Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article: President Obama and Latina/o Removals: The Quest for Immigration Reform By Kevin R. Johnson

Collapse
X
Collapse

  • Article: President Obama and Latina/o Removals: The Quest for Immigration Reform By Kevin R. Johnson

    President Obama and Latina/o Removals: The Quest for Immigration Reform

    by


    Hoping to help persuade Congress to enact immigration reform, President Barack Obama initially took steps that unsettled some of his most ardent supporters. From the beginning, the administration sought to demonstrate a commitment to enforcement by increasing the number of noncitizens removed from the United States; the hope was that such a demonstration would improve the likelihood that Republicans in Congress would support a compromise immigration reform package.

    To increase removals, the Obama administration refined a pre-existing program known as “ Secure Communities ,” which focused on state and local criminal justice systems to feed the federal removal pipeline. As reconfigured, that program required state and local law enforcement agencies to share information with the U.S. government about noncitizens, including lawful permanent residents as well as undocumented immigrants, who were arrested by state and local law enforcement agencies. See Christopher N. Lasch, Rendition Resistance, 92 N.C. L. Rev. 149, 207–08 (2013) (summarizing the operation of the Secure Communities program under President Obama). Secure Communities further required law enforcement agencies to detain noncitizens eligible for release from state and local custody, so that federal immigration authorities could, at their discretion, directly take custody of noncitizens for possible removal from the United States.

    Besides claiming that the program infringed on state and local police powers, critics of the revamped Secure Communities program pointed to its devastating impacts on immigrants as well as their families and communities. See, e.g., Aarti Kohli, Peter L. Markowitz & Lisa Chavez, Secure Communities by the Numbers: An Analysis of Demographics and Due Process (Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Soc. Pol’y, UC Berkeley, Oct. 2011), available at https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/S...he_Numbers.pdf ; Rachel R. Ray, Insecure Communities: Examining Local Government Participation in US Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s “Secure Communities” Program , 10 Seattle J. Soc. Just. 327, 337–38 (2011). Unrelenting execution of the program resulted in the removal of hundreds of thousands of immigrants annually, including lawful permanent residents, who had been arrested for – and not necessarily convicted of – relatively minor criminal offenses. See, e.g., Editorial,Immigration Bait and Switch, N.Y. Times Aug. 17, 2010, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/18/op...wed3.html?_r=0 ; Kavitha Rajagopalan, Deportation Program Casts Too Wide a Net, Newsday (New York), June 24, 2011, at A34.

    Through aggressive implementation of Secure Communities, the Obama administration achieved the desired increase in the number of removals. In the neighborhood of 400,000 noncitizens a year were removed annually in the first six years of the Obama presidency. See, e.g., Brian Bennett, U.S. Deported Record Number of Illegal Immigrants, L.A. Times, Oct. 6, 2010, available at http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct...ation-20101007 . Total removals of noncitizens by the U.S. government reached an all-time high of nearly 440,000 in 2013, a dramatic jump of roughly ten-fold from the annual removal totals in the early 1990s. See Dep’t of Homeland Security and Office of Immigration Statistics, Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2013, at 6 (2014), available at http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/fil...nt_ar_2013.pdf . Consistent with President Obama’s political strategy of pursuing removals as a means of prodding Congress to act on immigration reform, the administration proudly trumpeted the deportation records as a major immigration enforcement success. See, e.g., Julia Preston, Deportations Up in 2013; Border Sites were Focus, N.Y. Times, Oct. 1, 2014, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/02/us...ere-focus.html (discussing U.S. government’s annual statistical report on immigration enforcement).

    Record numbers of removals failed to significantly reduce the overall undocumented population in the United States. In fact, despite greatly increased enforcement efforts, including the vast expansion of immigrant detention and removals beginning in the 1990s, the undocumented immigrant population has more than doubled over the last 25 years. In the end, “[r]ather than deterring undocumented immigration and reducing the undocumented immigrant population, the aggressive border enforcement strategies adopted in the 1990s appear to have increased the permanent settlement of undocumented immigrants in the United States.” Kevin R. Johnson, Open Borders?, 51 UCLA L. Rev. 193, 246 (2003) (footnote omitted); see Kari Hong, The Costs of Trumped-Up Immigration Enforcement Measures, 2017 Cardozo L. Rev. De Novo 119, 124-40, available at http://www.cardozolawreview.com/cont....symposium.pdf . That counterintuitive outcome suggests that the nation’s enforcement of its the immigration laws, as well as the laws themselves, needs to be reconsidered.

