Search

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 238 I. RISE IN IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROSECUTIONS 242 A. The Racist History of Immigration Prosecutions 243 B. Modern Immigration Prosecution Trends 245 C. How The [...], The paradigmatic federal criminal case is not the prosecution of Elizabeth Holmes or John Gotti, but rather that of a poor immigrant of color for a low-level border offense. There persists a perception that federal criminal court is reserved for complex crimes that require robust resources to prosecute and defend. These resources are said to fund procedural rigor and afford a dignity to the proceedings that state courts cannot match. If this mythologized federal criminal court ever existed, it no longer does. Immigration cases overwhelm the federal criminal docket, making up more than half of all filed cases. The majority of those recently prosecuted in federal court are noncitizens, most of whom are Latinx. The changed composition of the docket has a profound impact on the operation of the federal criminal courts. Those charged with federal immigration crimes are canaries in the proverbial coal mine, and federal immigration prosecutions are an underexamined driver of the racialized phenomenon of mass incarceration. This Article argues that immigration cases have remade federal criminal procedure to the detriment of citizen and noncitizen defendants alike. "Operation Streamline" prosecutions, where dozens charged with misdemeanor immigration crimes are counseled, plead guilty, and sentenced in mass proceedings, are now a frequent feature of federal criminal practice. The expedited procedures refined in Streamline migrated from the low-level immigration cases for which they were designed and now feature in gang and drug trafficking cases far from the Southern border. A right that is diminished due to the executive's plenary power over immigration and the border is a right that remains diminished for us all. For example, Fourth Amendment jurisprudence developed in the realm of immigration cases offers us little protection near the border, regardless of citizenship status. This Article documents these trends and argues that, collectively, they debase the federal criminal courts and erode constitutional and procedural norms in a way that harms us all. Finally, it advocates for substantive changes to immigration law and policy to begin to reverse these troubling trends.

When it comes to personalities, President Joe Biden's kind demeanor is a stark contrast to President Donald Trump's abrasiveness. But when it comes to their immigration law enforcement policies, both [...]

I. INTRODUCTION The United States government maintains the largest immigration detention system in the world. (1) In recent years, particularly since the Trump Administration's implementation of increasingly harsh immigration detention [...]

When Goodluck Nwauzor arrived at the U.S. southern border in May 2016, he hoped his nightmare was over and that the American dream was within reach. Nwauzor, formerly a small [...]

Trump v. Hawaii upheld President Trump's travel ban in its entirety. This article explores five questions left open by the majority opinion. First, what will happen on remand with respect [...]

Part 2 of 2 A. Conditions of Confinement The three best sources on conditions in all-foreign prisons are a four-year study by the DOJ Inspector General; (193) articles by an [...]

Part 1 of 2 INTRODUCTION I. THE RISE OF THE ALL-FOREIGN PRISON A. 1850-1980: Building a Bureaucracy B. 1980-1999: Turf Battles C. 1999-2018: Segregated Prisons II. THE CONSEQUENCES OF SEGREGATION [...], For centuries, prisoners in the United States were housed together regardless of their citizenship status. That changed in 1999 when the federal government began to send noncitizens into separate prisons. Today, tens of thousands of people--more than half of all noncitizens in federal prison--live in an institution segregated by citizenship. The vast majority of these people are Mexican nationals. Nearly all of them are Latino. The rise of the all-foreign prison raises pressing questions about federal immigration power and noncitizens' equal protection rights. Yet no legal scholarship examines these unusual institutions. Few even know they exist. Drawing on extensive data from the Bureau of Prisons, internal agency documents, interviews, and other primary sources, this Article provides the first account of the all-foreign prison. It notes that these prisons are insulated from meaningful judicial review by an alienage jurisprudence that affords deference to any federal policy characterized as migration control. And it critiques this doctrine, arguing that courts need a more coherent and defensible conception of the relationship between national sovereignty and noncitizens' equal protection rights. To that end, this Article advances a simple claim: only core immigration activities--setting rules on entry, exit, and naturalization--should count as migration control. Other species of state action, including segregating foreign national prisoners, may affect where and how immigrants live their lives. But they are not the kind of migration control that warrants deference from federal courts.

Although the Trump administration is calling for more restrictive policies on immigration to the United States, the foreign-born still made up 13.6 percent of the country's population in 2017. Theresa [...]

INTRODUCTIONThe United States government holds 39,000 people in immigration detention every day. (1) In 2016, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detained 359,520 people. (2) And those numbers are only [...]

