Suchergebnisse

Frontmatter -- CONTENTS -- Foreword / Manderson, Lenore -- Introduction: "They Will Stop You" -- 1. How Did We Get Here? Immigrant Policing in the United States -- 2. Inside the Statehouse: Legislators' Perspectives on Georgia's Immigration Laws -- 3. "We Live Here in Fear": Policing, Trauma, and a Shadow Medical System -- 4. Immigrant Policing and Interpersonal Relationships -- 5. "A Death by a Thousand Little Cuts": Health Providers and Immigrant Policing -- 6. Patient Dumping, Immigrant Policing, and Health Policy -- 7. "Stand Up, Fight Back!" -- Acknowledgments -- Notes -- Bibliography -- Index -- ABOUT THE AUTHOR

A transnational ethnography of U.S. detention and deportation -- Ecuadorian migration, U.S. policy, and human smuggling -- The making of a massive system -- Ordering chaos : system organization and operation -- The "peculiar" advantages of chaos : detainees' experiences -- "You don't know how I suffer, waiting every day" : reverberations of detention in Ecuador -- "There is no other way" : postdeportation insecurities and continued migration -- Ordering chaos, opening space -- Appendix A. Interviewed functionaries -- Appendix B. Interviewed deportees, basic data -- Appendix C. Deportee interview question guide.

Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which was added to the INA by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), allows the federal government to enter into voluntary partnerships with state and local law enforcement agencies to enforce immigration law. Upon entering these agreements, law enforcement officers are trained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and receive delegated authority to enquire about an individual's immigration status and, if found to be removable, to detain the individual while ICE makes a determination of whether to initiate deportation proceedings. In some instances, this inquiry about immigration status takes place as part of the intake process when a criminal defendant is arrested and placed into a criminal jail. In other instances, task force officers are trained to inquire in the field about immigration status and enforce immigration law against people who have not committed any criminal offense. The key difference between the two models is that task force agents can arrest for immigration violations undocumented individuals who have not committed any criminal offense, whereas in the jail model individuals must be arrested on some other criminal charge before immigration status can be determined. The 287(g) program has raised several concerns regarding its implementation and results. First, the program could lead to racial and ethnic profiling. In particular, given that the majority of undocumented immigrants hail from Latin American countries, it is highly plausible that Hispanics, regardless of immigrant status, might be disproportionally affected by this program. That is, in a jurisdiction that participates in the jail model, an officer might arrest a Hispanic individual for a very minor offence in order to process them through the jail and determine their immigration status, when perhaps without the program they may have only issued a citation. Another concern with the program is that it may lead to tensions between state and local law enforcement and the local community. If the program creates an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust by community members toward state and local law enforcement agents, even law abiding individuals may choose to avoid interaction with law enforcement agents. This can make victims and witnesses hesitant to come forward, for fear that their undocumented status will be uncovered. Such a situation inhibits law enforcement's ability to do its job and can, ironically, make communities less safe. This study explores the effects of implementation of the 287(g) program in Frederick County, Maryland on the arrests of Hispanics. Using data from individual arrest records from the Frederick County Sheriff's Office, which has a 287(g) agreement with ICE, and the Frederick Police Department, which does not, I analyze the changes in arrests between the two agencies before and after the 287(g) program was implemented in 2008. I find that overall, the arrests of Hispanics fell, suggesting that the Hispanic community avoided interaction with law enforcement when the program began. However, I also find that the program led to a significantly higher number of arrests of Hispanics by the Sheriff's Office than would have occurred in its absence, indicating that attention was focused toward the Hispanic community as a result of the program. These results suggest that, if the program is to continue, additional safeguards are needed to prevent abuses and civil rights violations.

United States v. Brignoni-Ponce solidified the racist enforcement of United States immigration laws by allowing "Mexican appearance" to be a factor forming reasonable suspicion in a roving patrol. The United States Supreme Court rationalized race-based immigration enforcement by relying on erroneous immigration demographics and a misconstrued notion of serving the public interest. This comment demonstrates that the rationales provided by the Supreme Court are illogical, discriminatory, and harmful to communities of color. This comment analyzes the impacts of race-based discrimination and provides alternatives which may cabin the impact of Brignoni-Ponce. Aside from overruling Brignoni-Ponce in its entirety, a probable cause or warrant requirement could be added, either through legislative or judicial action, so as to bolster the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens and noncitizens alike.

In this article we trace the expansion of interior immigration enforcement measures since the 1990s, focusing on the period after the creation of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2003. We consider the rationale for the escalation of enforcement during this period, as well as the expansion of enforcement to include local and state law enforcement agencies. Detailing in particular the role of local jails, private corrections corporations, and the communities that are financially dependent on the prison industry, the article also examines who benefits economically and politically from these changes. Throughout, we consider how the expansion of immigration enforcement has affected U.S. citizen children and spouses of unauthorized immigrants. We question whether U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is fulfilling its mandate to de-emphasize enforcement against parents, guardians, and children given that the number of detentions and removals in these categories continues to increase. We discuss how this is imposing unnecessary costs and burdens on ICE's citizen stakeholders while benefiting private corrections corporations.