    Although the Obama administration widely publicized the removal records, it did not highlight the disparate racial consequences of its mass deportation campaign. Latina/os comprised virtually all of the noncitizens removed from the United States. See Katarina Ramos, Criminalizing Race in the Name of Secure Communities, 48 Cal. W. L. Rev. 317, 328-29 (2012); Carrie L. Rosenbaum, The Role of Equality Principles in Preemption Analysis of Sub-Federal Immigration Laws: The California TRUST Act , 18 Chapman L. Rev. 481, 492-98 (2015). In 2013, “Mexican nationals accounted for 72 percent of all aliens removed . . . . The next leading countries were Guatemala (11 percent), Honduras (8.3 percent), and El Salvador (4.7 percent). These four countries accounted for 96 percent of all removals . . . .” Dep’t of Homeland Security and Office of Immigration Statistics, supra, at 6 (emphasis added).

    In essence, removals fell on Latina/os to a much greater extent than their percentage of the nation’s overall immigrant – both legal and undocumented – population. See Kevin R. Johnson, Doubling Down on Racial Discrimination: The Racially Disparate Impacts of Crime-Based Removals , 66 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 993, 1016-17 (2016); Yolanda Vázquez,Constructing Crimmigration: Latino Subordination in a “Post-Racial” World, 76 Ohio St. L.J. 599, 646-47 (2015). The racial impacts of the modern removal system are entirely consistent with the historical use of crime-based removals as a tool for removing noncitizens of disfavored races from the United States. See generally Alina Das, Inclusive Immigrant Justice: Racial Animus and the Origins of Crime-Based Deportation , 51 U.C. Davis L. Rev. (forthcoming 2018) (analyzing the history of the use of crime-based removal grounds under the U.S. immigration laws to target disfavored racial minorities for removal).

    An explanation for one-sided removal statistics is ready apparent. State and local criminal justice systems long have been criticized for targeting Latina/os and African American men in law enforcement efforts.See generallyKevin R. Johnson, How Racial Profiling in America Became the Law of the Land: United States v. Brignoni-Ponce andWhren v. United States and the Need for Truly Rebellious Lawyering, 98 Geo. L.J. 1005 (2010) (analyzing a pair of Supreme Court decisions that contributed to the reliance on racial profiling in immigration and criminal law enforcement). Consistent with the criticism, controversies over claims of racially discriminatory policing regularly make the national news. Not surprisingly, the Executive Branch’s targeting of immigrants caught up in the racially-skewed criminal justice system generated a pattern of racially-skewed removals. [17] Despite (or perhaps, at least in some quarters, because of) the racially discriminatory impacts, “the goal of criminal-alien removal enjoys almost universal support . . . .” Peter H. Schuck & John Williams, Removing Criminal Aliens: The Pitfalls and Promises of Federalism, 22 Harv. J.L. Pub. Pol’y 367, 421 (1999). The public popularity of the removal of “criminal aliens” persists even though the empirical evidence demonstrates “that non-citizens commit fewer crimes and reoffend less than citizens. . . . Even those who support immigration reform often will be quick to point out that they want to help deserving immigrants but will deport the undeserving ones, those with criminal convictions, and especially those who committed violent crimes.” Kari Hong, The Absurdity of Crime-Based Deportation, 50 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 2067, 2072 (2017) (emphasis added) (footnotes omitted); see Angélica Cházaro, Challenging the “Criminal Alien” Paradigm, 63 UCLA L. Rev. 594 (2016) (contending that “criminal aliens” should be a group protected against, not targeted for, removal from the United States).

    Political leaders and policy-makers have paid precious little attention to the racially disparate impacts of tying removals to criminal law enforcement. At the same time, Latina/o advocacy groups have been sensitive to the racial consequences of the contemporary removal system and aggressively protest the modern removal campaign. See Molly Ball, Obama’s Long Immigration Betrayal, Atlantic, Sept. 9, 2014, available at https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...trayal/379839/ .

    With Secure Communities operating at full tilt during President Obama’s first term, the U.S. government aggressively sought to remove any and all criminal noncitizen offenders from the United States. During the same time period, the Supreme Court regularly rejected removal orders aggressively defended by the Obama administration as running afoul of the immigration statute. See, e.g., Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 137 S. Ct. 1562 (2017) (rejecting Obama administration’s arguments that criminal conviction for statutory rape was an “aggravated felony” requiring mandatory removal); Mellouli v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 1980 (2015) (vacating an order for the removal of a lawful permanent resident based on a single criminal conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia – a sock used to conceal a prescription drug); Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (2013) (same for the order of removal of a long-term lawful permanent resident with U.S. citizen children founded on a single conviction for simple marijuana possession). A series of rejections of deportation orders by a moderate-to-conservative Court led by Chief Justice John Roberts compels the conclusion that the administration’s efforts at times went too far.