INTRODUCTION I like to share the story of Mr. Warren Hilarion Joseph. Mr. Joseph migrated to the United States when he was twenty-one as a legal permanent resident inspired by [...], Table of Contents Introduction 599 I. Due Process and the Statutory framework of 8 U.S.C. [section] 1226(c) Mandatory Detention 604 A. Due Process 604 B. The 1996 IIRIRA and [section] 1226(c) Mandatory Detention 606 1. Inadmissibility vs. Deportability 607 2. Sections 1226(a) and 1226(c)'s Detention Mandate 608 3. Qualifying Offenses Under [section] 1226(c) 609 4. The Impact of the 1996 IIRIRA 610 II. Supreme Court Precedent and the Two Approaches 611 Adopted by the Circuit Courts 611 A. Supreme Court Precedent Pre-Jennings 612 1. Zadvydas v. Davis 614 2. Demore v. Kim 616 B. Case-by-Case Approach Pre-Jennings 616 1. Diop v. ICE/Homeland Security 617 2. Ly v. Hansen 618 3. Reid v. Donelan 619 4. Sopov. U.S. Attorney General 619 C. Bright-Line Approach Pve-Jennings 619 1. Lora v. Shanahan 621 2. Rodriguez v. Robbins /and II 622 D. Jennings v. Rodriguez 623 1. The Opinion 624 2. The Dissent, 626 3. Argument in Favor of the Dissent III. Proposal for Prosecutorial Discretion for Noncitizens 626 with Strong Equities 626 A. Striking the Right Balance B. Prosecutorial Discretion for Noncitizens with Strong 630 Equities 630 1. Prosecutorial Discretion 633 2. Prosecutorial Discretion for Detained Noncitizens., 635 3. Application and Risk Assessment Tools 636 4. Six-Month Bond Hearing if Discretion is Denied 637 Conclusion Section 1226(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) authorizes the mandatory detention, without the possibility of bond, of noncitizens convicted of certain qualifying offenses for the duration of their removal proceedings. Congress enacted the mandatory detention statute because it was concerned that noncitizens who are convicted of crimes will further engage in criminal activity and fail to appear for their removal hearings. To ensure noncitizens are not deprived of their constitutional right to due process, federal courts have construed [section] 1226(c) to contain an implicit time limitation against unreasonably prolonged detention. These courts have adopted either a bright-line or case-by-case approach to determine the point at which mandatory detention without bond becomes unconstitutionally impermissible. After six months of detention, the former requires an automatic bond hearing and the latter instructs detainees to file a habeas corpus petition that, if granted, triggers a bond hearing. This year, the Supreme Court in Jennings v. Rodriguez rejected the lower courts' construction [section] 1226(c) and held that interpreting [section] 1226(c) to contain an implicit time limitation is improper because the statute is neither ambiguous or unclear. The Court, however, declined to consider whether its interpretation of[section] 1226(c) is constitutional and instead remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit to consider constitutional arguments on the merits. This Comment argues that the majority's decision in Jennings v. Rodriguez failed to enforce the Constitution and protect the due process rights of detained noncitizens by interpreting [section] 1226(c) as not having a time limit on detention without bond. It further contends that while the lower courts correctly interpreted [section] 1226(c) to include a time limit, the current approaches applied by these courts do not properly protect detainees' constitutional rights because under both approaches, detainees cannot challenge the reasonableness of their continued detention until after six months. Limiting detainees opportunity to challenge their continued detention for six months raises the same "serious doubts " of constitutionality that Justice Breyer argued, in dissent, are raised when [section] 1226(c) is interpreted as forbidding an individualized bond hearing. Alternatively, this Comment proposes that detained noncitizens--who pose little risk of flight or danger to the community--should receive prosecutorial discretion in the form of deferred action as to their continued detention at any point during their detention, including during the "presumptively reasonable " six-month period under the current two approaches. If prosecutorial discretion is not granted, detained noncitizens should then be entitled to automatic and periodic bond hearings beginning at six months of detention.

the United States Supreme Court has held that criminal defense counsel is constitutionally obligated to advise noncitizen defendants about the immigration consequences of guilty pleas and to defend against these [...]

I. INTRODUCTION In an era of global economic crises, escalating armed conflict, and massive refugee flows, the gap between the ideals envisioned by the international human rights framework and the [...]

I. Introduction II. Overview of the Substantive CIMT Law Under the Immigration and Nationality Act III. Review of Military Offenses and Whether They Qualify as Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude Under [...]