned.Alexander Hamilton (the first U.S. Secretary of the Treasury), who was [the followerof creation of the bank, already in 1790 assumed that the federal government had the power to charter banks because the Constitution granted the government the right to establish institutions necessary for its operations. Addifferent viewpoint was presented by Thomas Jefferson who favored a more decentralized government and believed that only the states could charter banks under the Constitution. Furthermore – because the Constitution did not expressly grant the power to Congress, he reasoned that federally chartered banks were unconstitutional. Finally in 1819, as a far-reaching decision, the Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall followed Hamilton’s reasoning and ruled in case McCulloch vs Maryland that the Second Bank of the United States was constitutional. For U.S. federal government this decision of the Supreme Court was very important about 200 years later – in 1913, when president Wilson, many politicians’ and main U.S. bankers decided to create the Federal Reserve System.

Representation versus Membership: The Chinese Precedent in the United Nations

1973 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 102-136
Author(s):  
L. C. Green
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Chinese Government ◽  
Military Installations ◽  
Representation Versus ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
Internal Affair ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right

In the communique issued in February 1972 after their meeting, President Nixon and Mr. Chou En-lai declared:The Chinese side reaffirmed its position:… the Government of the People's Republic of China is the sole legal Government of China; Taiwan is a province of China which has long been returned to the motherland; the liberation of Taiwan is China's internal affair in which no other country has the right to interfere; and all United States forces and military installations must be withdrawn from Taiwan.The Chinese Government firmly opposes any activities which aim at the creation of “one China, one Taiwan”, “one China, two governments”, “two Chinas” and “independent Taiwan”, or advocate that “the status of Taiwan remains to be determined”.

scholarly journals Weeping in the Playtime of Others: The Obama Administration's Failed Reform of ICE Family Detention Practices

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 452-480 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dora Schriro
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Terrorist Attack ◽  
The United States ◽  
Immigration Reform ◽  
Obama Administration ◽  
Criminal Charges ◽  
Immigration And Customs Enforcement ◽  
Immigrant Detention ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Trump Administration

The United States has long struggled with the practice of detaining immigrant families and over time, most reform efforts have flagged, if not failed. This paper examines the impact of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) through an exploration of the evolution of the family residential center (FRC) for families in immigration custody, established prior to the 9/11 terrorist attack by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and expanded by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in its aftermath. The paper provides an inside look at how policymakers, at various points in the Obama administration, sought to roll back its most infirm practices and the fate of those efforts. It begins with a brief history of family detention in the United States, continues with a summary of the reforms undertaken both early and late in the Obama administration, and examines the significant challenges it faced and the less progressive positions it adopted during its first and second terms in office. The paper concludes with a discussion of reasons for the rapid reversal of its previous reforms and provides recommendations to achieve a civil, civil system of immigration enforcement for families and all others, which means nothing less than the transformation of the immigrant detention system from a criminal to a civil paradigm, consistent with the population and legal authorities.2 The need for such an effort is all the more urgent in light of executive actions taken in the early days of the Trump administration and their initial outcomes. Among those thwarting admissions are orders to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to seal the US borders, shun refugees fleeing from war-torn regions until “extreme vetting” measures are put into place, and reassess others who have already been issued visas. Additional orders issued to ICE expanded and expedited the removal of persons whose conduct could result in charges or convictions as well as those with criminal charges or convictions, resulting in a 38 percent increase in arrests by ICE agents within the first 100 days of the Trump administration (Dickerson 2017b; Duara 2017).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document