    The mass deportations by the Obama administration, perceived as overbroad and unfair in many quarters, contributed to state and local government resistance. Resistance manifested itself in laws and policies declaring that these jurisdictions provided “sanctuary” to undocumented immigrants. See, e.g., Pratheepan Gulasekaram & Rose Cuison Villazor, Sanctuary Everywhere, 51 U.C. Davis L. Rev. (forthcoming 2018); Rose Cuison Villazor, What is Sanctuary?, 61 SMU L. Rev. 133 (2008). The increasing emergence of “sanctuary cities” contributed significantly to the Obama administration’s decision in 2014 to eliminate and replace Secure Communities. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson candidly explained that the abolition of the “controversial” program responded to “[a] rapidly expanding list of city, county and state governments” enacting laws that restricted state and local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement authorities. Statement by Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Charles Johnson, U.S. House of Rep., Comm. on the Judiciary (July 14, 2015), available at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU...J-20150714.pdf . While dismantling Secure Communities, the administration simultaneously announced that the program would be replaced with the “Priority Enforcement Program” (PEP); PEP narrowed the instances in which the U.S. government demanded state and local law enforcement agencies to hold immigrants and focused removal efforts on noncitizens convicted ofserious crimes, not merely arrested for virtually all crimes. See Memorandum dated November 20, 2014 from Jeh Charles Johnson, Secretary, U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security, to Thomas S. Winkowski, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Megan Mack, Officer, Office of Civil Rights & Civil Liberties, Philip A. McNamara, Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental Affairs 2–3, Nov. 2, 2014, available at http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/fil...ommunities.pdf ; see also Carrie Rosenbaum, The Natural Persistence of Racial Disparities in Crime-Based Removals, 13 U. St. Thomas L.J. 532, 540-48 (2017) (analyzing the likely continued disparate racial impacts of PEP program). The end of Secure Communities received relatively little public attention. Commentators and political pundits instead generally focused on the simultaneous announcement of the controversial Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program.

    By restricting the scope of the U.S. government’s criminal removal efforts, PEP responded to fervent state and local objections to Secure Communities. However, with President Trump taking office in 2017, the Executive Branch again changed direction. Embracing a no-tolerance policy for noncitizens caught up in the criminal justice system, as well as those subject to removal generally, President Trump rescinded the short-lived Priority Enforcement Program and reinstated Secure Communities. See Executive Order: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States § 5 (Jan. 25, 2017) [hereinafter Interior Enforcement Order], available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...nterior-united .

    KJ

    This post originally appeared on Law Professor Blogs © 2014-2017 by Law Professor Blogs, LLC. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.


    About The Author

    Kevin Johnson Kevin Johnson is Dean, Mabie-Apallas Professor of Public Interest Law, and Professor of Chicana/o Studies. He joined the UC Davis law faculty in 1989 and was named Associate Dean for Academic Affairs in 1998. Johnson became Dean in 2008. He has taught a wide array of classes, including immigration law, civil procedure, complex litigation, Latinos and Latinas and the law, and Critical Race Theory. In 1993, he was the recipient of the law school's Distinguished Teaching Award.Dean Johnson has published extensively on immigration law and civil rights. Published in 1999, his book How Did You Get to Be Mexican? A White/Brown Man's Search for Identity was nominated for the 2000 Robert F. Kennedy Book Award. Dean Johnson’s latest book, Immigration Law and the US-Mexico Border (2011), received the Latino Literacy Now’s International Latino Book Awards – Best Reference Book. Dean Johnson blogs at ImmigrationProf, and is a regular contributor on immigration on SCOTUSblog. A regular participant in national and international conferences, Dean Johnson has also held leadership positions in the Association of American Law Schools and is the recipient of an array of honors and awards. He is quoted regularly by the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and other national and international news outlets.


    The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.

      Posting comments is disabled.

    Categories

    Collapse

    article_tags

    Collapse

    There are no tags yet.

    Latest Articles

    Collapse

    • Article: The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process By H. Ronald Klasko
      ImmigrationDaily
      The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process by H. Ronald Klasko At Klasko Immigration Law Partners, LLP, we represent businesses, individuals, and organizations across the world with various aspects of employment-based immigration. The EB-5 Immigrant Investor Visa Program is one program through which we help wealthy foreign nationals with no employment sponsorship or family in the United States gain permanent residence status. In the infographic below, we highlight the steps of the EB-5 program and the investment requirements associated with it, so individuals and companies alike can understand the program before coming to Klasko Immigration Law Partners, LLP for assistance. This post originally appeared on www.klaskolaw.com. Reprinted with permission. About The Author H. Ronald Klasko is recognized by businesses, universities, hospitals, scholars, investors and other lawyers as one of the country's leading immigration lawyers. A founding member of Klasko, Rulon, Stock & Seltzer, LLP and its Managing Partner, he has practiced immigration law exclusively over three decades. Under his leadership, the firm was chosen with five other firms by Chambers Global in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 as the top U.S. business, hospital and university immigration law firm. Ron, himself, was named as the world's most respected corporate immigration lawyer (The International Who's Who of Business Lawyers 2007 and 2008) and one of the country's top immigration lawyers by clients and other immigration lawyers who said he is revered for coming up with unique arguments that can save a clients (Chambers Global). A former National President of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), Ron served as General...
      08-20-2018, 08:15 AM
    • Article: Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence By Karolina Walters
      ImmigrationDaily
      Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence by Karolina Walters The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the union that represents the nation’s immigration judges, is challenging the government’s decision to remove an immigration judge from a well-known case and replace him with a judge who immediately ordered the immigrant in the case deported. NAIJ’s grievance addresses the treatment of one immigration judge, but its resolution will have implications for judicial independence throughout the entire immigration court system. The grievance was filed on behalf of Philadelphia-based immigration judge Steven A. Morley, who was presiding over the case of Mr. Reynaldo Castro-Tum. Castro-Tum’s case rose to national importance earlier this year when Attorney General Jeff Sessions chose to refer the case to himself to reconsider the Board of Immigration Appeals’ previous decision in the case. In reconsidering the decision, Sessions effectively eliminated judges’ use of administrative closure, a docket management tool. Sessions sent Castro-Tum’s case back to Judge Morley, noting that the immigration court order Castro-Tum removed if he did not appear at his next hearing. Castro-Tum did not appear at the next hearing. However, Judge Morley continued the case to resolve whether Castro-Tum received adequate notice of the hearing. Due process requires, at a minimum, that an individual be given notice of proceedings and an opportunity to be heard by a judge. But before the next hearing could take place, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) replaced Judge Morley with an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge who ordered Castro-Tum removed when he did not appear at court again. In their grievance, NAIJ asserts that the decision to remove Judge Morley from Castro-Tum’s case and reassign many other cases from his docket resulted in unacceptable interference with judicial independence. The grievance specifically claims that EOIR’s actions violate immigration judges’ authority under the regulations to exerci...
      08-17-2018, 11:12 AM
    • Article: Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico By Sophia Genovese
      ImmigrationDaily
      Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico by Sophia Genovese The Trump Administration is seeking to create and implement a safe third country agreement with Mexico . Under this agreement, asylum seekers arriving at the US border who have travelled through Mexico would be denied the ability to file their asylum claims in the US. Such an agreement would trample on the rights of asylum-seekers, violating both international and US asylum law. In particular, the US would be violating the international principle of non-refoulement , which provides that no State “shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened,” where Mexico has a proven track record of being anything but safe for asylum seekers . The US has also codified Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention into Section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which provides that it will not return an asylum seeker to his or her country of origin, but may, at the determination of the Attorney General, remove the asylum seeker to a “safe third country… where the [asylum seeker] would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection.” Although Mexican officials have not yet indicated whether they would sign a safe third country agreement with the US, asylum advocates should proactively seek to prevent such a devastating policy with a country that lacks adequate asylum protections. As reported by Human Rights First and Amnesty International , 75 percent of asylum seekers apprehended and detained by the National Institute of Migration (INM), the Mexican immigration enforcement agency, were not informed of their right to seek asylum. Even if asylum seekers are able to make their claims, only 30% of the asylum proceedings are ever concluded , and even fewer are granted, leaving many bona fide asylum seekers stranded without a resolution. The treatment of unaccompanied minors’ asylum claims in Mexico are even more dismal. Of the 35,000 minors apprehended by the INM in the first half of 2016, only 138 were able to apply for asylum , of which only 77 were granted protection. Beyond the failing asylum system in Mexico, asylum seekers are also in extreme danger of kidnapping, murder, rape, trafficking, and other crimes by INM officers and civilians. A safe third country agreement with Mexico would violate the United States’ international obligations under the 1967 Optional Protocol to the Refugee Convention, to which we are a signatory, which adopts by incorporation the obligations outlined in the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which the US is not a signatory. Take the example of an asylum-seeker, Mrs. H, who is fleeing politically-motivated violence in Honduras. Her husband, Mr. H, was a vocal political activist who opposed the National Party and members of the Honduran government. Mr. H began to receive death threats due to his political beliefs and reported such threats to the authorities. The authorities, however, di...
      08-16-2018, 02:32 PM
    • Article: Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence By Eugene Goldstein, Esq.
      ImmigrationDaily

      Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence

      by


      On August 9, 2018 USCIS published a “Policy Memorandum” restricting the 20-year-old calculation of Duration of Status (D/S) for F-1, J-1 and M-1 entrants (and their derivative families). https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/...immigrants.pdf

      USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors https://www.uscis.gov/news/uscis-iss...hange-visitors , and a general discussion “Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility” ...

      08-15-2018, 12:57 PM
    • Article: Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada By Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia
      ImmigrationDaily
      Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada by Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia On January 1, 2015 the Federal Conservatives introduced significant changes to Canada’s economic immigration program. Formerly called the Skilled Worker program the new program was re-branded as Express Entry which included Skilled Workers, the Federal Skilled Trades program, and the In-Canada Experience Program. Canada modelled its revamped economic immigration program on New Zealand’s. There is also an Atlantic Immigration program. In addition there is a separate Live-In Caregiver program where individuals can apply for Permanent Residence after two years employment in this category. EXPRESS ENTRY The initial object of the changes was to create a list of Applicants where the Federal Government could select the best and the brightest from the list of Applicants. The Express Entry was supposed have applicants who had an approved Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) and a valid job offer from an approved Canadian Employer. Under the Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) candidates were award 600 points for having an approved job offer. Applicants would have achieved a point score of around 1,000 with the 600 points for having a valid offer of employment under the CRS. The provinces in Canada were also allowed to select Applicants according to their economic needs and these applicants that were selected through the respective provincial nominee programs by a province were awarded 600 points to be added to their score. Ontario also has a program where graduates from an Ontario University with a Master’s or who were in a PhD. program would be approved and awarded 600 points which virtually assured that they would be approved and provided with an invitation to apply. There is a quota that governs this graduate program. LABOUR MARKET IMPACT ASSESSMENTS Things did not go according to plan with Federal Express Entry. Very few Applicants were able to attai...
      08-14-2018, 12:50 PM
    • Article: USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy By Cyrus D. Mehta
      ImmigrationDaily
      USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy by Cyrus D. Mehta The USCIS finalized its unlawful presence policy for F, J and M nonimmigrants on August 9, 2018. The final policy makes no significant changes from the draft policy of May 10, 2018. My earlier blog noted the flaws in the draft policy, which persist in the final policy. The final policy incorrectly breaks down the distinction between violating status and being unlawfully present in the US. As of August 9, 2018, F, J and M nonimmigrants who have failed to maintain nonimmigrant status will start accruing unlawful presence. Individuals who have accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence during a single stay, and then depart, may be subject to 3-year or 10-year bars to admission, depending on how much unlawful presence they accrued before they departed the United States. See INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) & (II) . Individuals who have accrued a total period of more than one year of unlawful presence, whether in a single stay or during multiple stays in the United States, and who then reenter or attempt to reenter the United States without being admitted or paroled, are permanently inadmissible. See INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(1). Prior to August 9, 2018, foreign students (F nonimmigrants) and exchange visitors (J nonimmigrants) who were admitted for, or present in the United States in, Duration of Status started accruing unlawful presence on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigrant benefit or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. F and J nonimmigrants, and foreign vocational students (M nonimmigrants), who were admitted until a specific date certain accrued unlawful presence on the day after their Form I-94 expired, on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigration benefit, or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. This will no longer be the case. Under the new policy effective August 9, 2018, any status violation will start the accrual of unlawful presence. The nonimmigrant will not be provided with any formal notice of a status violation, and any violation from the past that has been discovered would have already started the accrual of unlawful presence. According to the pol...
      08-14-2018, 10:51 AM
    Working...
    X